WE ARE NOT IN THIS ALONE. READ THESE POINTS FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE AMERICAN HOMEOWNERS RESOURCES CENTER,

Click here for AHRC!

FOR MORE INFORMATION IN SUPPORT OF OUR EFFORTS AND THOSE OF OTHER CONCERNED HOMEOWNERS AROUND THE UNITED STATES IN SIMILAR SITUATIONS, PLEASE GO TO THE FOLLOWING LINKS:

The Board wants you to believe that: A majority of homeowners voted for the 75k Special Assessment.
The Truth: No one actually knows if a majority of homeowners voted for or against the 75K Special Assessment since the voting process and ballot counting lacked the rigorous objectivity that an Assessment of this magnitude demanded. Historically similar situations have led to misinformation and miscommunication.

The vote had no objective and impartial oversight (i.e. an agency NOT employed by the HOA. An impartial third party through an unaffiliated auditing firm should have conducted the entire process; especially with such a large sum of money hanging in the balance.

No pre-selected vote counters had been selected and announced. Instead, ballots were counted by those who had randomly seated themselves around the conference table at Horizon Management that evening.

No witnesses other than Joanne Pena (Horizon Management) were present to verify the receipt and tally of the mail-in ballots, as they arrived throughout the month of September 2008.

Ballots were casually invalidated by Joanne Pena. At the vote count on October 6, 2008, ballots were deemed ineligible for tally because they were not written on the official yellow ballot paper, although other rules were cavalierly ignored. For example, instructions had stated that no marks were to be made on the yellow ballots (to prevent voter identification), yet many homeowners jotted chatty comments about their confusion regarding payment options or simply asking questions to the ballot counter. Those ballots, amply marked and annotated, were tossed into the pile of acceptable ballots. While a roomful of astonished homeowners watched, Joanne Pena tore up one ballot that had not been submitted on official yellow paper, although it came in the official double envelopes.

Several off-site owners have reported that they never received a ballot, and no one ever checked to verify that they had been notified.

Most troubling, Board President Carma Hardin had said in an earlier HOA meeting, We will do whatever it takes to make sure this vote passes.

The Board wants you to believe that: the majority wants the renovation project to move forward. (HOA mailing Jan. 13 2009).
The Truth: Many homeowners who voted yes in October have told us that they have reconsidered that decision. Some have written letters to the BOD HOA expressing that they no longer support the renovation project. In a re-vote today, we believe the majority would vote no to this project at this time.

The Board wants you to believe that: Five days after the ADR hearing, the Board wrote to VPV Homeowners that the opportunity to have an experienced Judge review the case in detail validated our position and our confidence that VPV will prevail . . . (March 9, 2009 Village Palos Verdes HOA Update Exterior Renovation Project and Litigation Impact)
The Truth: Judge Haber had indicated no such outcome. Instead he commented on the Board's indifference to homeowners concerns and the Board's unwillingness to negotiate. Judge Haber told the Plaintiffs You folks should be very angry. If the judge had signaled any validation of a position, it is clear that it was in favor of the Concerned Homeowners.

The Board wants you to believe that: For months we have stood alone with a few loyal supporters at the meeting against the angry minority. You the majority want the renovation project to move forward and this can best be achieved if you continue to be heard. (January 13, 2009 VPV HOA newsletter).
The Truth: VPV Concerned Homeowners have been hissed and booed at HOA meetings while they spoke. Insults were shouted and this shameful lack of civility has been silently condoned by HOA President Carma Hardin, who should have stepped up time after time to control these outburst and restore order. At the most recent meeting the respect for the positions of neighbors entirely broke down and the Board allowed open contempt and rough insults to go unchecked. Bazzel Baz (a Marine Corps Veteran) was mocked and laughed at by the Board when he stood to express his heartfelt concerns over the litigation: I did not serve my country on the battlefields overseas to come back and have my home and finances stolen from me by 4 of 5 people sitting on this Board. When a group homeowners supporting the Board turned in their chairs to call out crude comments like go back to the battlefield and you should have stayed there, Board President Carma Hardin did not step in to condemn any of it. Such disrespect demeans us all.

