Lago Vista Independent School District (LVISD)

 

Is our own Lago Vista City Council advertisement a part of the reason for the frequent battles over our Lago Vista Property Owners Association LVPOA private parks? Why doesn't our own Lago Vista City Council respect our interests?

Why do members of a private entity keep having to fight off people who believe their private Lago Vista Property Owners facilities are public resources? Could it be intentional and caused by our own Lago Vista City Council, the Lago Vista Economic Development Alliance, and our own Lago Vista Property Owners Association Board of Directors? The first advertisement is on the Lago Vista City Council website but the first page of the related pdf is labeled Lago Vista Economic Development Alliance. The second advertisement is on the Lago Vista Economic Development Alliance website, and is included here because of the similarity.

Ask yourself, does this public advertisement, available on the Lago Vista website, cause the Lago Vista Property Owners Association facilities to appear to be public recreation and tourism resources in the eyes of the public? They do appear to be inviting the public to the Lago Vista Property Owners Association facilities. You'll notice there is no notation the LVPOA parks or facilities are private, the LVPOA private facilities are listed on the same page and in the same manner as the public items such as the Balcones Canyonlands, Lake Travis, and the golf courses. You can view both of these in their original context on the originating websites by clicking each of the two advertisements and paging through the brochure to the advertisement page.

 

20110714-lagovistatexas-org-documents-EDFdocuments-Pages-City-of-Lago-Vista.jpg page 7

 

This second advertisement is on the Lago Vista Economic Development Alliance, but is very similar to the one above, and the first page of the related pdf of the prior Lago Vista City Council advertisement above is labeled Lago Vista Economic Development Alliance.

 

20110714-www-lagovistaeda-com-resources-Developing-the-North-Shore-EDA page 6

 

These advertisements are designed to attract the public. The Lago Vista Property Owners Association facilities are private.

There have been questions and concerns about this advertisement being misleading for months, but the questions have not been answered, and as of today, months later, it has not been corrected.

Is this intentional misdirection, intended to imply private facilities are public?

Is it any wonder some continue to believe the private facilities are public?

For clarity, this article focuses on the email to the Lago Vista City Council.

However, the Lago Vista City Council advertisement is similar to the one on the the Lago Vista Economic Development Alliance website. I have contacted the Economic Development Alliance as well, that is covered in a separate article. You can read about that here.

The Lago Vista Property Owners Association General Manager and Board of Directors response is covered in separate article also. You can read about that here.

The Lago Vista City Council email thread referenced here covered several questions I posed to the Lago Vista City Council.

My request for comment about the Lago Vista Property Owners Association was sent to the Lago Vista City Council via their official contact page at http://www.lagovistatexas.org/Officials.html

On 06/03/11, 8:05pm, I wrote "This is your chance to comment. I am on a deadline, so a prompt response would be appreciated. I am writing an article for Individual Initiative Opinions and News about local entities such as the COLV, referring to the LVPOA as though it were a public entity for public use, when it is, in fact, a members only use, private shareholder owned entity. Obviously, diluting someones claim to private ownership and private usage can harm the shareholders interest."

"The COLV, is referencing the Lago Vista EDA materials, which are on the by-line in 2 versions of a pamphlet. One is a COLV link. Both refer to the LVPOA as though it were public with no mention that you have to be a member to use the facilities. I list the links at bottom for reference."

"Question 1: The LVPOA is a private organization for use only by the members. You knew this when you published the documents, yet both reference the LVPOA in a way that can lead readers to believe it is a public entity. Even if you claim you didn't know before, you do now. Will you pull the documents, or correct the documents to show the LVPOA facilities are available only to members?"

"Question 2: Does the COLV City Council respect the rights of the shareholders to have private membership ownership and members only usage of the LVPOA, or, is it the position of the COLV City Council that the LVPOA should be a public entity?"

"Question 3: This issue has been known for months, it was even brought up in a COLV City Council session but the documents are still on-line and still can confuse the public (as to the members only usage of the LVPOA facilities). The change to reference it as members only facility is simple but the change has not been made. The failure to make such a simple change implies a purpose in not making the change. What purpose is there in confusing the issue of ownership and usage in the minds of the public?"

"Question 4: The purpose of the upcoming article is to provide a fair and factual truthful presentation. Please make any comments you feel important to clarify, or to help present the truth."

"For reference here are the two links, see page six on the first one, page seven of the second one."

 

In my opinion that should have been an easy set of questions to answer. Everyone on the Lago Vista City Council knows the Lago Vista Property Owners Association is a members only organization. But to date there has been no response.

The City Council of the City of Lago Vista remains aware of my request for the shareholder owners to have a simple correction of the advertisements to show the Lago Vista Property Owners Association LVPOA facilities are members only private facilities. As of this writing, it is now August 3, 2011. There is still no further response. The advertisements remain unchanged.