Lago Vista Independent School District (LVISD)

 

My ideal platform for a Lago Vista Property Owners Association (LVPOA) Director, and for the Board of Directors as a group

I'll add more to this later. It's a starter set of ideas of what I would like to see from both individual directors, and from the board of directors as a whole. Perhaps you would like to see the same attributes. I see these as speaking to core functionality. This is certainly not an exhaustive list, just the minimum expected of a director on the board of directors of a private company.

There would be no more playing one side against the other. People already live here. People already bought where they wanted to buy, whether near or far from the amenities. This applies two ways: external to the POA are the other developers, internal to the POA are the members.

If a developer chooses not to add parks or chooses not to form their own POA, that doesn't give the City, or the developer, a right to our property or amenities. There is no obligation on our POA to give them some of our amenities when they chose not to create their own. If the developer wanted an amenity for a development they would provide it. It is unreasonable for them to develop lots and expect us to shoulder the burdens and the headaches of public amenities for their developments. These amenities were put here by a developer to attract us here so we would buy our lots here from them, to use while we are here, and to be a selling point to help us sell our lots if we move out. We aren't supposed to be giving a free ride to every new developer. Why should they provide amenities if we'll provide amenities for them at our cost and with us having the headaches? They can have privacy for their homes but we cannot? It's called freedom and it works both ways. People who don't want the costs or aggravations can live in one place, people who are willing to pay for parks can live in another.

This works within the POA membership too. If say, 900 members want something and the 100 members living next to it don't want it, the board of directors should not force something on the people already living there to take it. That encourages people to move away from the amenities, and lowers to value to us of our lots, and of the association to those of us who saw an amenity we liked, and chose to live near it.

We're all paying the same fees, so the POA Board of Directors should not be picking winners and losers, and it shouldn't be mob rule as it is now.

The simple answer is to ask the people with lots near the proposed idea if they want it next to them. If there is an agreement fine, then put it in.

If not, then the Board of Directors should tell the 900 they can't impose on other members, that they need to look within their group of 900 to find a place where it is wanted, and come back with the place where the neighbors do want it. If the 900 really want it, if there really is a demand for it, they should be able to find a place for it near them instead of forcing it on the ones who don't want it. If the 900 can't find a place where people do want it next to them, then it really wasn't wanted after all, because if someone really wants something from a shareholder organization, they should be comfortable with it next to them. If no one wants it next to them, obviously the membership demand isn't there.

It doesn't matter what the City of Lago Vista says, what the Chamber of Commerce says, what any developer says, or what any business alliance says, the Lago Vista Property Owners Association (LVPOA) is a private company, just like any other private company, it has obligations to it's shareholders. If the City or some other entity wants something let them obtain funding, buy land, and provide for it themselves.

There are new developments where the developer still owns the land, or where people do not live. Why not have the people who want something which our members don't want near them, buy land in the new development? That way people moving in can choose to live next to it or not, and they are not disturbing the current residents. Let's say they want a kids stadium. Rather than annoying those of us who live here, and taking a park away from current shareholders, why not create it in a new development? If there is the demand as they suggest then the developer will welcome it, and people will want to move next to it. People are free to choose. Also, it doesn't have to be the POA or the City doing it. Anyone, or almost any group, can form a company and buy land to use their way. Some people actually want to live next to a stadium. Does anyone remember "Field of Dreams"?

We need elected Lago Vista Property Owners Association (LVPOA) Directors who are representatives who stand for principles, who are not weathervanes.

A weathervane director is worthless because it forces us to be involved constantly with petitions, emails, letters, and similar, not to mention all the one on one conversations with our neighbors. Candidates are asked questions. A candidate should stand up and say what their principles are. If elected, they should vote accordingly. That is especially true if they were asked and answered the same question they are voting on now as a Director, when they were campaigning. This should be a no-brainer. But, for some on the current Lago Vista Property Owners Association (LVPOA) Board of Directors, they can be asked a direct question, and get votes based on their answer when campaigning, and still became a weathervane. For one weathervane example: read a candidates answers (9/29/2010,9/30/2010) here, for once elected (11/9/2010) read more here. Read what the same director is saying now (3/17/2011) here.

The Lago Vista Property Owners Association (LVPOA) is a private company with individual shareholders paying the bills. It is not a public institution. It has been separate from the City of Lago Vista for over 25 years. Everyone's focus should be on the individual shareholder.

We don't have a community burden for the whole community, we're paying a private business for private amenities. Several directors think we do have a community burden, that we're paying private fees to support the city at large. Read one (7/4/2010) director's statement here. This director, along with several others, was saying that because we chose to pay fees to have amenities, which others do not pay, nor attempt to provide for themselves, because they did nothing, now we have to let them have access to our facilities whenever they need access. What other business says that? That's ludicrous. Obviously we want to be available for some shared items as a good neighbor, but that is a gift, not an entitlement. The other developments had the option of creating a POA, or putting in parks when they were developed. Anyone can create a company now, buy land and create their own dream. They don't have to steal the dreams of others. Many developments remain as open areas now, and could create amenities to this day. If a developer chooses not to provide an amenity, that does not place an obligation on us. If an individual, developer, or business won't furnish their own land, or create their own amenities, why should we assume we owe them our land or amenities?

Last but not least, we need Board of Directors representatives who understand what the word private means. Several of us have had members of the 2011 Board of Directors and the 2010 Board of Directors tell us they don't understand what we mean by "private", and they include the quotes! Read one (7/7/2010) example here. Several directors have said they didn't understand what we meant by private in several actual Lago Vista Property Owners Association (LVPOA) Board of Directors meetings as well. Sadly, it's a common theme. It's really simple. The rangers enforce it. We are paying for a member's only organization. Asking the question is disingenuous. There is no question what private means. The Lago Vista Property Owners Association (LVPOA) is paid for with private funds from individuals, it not paid for with city taxes, it's not a city resource, it is a private one.

I don't think all of the above is too much to ask from a Director overseeing a private company.