Not only a veteran but women, too, are subject to this uncontrolled mob mentality while Ms. Hardin conducts HOA meetings. At the March meeting, while Wilma Escalante attempted to speak, Ms. Hardin allowed ERP supporters to call out obscenities and to interrupt Wilma, shouting shutup and sit down, we are tired of listening to you. Wilma stood her ground and asked who wants to hear what I have to say? and hands went up all around the room; including other ERP yes voters who did want to hear her. Ms. Hardin made no effort to control the unruly shouting neighbors, and Wilma was forced to talk over the crowd until she was able to make her point. Ms. Hardin and the BOD HOA is trying desperately to silence the truth.

The Board wants you to believe: Every homeowner has the right to participate in decisions.
The Truth: Urgent homeowner questions at meeting are limited to 120 seconds (2 minutes) as they speak up against the management of the assessment, but responses by the Board have no time limits at all. Note-taking on the financial agreements and contracts in the January 27, 2009 Special Meeting was forbidden, and notebooks were taken out of the hands of those who wanted to take notes by totalitarian Board members ... clearly a violation of any homeowner's constitutional rights. Dennis Brooks had edited his DBA power-point presentation at the meeting to black out columns of numbers and competitive bids; and the Board told homeowners that the censorship was for their own good, lest the numbers fall into the wrong hands. Homeowners left the meeting disappointed and bewildered by this BOD HOA's display of tossing their weight around to intimidate people, when in the end there were no competitive bids revealed that could fall into the wrong hands.

The Board wants you to believe that: They want to engage in dialogue. I just wish we could sit down and talk together - Carma Hardin, HOA meeting on 1/27/09.
The Truth: Plaintiffs have repeatedly requested meetings with the Board, but have been told there is nothing to negotiate. So on March 4, 2009, the Plaintiffs met with the Board in a formal all-day ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) proceeding in downtown Los Angeles. Attorneys for each side (Alan Johnston and Laura Snoke with David Ruben) met with a negotiator - Judge Haber, retired - who was there to facilitate discussion and negotiation. Nearly all of the plaintiffs attended, and we met in a conference room around a large table. The Board was represented that day by only 3 of the 5 board members: Carma Hardin, Sandy Felando, and Margie Hirsch - Joe Grasso and David Silverberg were not present).
This meeting could have ended our litigation. The Plaintiffs had come with a list of talking points and a good faith intent to negotiate. The Board brought nothing to the table and they were not open to negotiating. Once again they came back with here is nothing to negotiate.
#1 on the Plaintiffs' list of items to negotiate was A NEW VOTE. April 2009 finds the U.S. in a recession crisis - quite different from September 2008. Now, if 51% of VPV still wants this 75K assessment in a re-vote, then so be it, we said. Regardless of the outcome, we agreed to be bound by the result of such a re-vote, and were willing to give up our right to challenge it, legally or otherwise.
Judge Haber reported the answer from the Board: NO, with an exclamation point!

These were the points proposed for a New Vote:
1. Complete transparency in bidding process & of historical documents from the External Renovation Committee - including the process of hiring DBA.
2. Options for types of projects:
a. Repair
b. Renovation
3. Options for payment of assessment - (i.e.revised
financing plan)
4. Renegotiate Dennis Brooks' fee (he is to collect $1
million for running the project)
5. Opportunity to present the 'other' side objectively at the
annual mtg. and in mailings
6. Outside agency/rep to count votes
7. Forgive all penalties so far
8. Return money paid to date
9. Add a performance bond
10. Refund excess $$ post-project

The Board made no counter offer and when asked to make any offer of their own merely indicated their willingness to forgive all penalties and late fees in exchange for a dismissal of the lawsuit.

