Potomac Yard (Alexandria) HOA — Issues?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

But how do we know that the Board didn’t have authorization, from a required percentage of the owners, to modify the Declaration to effect this change?

Simple. Because there was no vote. Or minutes. Or a call for quorum. Or anything.

And it's affect, not effect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

But how do we know that the Board didn’t have authorization, from a required percentage of the owners, to modify the Declaration to effect this change?

Simple. Because there was no vote. Or minutes. Or a call for quorum. Or anything.

And it's affect, not effect.

Saying we’ve seen no evidence that it was done right is very different from saying there’s no way it could have been done right. Right?

I’m sticking with “effect”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

But how do we know that the Board didn’t have authorization, from a required percentage of the owners, to modify the Declaration to effect this change?

Simple. Because there was no vote. Or minutes. Or a call for quorum. Or anything.

And it's affect, not effect.

Saying we’ve seen no evidence that it was done right is very different from saying there’s no way it could have been done right. Right?

I’m sticking with “effect”.

Because you are a moron. Affect is a verb. Effect is a noun.

Remember
Affect
Verb
Effect
Noun

[Anonymous]

First, it appears the decision was made via a board edict. Second, it is my understanding that the board cannot legally give away a common area.

Finally, it seems the developer may not be prioritizing their brand, possibly due to a focus on short-term gains and yielding approximately $20,000 per unit.

[Anonymous]

Gosh, stories like this are tough and remind us that evil is present in this world. How can three board directors take away parking rights from over 90% of the community?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If the HOA members amended the declaration way back in 2014, then there would be an amendment to the declaration. Not seeing any amendment to the declaration. A board resolution is not going to cut it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

But how do we know that the Board didn’t have authorization, from a required percentage of the owners, to modify the Declaration to effect this change?

Because the declaration was not modified. They did this by resolution, not a modification or amendment to the declaration. That would have required due process notice and voting and all that legal gooblygook. They went with the screw the pooch option instead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

But how do we know that the Board didn’t have authorization, from a required percentage of the owners, to modify the Declaration to effect this change?

Simple. Because there was no vote. Or minutes. Or a call for quorum. Or anything.

And it's affect, not effect.

Saying we’ve seen no evidence that it was done right is very different from saying there’s no way it could have been done right. Right?

I’m sticking with “effect”.

Because you are a moron. Affect is a verb. Effect is a noun.

Remember
Affect
Verb
Effect
Noun

Effect is both
Noun: "The effect of the medicine was immediate".
Verb: "The government will effect new policies to address the issue".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

But how do we know that the Board didn’t have authorization, from a required percentage of the owners, to modify the Declaration to effect this change?

Because the declaration was not modified. They did this by resolution, not a modification or amendment to the declaration. That would have required due process notice and voting and all that legal gooblygook. They went with the screw the pooch option instead.

They refer to Section 2.01(h) and Section 13.02 of this amended declaration

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

which appear to authorize the assignments.

[Anonymous]

#Frankiswinning!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

But how do we know that the Board didn’t have authorization, from a required percentage of the owners, to modify the Declaration to effect this change?

Because the declaration was not modified. They did this by resolution, not a modification or amendment to the declaration. That would have required due process notice and voting and all that legal gooblygook. They went with the screw the pooch option instead.

They refer to Section 2.01(h) and Section 13.02 of this amended declaration

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

which appear to authorize the assignments.

This is an amended declaration, but looks like the original given to residents as it was signed 2011 presumably before first sales were made. Section 2.01(h) - referring to the private parking spaces - doesn't work with the heading opening paragraph of the same clause, section 2.01, Common Area, which states that "each owner shall have a right and nonexclusive easement of enjoyment in and to the Common Area.... Each resident shall have a nontransferrable right to use and enjoy the Common Area...." This clause is going to override (h) or at least cause the residents who use the parking spaces to pay for their maintenance. Sometimes clauses in contracts are null and void because they are not legally viable. That's why they have those saving clauses at the end that keeps the entire contract from being nullified if there is a nonlegal clause.

Section 13.02 does not appear to be applicable. The City may require a certain number of parking spaces be available in the community but not that they be reserved to any particular homeowners. I'd like to see that if it does.

[Anonymous]

From the Va Property Owners Association Act:
§ 55.1-1830. Validity of declaration; corrective amendments.
A. All provisions of a declaration shall be deemed severable, and any unlawful provision of the declaration shall be void.

[Anonymous]

This was all addressed in the lawsuit. Frank wins. I am guessing there will be a settlement offered where Frank is sworn into secrecy.

[Anonymous]

Is the guy who is obsessed with Frank and bragging about felony wiretapping going to come back and claim that not a single owner of the 23 THs w/o a garage is following this?

I hope so. It would make this more fun to watch.

[Anonymous]

HOA rules cannot contradict state or federal laws. This parking policy is unlawful. The law has been this way since 2012. This parking policy was enacted in 2014.