Potomac Yard (Alexandria) HOA — Issues?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I love the way that Frank always falls back on the line, “well, you know, there’s a tiny cabal that controls the HOA that doesn't like me because I speak truth to power."

He always casts himself as a victim who is sort of the Karen Silkwood of the HOA — Someone who’s so truthful that he's being hunted down by the conspiracy that runs the HOA. It’s all a bit much and paranoid. And his legal theories are garbage.

I don't see anywhere in this thread where Frank is acting the victim. As far as HOA conspiracies, read this article and think again: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/2013/02/09/d46f9bec-6652-11e2-93e1-475791032daf_story.html

My favorite line - "board member Don Hughes compared some residents’ refusal to install window-pane dividers to the “cat and mouse game Saddam Hussein played with the USA,” e-mails show. Ultimately, Hussein “paid the price,” he said, concluding that the residents should comply."

This behavior from HOA board members is terrifyingly common. I'm guessing a lot of it is egged on by the HOA's lawyers who have nothing better to do than fan the flames of the smallest controversy to try to get litigation going. Drafting useless resolutions doesn't pay as well as lawsuits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For what it's worth, I know of someone who bought a top-floor condo unit without exclusive use of the roof, and later bought it from the rest of the owners, though not in Virginia. And I know, from reading the news, that a Florida condo association can be dissolved by a vote of 75% of the total ownership.

My point being that a common area in a condo, and the very existence of the condo itself, aren't as immutable as is assumed in this thread. In the early days of PY the HOA board might have been able to get enough votes to meet the threshold for changing the usage of a common area.

the HOA, with a 67% affirmative vote, can give away a common area to the city. However, the board cannot give away a common area for the exclusive use of certain HOA members under any circumstances.

Say a resident became disabled and needed a ramp to enter their townhouse, and a suitably sloped ramp had to block part of the sidewalk, which I assume is a common area. It wouldn't be allowed even if a supermajority was ok with it? But the board could give that piece of sidewalk to the city, which could in turn, after the proper procedures and votes, allow the resident to build the ramp?

The decision in Manchester Oaks Homeowners Ass'n v. Batt, decided by the Virginia Supreme Court in 2012, established that all HOA members have an equal, non-exclusive easement to use all HOA common areas, including parking spaces, unless the governing declaration expressly provides otherwise. In that case, the HOA attempted to amend its declaration to assign parking spaces in the common area exclusively to certain owners (those without garages), which was found to violate the declaration’s guarantee of equal access to common areas for all owners.

The court held that:

The declaration provided that “every Owner shall have a right and easement of enjoyment in and to the Common Area.”

Any assignment of common area (like parking) must benefit all owners equally, “because equality is inherent in the definition of common area” unless the declaration specifically states otherwise.

The HOA’s attempt to assign two common area parking spaces per ungaraged lot, but none to garaged lots, violated these principles.

Thus, under Manchester Oaks, unless specifically provided otherwise in the HOA's declaration, all members share a non-exclusive easement over all common areas and any allocation of common resources must be done fairly and equally.

Not a resident garaged or ungaraged but this seems painfully cut and dried to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I love the way that Frank always falls back on the line, “well, you know, there’s a tiny cabal that controls the HOA that doesn't like me because I speak truth to power."

He always casts himself as a victim who is sort of the Karen Silkwood of the HOA — Someone who’s so truthful that he's being hunted down by the conspiracy that runs the HOA. It’s all a bit much and paranoid. And his legal theories are garbage.

Oh, so the board president, who happens to be one of the people given a free dedicated parking space, wouldn't have a vested interest in enduring Frank loses? Got it!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love the way that Frank always falls back on the line, “well, you know, there’s a tiny cabal that controls the HOA that doesn't like me because I speak truth to power."

He always casts himself as a victim who is sort of the Karen Silkwood of the HOA — Someone who’s so truthful that he's being hunted down by the conspiracy that runs the HOA. It’s all a bit much and paranoid. And his legal theories are garbage.