The Board wants you to believe that: After researching VPV repair needs, the Board decided that this 15 million dollar renovation was the best plan.
The Truth: Recently-elected Board Member David Silverberg states, At this time I have NO knowledge of the Board ever doing an assessment of our repair needs prior, during, or after the recommendation for this $15,000,000.00 renovation---and Silverberg continues,...this renovation cannot go forward anyway because of an engineering problem regarding the choice of the Hardie Board--an issue that needs to be resolved prior to construction. The Board's sense of urgency in resolving this issue is totally misplaced. Also, Carma is trying to shove this issue under the rug.
David Silverberg is not a part of the law suit, but seeking instead a compromise between the homeowners -- based on beautifying and repairing VPV. His position is that, as we move forward this next time around, we must look at our repair histories before deciding on the size of the projects we undertake. He invites homeowners to volunteer for a New Repair and Planning Committee, something we do not have at VPV, but desperately need.

The Board wants you to believe that: Construction materials have consistently risen in the last few years and manufacturers have already provided price increase notifications of 10 to 15% for the coming year. (VPV HOA newsletter Update and Clarifications following October 9 Annual Meeting).
The Truth: According to the National Association of Home Builders the price of framing lumber per 1000 board foot has dropped by $300 since 2006. Further discussions with local builders indicate the price of other building supplies has dropped. Inventories of all building materials are stockpiling. . .this is, in part why large NASDAQ developers and builders have all but suspended projects as they see the issues of the economy themselves and know that materials and labor will be less money as manufacturers must keep their plants working but are looking for bridge financing to carry them to a better time when they can sell their inventory. The stockpiled inventory will be far less than it is even today!

The Board wants you to believe that: The isolated areas investigated for destructive testing was determined to be typical original construction practices all through VPV.
The Truth: In a mailer received 3/22/08 helps explain how the renovation was sold to the homeowners. This document contains inaccurate and misleading statements signed by Carma Hardin, Board President. Since esthetic treatments cannot substitute for repairs, she draws the false conclusion that a renovation is needed. She cites Architect Richard Rose comments on flashing and siding, but ignores his recommendations. As we know, Mr. Rose recommended repairing the flashing and siding, not replacing them. Ms. Hardin dismisses cleaning and maintaining the siding as dangerous or not cost effective. This is simply not true. The use of sandblasting to restore old cedar siding is not even mentioned. However, Ms. Hardin does reveal how the destructive testing was in fact unscientific and not random. The destructive testing was performed in several specific areas where known problems had been identified, ... There is no basis in fact for the statement, These isolated areas were investigated thoroughly and determined to be typical original construction practices all through VPV. Actually, no such determination was made.

The Board wants you to believe that: Without a Performance Bond, we should simply trust DBA Construction manager Dennis Brooks to complete the Project on time and within budget because he feels a loyalty to the HOA and therefore he will feel required to perform on time and within budget. DBA's loyalty is to the Association, DBA . . . is required to make sure the project is brought within the budget and on time. (Laura Snoke's letter dtd October 21, 2008, to Stephen Goldberg, attorney).
The Truth: The BOD HOA is taking VPV into a 14 million dollar project without insurance that the work would be completed on time and within budget! Without a Performance Bond, DBA (Design Build Associates) is certainly not required by anyone to come within the budget and on time.
Dennis Brooks (Construction Manager of DBA) refuses to work under a Performance Bond. At three different HOA meetings three different rationales have been given for his reluctance. In 2008 meetings we were told that buying a Performance Bond to insure timely completion within the 14 million dollar budget was too expensive---it would cost $300,000 to insure our $14,000,000 + project. Later at the HOA mtg 1/8/09 Carma Hardin said that there was no need for a Performance Bond because the contracts were value-sensitive. So, at the following HOA mtg 1/27/09 when a homeowner asked what the term value-sensitive means as a reason for no insurance, Dennis Brooks answered instead that a Performance Bond was not necessary because the project would be completed in stages and therefore there was no need to incur a Performance Bond for the entire Project.
No Performance Bond means that the important part of this whole scam WAS and IS to have the VOTE and the ASSESSMENT and in January a demolition truck rolling through Phase One and tearing enough stucco off the foundations and chimneys---something to create irreparable damage, not just peeling off some cedar---and that would create enough panic to give the BOD HOA leverage to call for more----more money, more progress, we can't stop now.

