​

The current and previous BOD has used the POA's legal counsel to support multiple decisions that are in direct violation of our governing documents. Legal counsel is supporting these actions by reciting portions of the pertinent law and not the entirety of the law.

​

Cul-de-Sacs:

According to public documents available from Riverside County our BOD named all the
cul-de-sacs that were dedicated county roads for public use as part of the vacate of county roads request to the county back in 2004. Riverside County accepted that vacate request and named all the roads as part of the vacate. The cul-de-sacs were specifically named in that document. Therefore the BOD accepted the cul-de-sacs as roads the county vacated to their responsibility. That means that since 2004 the BOD has been responsible for the cul-de-sacs maintenance but has continually refused to accept that responsibility. The amount of monies owed to the individual lot owners living on cul-de-sacs would be enough to bankrupt the POA if the BOD did the right thing regarding repayment.

​

​

Selective Enforcement of CC&Rs:

While I understand members wanting to deny this practice, it is BLATANTLY obvious that this type of favoritism has gone on for years. There has already been one pay out of approximately $700k and the current litigation will result in another costly poor decision on the part of the BOD as it is so blatant that I dont see the insurance carrier covering the loss due to noncompliance with our governing documents. This current litigation was caused by the AC and the BOD completely disregarding our CC&Rs. I predict that after this loss even our current carrier will cancel coverage. After an organization has multiple legal losses associated with non-compliance with its own governing documents typically no other insurance company will provide coverage. This will force the LCPOA to become "self-insured"  That will create personal liability issues with all the members who have given easements for trails and in most cases cause the POA to go bankrupt.

​

​

​

Manufacture Homes - Mobile homes:

Now we have another completely noncompliant issue of the AC and BOD allowing a manufactured home to be utilized as an ADU. While there are civil codes stating that the POA cant restrict a members right to have an ADU it doesn't force this POA to allow for a manufactured home as an ADU. Again the BOD is relying on legal advice that recites this civil code without stating that the POA has the right to restrict
how an ADU is constructed.

​

​

​

We have had one BOD member with the support of a very few members of this community force us to accept the illegal appointment of a new BOD member, who was immediately voted in as our new "President" The; BOD legal counsel supported this with complete disregard to our Bylaws; directive on replacement and numerous other attorneys stating that the action was illegal.

​

The members have trusted a select few BOD members who have chosen to disregard the CC&Rs when it behooves them to and to hold other members to the "letter of the law"; I am hoping that with the new BOD members (who all appear to be ethical businessmen) on the present BOD they will see what is going on and put a stop to these noncompliant decisions that affect all of us.

Respectfully,

Ron Calisher