Condominium courtesy

Re: your July 12 article, "Stonegate Villas owners say new rules unneighborly":

The board of directors has a responsibility to its constituency. It is charged with the stewardship of everyone's interest. That includes maintenance, safety, home market values and quality of life. These radical rules passed by the board are indicative of a board that is not in control but is seeking to gain control through iron-handed measures. It also tells me this association has a large turnover rate in homeowners.

The turnover rate in a complex is important to the long-term residents who have had their quality of life threatened by newcomers who do not know or do not care to follow the covenants, conditions and restrictions.

The reality of condo living comes down to one very basic principle: courtesy.

Major components of courtesy are communication, understanding and compromise. In today's arrogant world, we forget that we all have feelings and that we have things that are important to us.

Condo living is affordable but restricted, and homeowners need to acknowledge that.

The board, by enacting such extreme measures, is setting itself up for failure with unenforceable laws. The homeowners are guilty of not considering the consequences of their actions and not thinking of their neighbors' quality of life.

There are too many people living in too small a space, and that is a formula for conflict and confrontation. But with some social responsibility and some communication — but, above all, courtesy from both sides — everyone's quality of life will get better. Be part of the solution, not part of the problem.

I have lived in a condo association in Thousand Oaks. I have disagreed with the board as a homeowner. I have served on the board for three years as both president and vice president. Anyone who has served on a board knows it is a hard, time-consuming and thankless job.

I would like to encourage all homeowners in Stonegate to listen to each other and pledge to come to a compromise. It's difficult but not impossible.

— Tim Robbins, Thousand Oaks

Crazy with power

Re: your July 17 editorial, "Stepford HOAs go way too far":

While I am not a resident of the Stonegate Villas, I am a resident of a nearby neighborhood, and I drive past the Stonegate Villas pretty much daily. The homeowners association board members of those condominiums must be completely out of their minds with power.

That complex is right on Los Angeles Avenue, Simi Valley's busiest east-west boulevard. To require that children play elsewhere other than the common areas that are within the complex's walls is like telling the kids that they have to play in the street. If a young child's ball rolls out onto Los Angeles Avenue, he may or may not chase it. Either way, it would be a traffic hazard.

That child's parents bought their home in that community, which at one time had a children's play area, to provide that child with a safe environment in which to grow. For the HOA to take steps to eliminate that environment may be legal, but it is draconian and vile.

And on the subject of Robert Espinoza's motorcycle, it is a licensed, California vehicle. He should refuse the demand that he walk it to the edge of the complex, until the HOA commits to doing the same with their cars.

Sometimes, power-hungry idiots just go too far.

— Burton Weinstein, Simi Valley

Tragedy waiting to happen

Re: your July 12 article, "Stonegate Villas owners say new rules unneighborly":

The purpose of homeowners associations is to preserve the value of people's property and to provide a safe place to live by installing rules and regulations. There will always be some disagreement as to the necessity and enforcement of the rules by some residents.

I have been on both sides, as a former board member and current resident of an HOA-controlled development, and a major reason for governing rules is to attempt to reduce liability issues that might arise.

In looking at all the pictures of the children playing at Stonegate, they are all in "traffic areas" — the area between the garages and also the parking area. From a liability standpoint, I just cringed. There were open garages, and some of the toys were left up against the closed garage doors. This is a tragic accident just waiting to happen. Cars and children do not make for a good combination.

As a board member, I would always think of the following: If you are going to modify the rule to modify a behavior, what might be the consequence? If you take away options, you end up not preventing the problem but potentially causing a larger issue. The children should be prevented from playing in traffic areas but be given a safe place to play. There appears to be a gated, grassy area that has been designated. Perhaps if they looked at the issue from a safety standpoint, and if the board ensured a safe area for the children, a compromise could be worked out. I hope it does before a tragedy occurs.

— Linda Gorell, Ventura