The Board wants you to believe that: (Background here: one major expense which had not been figured into the DBA budget for our ERP could be the reconfiguring of all the front windows in Plan F and two windows in each Plan B and Plan C. These windows sit 3' higher from the floor than is currently allowed under Torrance City Safety Codes for fire escape access.) BOD HOA President Carma Hardin told homeowners that these windows which do not meet the fire safety codes are now going to be grandfathered in, thanks to the influence of Dean Reuter (VPV homeowner). This exception to the fire safety code, Ms. Hardin explained, would save opening the wall and restructuring the windows in each of these units--an unbudgeted enormous expense. (HOA mtg 1/8/09)
The Truth: This exception to the Safety Code is not in writing. Dennis Brooks acknowledged that the city has approved the ERP plans, but then added This doesn't mean that they couldn't come back later and require us to change them. (HOA mtg 1/27/09) Running over budget for such (realistic) unbudgeted changes would require an emergency assessment, and no vote required for an emergency assessment. The 75K special assessment will only be the beginning of our cost.

The Board wants you to believe that: The bids were considered only AFTER the assessment was passed.
The Truth: Few might remember now that the HOA October 20, 2008, mailing told us that pre-October price freezes had been negotiated for the composite siding and cancelling the order now represents a known cost impact. In that same mailing: Our labor pricing has already been negotiated and set.

The Board wants you to believe that: THE BOOKS ARE OPEN TO HOMEOWNER ACCESS. From minutes of HOA mtg 1/8/09, Ms. Hardin copied and made available the most recent financial statements for any members who wanted a copy. and Ms. Hardin informed the homeowner that the Association's year-end audit has not yet been completed and that annual Association accounting records would continue to be distributed to all homeowners as the normal course of business.
The Truth: Nothing of this has been distributed to homeowners as of March 20, 2009, and homeowners who have asked for our contractor's contract have been told that the HOA lawyer must approve such a request and there will be a 30-day delay in access.

The Board wants you to believe that: The Board has made decisions based upon financial prudence, keeping in mind the financial condition of the homeowners (letter from Laura Snoke to VPV homeowners, 2/1/08)
The Truth: The Board hardly 'kept in mind the financial condition of the homeowners' in their Draconian payment demands: The Board required homeowners to pay (on 12/1/08) the full 75K upfront of any construction and due to the Association only 5 weeks after the vote passed---when U.S. credit markets had frozen. The only alternative to this was to pay 5K on 12/1/08 and then $600 monthly payments as INTEREST-ONLY on a 10 million dollar loan. With no amortized equity accrued after 8 years, the homeowner would still owe a balloon payment of nearly 60K in an unforeseeable market (they admit that with changing interest rates on an adjustable loan, no one can know what the Assessment will actually cost). The BOD HOA announced 10% monthly penalty fees would be assessed for non-compliance.

The Board wants you to believe that: For those homeowners who are in the process of or plan to re-finance their mortgage, your personal lending institution may halt the loan due to the litigation regarding the special assessment which has been filed against the HOA.
The Truth: Homeowners incurred problems refinancing their homes at VPV when the economy first took a fall ... months before the litigation. It was one of the major challenges addressed to the BOD and many homeowners at the HOA meeting prior to the Special Assessment vote and weeks afterwards. So why would the BOD make such a statement especially since the homeowners know it's not true?

The Board wants you to believe that: Travelers Insurance believes in us ie. The $14+ million ERP, and they are willing to work hard for us (Carma Hardin -1/23/09 HOA mtg)
The Truth: Travelers Insurance is obligated by contract to defend VPV HOA and they have to stay in litigation as long as the Board refuses to negotiate or engage in dialogue, no matter how long the case takes to reach a judge and jury.

The Board wants you to believe that: The renovation will increase the value of your property and you will see a greater profit when you go to sell your place.
The Truth: As most real estate experts will tell you, this statement by the BOD is not true. What is true is the fact that in the past year California home values have been reduced 19% on average, due to the real estate market conditions. If you elect to do a remodel or in this case a renovation in this economy, the chances of anyone recuperating 100% of what they have put into it is a gamble. The sale of a house and the return for that house is based on what the market will bear not how much money you have put into it.