I don't see anywhere in this thread where Frank is acting the victim. As far as HOA conspiracies, read this article and think again: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/2013/02/09/d46f9bec-6652-11e2-93e1-475791032daf_story.html

My favorite line - "board member Don Hughes compared some residents’ refusal to install window-pane dividers to the “cat and mouse game Saddam Hussein played with the USA,” e-mails show. Ultimately, Hussein “paid the price,” he said, concluding that the residents should comply."

This behavior from HOA board members is terrifyingly common. I'm guessing a lot of it is egged on by the HOA's lawyers who have nothing better to do than fan the flames of the smallest controversy to try to get litigation going. Drafting useless resolutions doesn't pay as well as lawsuits.

I have worked in the property management space since 2004. I've been on the HOA/COA side as well as individually managed portfolios in the 350 unit range.

If you don't think board's are malicious, you are a fool. Plain and simple.

I was once an onsite manager for a 400 unit HOA in NOVA where the board president told me, several times, in no uncertain terms, that has entire goal of running for board President was so he could make the previous President's life "a living hell." I saw him lie through his teeth on multiple occasions where it benefitted him and his neighbors. I saw another board member start a complete lie about a man having an affair with a woman he hated. I could share anecdote after anecdote after anecdote that would not only have you avoid HOAs for the rest of your life, but would also completely convince you that Frank could very well be suffering persecution at the hands of the board .

[Anonymous]

The Potomac Yard HOA board president has 2 parking spots assigned to her at the expense of her neighbors across the street from her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love the way that Frank always falls back on the line, “well, you know, there’s a tiny cabal that controls the HOA that doesn't like me because I speak truth to power."

He always casts himself as a victim who is sort of the Karen Silkwood of the HOA — Someone who’s so truthful that he's being hunted down by the conspiracy that runs the HOA. It’s all a bit much and paranoid. And his legal theories are garbage.

I don't see anywhere in this thread where Frank is acting the victim. As far as HOA conspiracies, read this article and think again: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/2013/02/09/d46f9bec-6652-11e2-93e1-475791032daf_story.html

My favorite line - "board member Don Hughes compared some residents’ refusal to install window-pane dividers to the “cat and mouse game Saddam Hussein played with the USA,” e-mails show. Ultimately, Hussein “paid the price,” he said, concluding that the residents should comply."

This behavior from HOA board members is terrifyingly common. I'm guessing a lot of it is egged on by the HOA's lawyers who have nothing better to do than fan the flames of the smallest controversy to try to get litigation going. Drafting useless resolutions doesn't pay as well as lawsuits.

I have worked in the property management space since 2004. I've been on the HOA/COA side as well as individually managed portfolios in the 350 unit range.

If you don't think board's are malicious, you are a fool. Plain and simple.

I was once an onsite manager for a 400 unit HOA in NOVA where the board president told me, several times, in no uncertain terms, that has entire goal of running for board President was so he could make the previous President's life "a living hell." I saw him lie through his teeth on multiple occasions where it benefitted him and his neighbors. I saw another board member start a complete lie about a man having an affair with a woman he hated. I could share anecdote after anecdote after anecdote that would not only have you avoid HOAs for the rest of your life, but would also completely convince you that Frank could very well be suffering persecution at the hands of the board .

Thank you for sharing. And OMG!! That is so awful and yet so not surprising. I see a lot of this sort thing - vicious rumors, lying and favoritism for neighbors who are friends of board members, etc, in the small townhouse HOA I unfortunately belong to. It's a shame some people can't sit on the board to support their community and prefer to behave like they're on a reality TV show vying for ratings.

[Anonymous]

This is another Poromac Yard HOA board director.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/10/06/franken-grassley-abortion-iowa-00057656

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For what it's worth, I know of someone who bought a top-floor condo unit without exclusive use of the roof, and later bought it from the rest of the owners, though not in Virginia. And I know, from reading the news, that a Florida condo association can be dissolved by a vote of 75% of the total ownership.

