Lago Vista Independent School District (LVISD)


There have been attempts to commercialize our parks going back as far as June 2010, getting straight answers out of the LVPOA BODs has proved challenging

The LVPOA amenities are paid for with private dollars in large part by people who moved here for privacy. I fear we will lose some private LVPOA parks. I believe Lagopalooza was the beginning of attempts at the commercialization of the parks. That is at least as far back as I know now, there may have been items earlier. I'm not saying there was a master plan, but I do believe some tried straightforward commercialization with Lagopalooza. In the same time frame I can prove they tried a private meeting park sale. When that didn't work, they tried a public meeting sale. When that didn't work, now, they are trying a park lease. These emails also show the Lago Vista Property Owners Association Board Members often will evade the question or attack the questioner rather than answer basic questions. That's why it's important to look over the past, even the recent past, since those who forget their history are doomed to repeat it.

When you're reading this, I hope you'll use your active thought processes to ask yourself some questions. Wouldn't an honest broker with no agenda simply answer questions? Are these logical responses to rational questions? Do the responses answer or obfuscate? Does it make sense that an event is considered too dangerous for members, while safe for the general public? And also, do these answers sound like an organization keeping it's paying members interests at the forefront? Not all of these are answered here, it takes several email threads to see the pattern.

No one likes releasing emails. But, when one is faced with people who will say one thing in private, another in public, and who will deny what is written, or what they have said, what is one to do? Without evidence, it is ones word against another. This is a list of the email threads entered as evidence. This is not all of the emails, but there are enough of them to prove the points. The links will point to the entire email thread file, and most email threads contain several emails. The date and time will locate an email within the thread. I'll use short quotations but anyone so inclined can refer to the entire email and thread for context. I know of many others who spoke up or wrote as well, but most have wanted to remain quiet, unless someone wants their story told, I can't speak to their contributions.

Remember Lagopalooza? No matter which side you were on, the fact remains that these are members only parks. At the time, the Lago Vista Property Owners Association LVPOA said they are members only on it's website. That's why we pay annual dues. But the parks were being used for public use. Even if you were ok with Lagopalooza at the time, you may not have been aware this appears to have been one step in the attempted commercialization of the parks. You may also not have been aware of the extent of the run around those of us asking about it were getting.

I wrote a email to the Lago Vista Property Owners Association Board of Directors LVPOA on June 18, 2010 2:07 PM, asking them "How is this public access legal? No other company can charge for something they are not providing. The LVPOA is giving away something - private use and privacy- they already sold us. We bought and paid for both. Dollars paid for privacy are being used to CREATE a public nuisance. This disrupts not only the parks but the whole neighborhood. We delegate the day-to-day management to the POA but it says in the by-laws "Guests are not permitted in Association parks and facilities unless accompanied by the host member except in those instances where the guest is in possession of an authorized house guest pass" That is what we paid for, and that is what we should get."

11 days, later, on June 29, 2010 1:27 PM I still didn't have a response, so I asked again.

On June 29, 2010 4:07 PM, Deborah Sorchevich, General Manager responded saying "From time to time, the Board may decide that it is in the best interests of the community to allow the use of a park in the hope that it would help promote the community, lend support to local businesses, and minimize the negative impact of an event on the community. For example, regarding the upcoming Aquapalooza, it would have been possible to keep Cody Park closed and wait for the public to damage the gate just to get in to the park, damage the grounds, create untold amounts of trash, and leave a sanitation nightmare. All of which would have resulted in considerable expense to the POA. The Chamber of Commerce was willing to make arrangements to provide security, sanitation, trash collection and clean up at Cody Park for the event."

Think about that response. We can't let member parks be used by members because the public is anticipated to be so wild as to damage the gate just to get in to the park, damage the grounds once in, create untold amounts of trash while there, and leave a sanitation nightmare once gone, so we have to let them in to avoid problems. But, at the same time if we let them in, it's in the best interest of the community to invite them in because some businesses benefit, and the Chamber will fix it after. Really?

June 29, 2010 4:58 PM, I responded in part, "We don't have POLICE in Lago Vista? Do you realize you're just said the POA invited rioters into town and rioters to roam wild in the park? That way damage is not limited to the gate, damage is spread throughout the park and community. …Please let the board know they could still accomplish the same goal simply by having the park remain private - have a ranger stationed at Cody with a "private park/will call police" sign, a cell phone, and a video camera. If anyone damages the gate you have their picture and license plate. … My idea solves your problem while keeping the parks private. I hope this addresses your concerns about the rioters and how we can prevent damage to the park. Please pass that on to the board and please consider the idea, since the parks are already paid for by the owners, not by the public. My POA money does not go to support local businesses, or to the community at large, that is what taxes do. My LVPOA money goes to keeping POA parks private. It is clear from long term residents and the by-laws themselves that is the intent of the parks. Don't get me wrong, if they are private, they are lovely parks. But if they are public, they are a nuisance. I don't want to be charged where money expressly intended to ensure my privacy is used to attract the public. You exist for the privacy and use of the paying members. I know you are aware of this because you put up fences and do have rangers patrolling, asking questions, and taking names. That is very good!!!! But this public park event compromise is a very bad deal. You all need to decide if you are public or private and deal with us honestly accordingly. I would expect any vendor to compensate me if they did not provide what they promised. The POA promised private parks and privacy. I paid in advance because of that promise. I bought my house and lots in a large part because of that promise. Your letter admits you expect potential rioters to be in the crowd. The POA not only didn't try to stop the potential rioters, the POA INVITED THEM IN to wander freely in the parks and community. That, obviously is not in the best interest of the community or in the safety of the residents. My idea would satisfy all safety concerns more effectively than the current plan. I would expect the idea to be implemented asap, since it is in fact a better idea, that better preserves the safety of both parks and public, or I would expect to be heavily reimbursed for loss usage/neighborhood loss of privacy, especially given that you've RAISED THE RISK LEVEL in the community, and parks, not lowered it."

You can see from my response simple common sense, which they obviously already knew, solves the problem. That would leave the park private for members. Instead, they are insisting on commercializing it despite the holes in their logic. Common sense tells you we've got a situation where they are speaking out of both sides of their mouth, and I called them on it. So how do they answer? Is there any level of concern with the parks being made public even though we paid for privacy? Will they react to a simple common sense suggestion using rangers we're already paying for, or will something else happen?

See for yourself June 30, 2010 11:39 AM to which Deborah Sorchevich, General Manager answers simply "Thank you for your follow up email. I will take your concerns to the Board at their next meeting"

That's it! Nothing stated there to address any of my concerns, nothing about getting what we paid for. Nothing stated there about the privacy or security aspects. That is pretty basic stuff for any normal business, but not at the LVPOA.

Remember we, as individuals, are being billed by the LVPOA which advertises itself as a private members only organization and we're not getting what we paid for. Still, so far it is just a simple run around, happens somewhere every day. But that's just the beginning, it's just one thread, but it's enough to provide a view in to the attitude taken by the POA GM. Let's look at subsequent email threads and look at other attributes to see where the evidence takes us.