Editorial Comments:

A fellow Marine who in the service of his country gave his life in Iraq, left his home in VPV to his mother, and now that home is being threatened with foreclosure by this Board. His honor as well as that of his mother must be defended with vigilant responsibility to protect the rights of all. - Bazzel Baz

Many of the homeowners are seniors, so they are understandably panicked about the $75,000- $125,000 special assessment. Will they have to go back to work? Will they have to liquidate their savings (a lot of it already melted down by Wall Street. - Bazzel Baz

I got a letter dated 12/22 that said ... NO homeowner has yet approached the board in regard to inability to pay the renovation assessment. NOT TRUE, I DID. Goes on to let us know they will continue to report to the police anything they think is harassment. (So shut up while we take your homes). - Dominica Monk

Here is a chronology of events suggesting the arbitrary hit-and-miss decision-making ahead of our $75,000 assessment:

Mailer dated March 23, 2005, informs homeowners of destructive testing. The actual selection of units to be tested will be determined by Hal Fremmer, Jan Brussel and Phil Greer, our Maintenance Supervisor.

Mailer dated November, 2005, includes the Reserve Study for year 2006 (8 pages). The Reserve Study assumes no special assessment.

Mailer dated November 2006, includes the Reserve Study for year 2007 (7 pages). The Reserve Study assumes a total Special Assessment of $100,000 for 2007 for the entire complex.

Mailer received December 28, 2006 informs VPV homeowners that Michael Martinet has resigned from the Board.

Mailer received March 1, 2007 informs VPV homeowners that Carma Hardin has been appointed to fill the vacant Board position.

Mailer dated November 2007, includes the Reserve Study for year 2008 (9 pages). The $6M figure referenced in our email appears on page 1 and page 4. The pages are not numbered. The Reserve Study recommends an additional assessment of $13, 724.44 per ownership unit for 2008, as well as additional assessments for many years.

And the Board now expects each of us to willingly pay $75,000?

The Board wants you to believe that: At the April HOA meeting Carma Hardin told us that Dennis Brooks does not have a contract for a million dollars.

The Truth: He most certainly does!

On March 10, 2008, Carma Hardin and Joe Grasso signed the Construction Consulting Contract, which was only released to a homeowner this week (more than a year after it has been in effect). This Contract, between VPV HOA and Design Build Associates, Inc., states that VPV will pay DBA a negotiated Lump sum amount based on $85/hour (to be estimated at that time [for Phase 1 Planning]) plus 6% of the total expected construction costs, not to exceed 8% of the total construction costs. (Article 10.3.2 of the Contract)

Let's do the math. 8% of 14 million = $1,000,000 plus $120,000. MORE than one million! (True, we never have learned what the actual total expected construction costs will be, but Brooks estimated the project to run 14 million -- although he himself wrote [July 3, 2008] none of us knows at this time what this project will cost.) AND -- this one million plus $120,000 does NOT include payment to Brooks for Phase 1 Planning services, which BEGAN on March 10, 2008, at the signing of the Contract. Brooks has been paid $85/hr for one year for Planning, but homeowners have had no accounting of the money paid to him. So with Phase 1 and Phase 2, Dennis Brooks will collect far more than one million dollars.

At the Mediation Hearing, Judge Haber advised that such a contract for a million dollars should be re-negotiated.

The Board wants you to believe that: At the April HOA meeting, Carma Hardin told us that Dennis Brooks will receive $85/hour for Phase 1 planning (Pre-Construction).

The Truth: Brooks' contract states that this fee does not fully compensate DBA for its services. Both parties agree that this hourly rate is intentionally low with the understanding that DBA will be fully compensated following completion of Phase 2 services noted herein as the Construction Phase. (Article 10.3.1.) . . . An open-ended salary??

If you would like to read the entire contract, it is now available. Contact the email address on the website, or you can wait and it will be put on this web site in Association Newsletter section in the next couple of days.