My point being that a common area in a condo, and the very existence of the condo itself, aren't as immutable as is assumed in this thread. In the early days of PY the HOA board might have been able to get enough votes to meet the threshold for changing the usage of a common area.

the HOA, with a 67% affirmative vote, can give away a common area to the city. However, the board cannot give away a common area for the exclusive use of certain HOA members under any circumstances.

Say a resident became disabled and needed a ramp to enter their townhouse, and a suitably sloped ramp had to block part of the sidewalk, which I assume is a common area. It wouldn't be allowed even if a supermajority was ok with it? But the board could give that piece of sidewalk to the city, which could in turn, after the proper procedures and votes, allow the resident to build the ramp?

The decision in Manchester Oaks Homeowners Ass'n v. Batt, decided by the Virginia Supreme Court in 2012, established that all HOA members have an equal, non-exclusive easement to use all HOA common areas, including parking spaces, unless the governing declaration expressly provides otherwise. In that case, the HOA attempted to amend its declaration to assign parking spaces in the common area exclusively to certain owners (those without garages), which was found to violate the declaration’s guarantee of equal access to common areas for all owners.

The court held that:

The declaration provided that “every Owner shall have a right and easement of enjoyment in and to the Common Area.”

Any assignment of common area (like parking) must benefit all owners equally, “because equality is inherent in the definition of common area” unless the declaration specifically states otherwise.

The HOA’s attempt to assign two common area parking spaces per ungaraged lot, but none to garaged lots, violated these principles.

Thus, under Manchester Oaks, unless specifically provided otherwise in the HOA's declaration, all members share a non-exclusive easement over all common areas and any allocation of common resources must be done fairly and equally.

Not a resident garaged or ungaraged but this seems painfully cut and dried to me.

Agreed. The screws are tightening.

[Anonymous]

We received an email this week from the Potomac Yard HOA regarding a citation for a camera. This appears to be another restriction that is not related to the Declaration. I hope Frank wins.

[Anonymous]

This entire thread is Frank and maybe one of his friends talking to themselves.

In reality, NOBODY in the community cares about this parking issue or this bogus lawsuit, which is why Frank has gotten no help or support in his silly crusade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone have any diagrams

This is the document with a plat showing the reserved parking spaces. It was recorded way back in 2014. Plat resolution isn't great but it's enough to see which spaces are reserved.

https://www.pyhoafacts.org/files/Association%20Documents/PYHOAParkingSpaceAssignmentandPlat.pdf

This piece of paper confirms that these spots are HOA common areas, and the assignments are not authorized in the Declaration. This is akin to negotiating against myself.

[Anonymous]

Holy moly, we’re 23 pages deep in this thread…

[Anonymous]

I think coverage on this case from The Washington Post is a good idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone have any diagrams

This is the document with a plat showing the reserved parking spaces. It was recorded way back in 2014. Plat resolution isn't great but it's enough to see which spaces are reserved.

https://www.pyhoafacts.org/files/Association%20Documents/PYHOAParkingSpaceAssignmentandPlat.pdf

This piece of paper confirms that these spots are HOA common areas, and the assignments are not authorized in the Declaration. This is akin to negotiating against myself.

Do you know for a fact that the original Declaration prohibited it from being modified? Google Earth historical imagery shows twenty some-odd townhomes in October 2014, and an additional twenty in April 2015. The reserved parking spaces were recorded in December 2014, at which time there were somewhere between twenty and forty townhomes. The HOA might have easily gotten the votes to modify the declaration then. Most people would go along with it, considering that the government was involved and they're new owners who want to get on with their lives in their new homes.

[Anonymous]

Did you read the assignment of spaces that was posted? It was done by the board. It has been stated ad nauseam how the HOA and/or board cannot give away a common area for exclusive use to individual owners.