New Requirement to be "a Member in Good Standing"

9/5/2021 27 Comments

New Requirement to be "a Member in Good Standing"

The HOA has added a new collection rule that outlines the steps the HOA can take if a homeowner is not “A Member in Good Standing”. The rule as written only applies to rental homeowners and does not address non-rental members.

This raises the questions:

Was this rule created specifically for rental owners?
Was there an oversite in the creation of this rule and it should have been applied to all homeowners?

Will the board recognize this oversight and correct it at the Next Board meeting on 9/27?

To see the new proposed rule, click the link below and look at the last item( 23)

https://dpps.condocommunities.com/inc/inc_displayFile.asp?Table=t_news&FieldName=attachment&IDfield=id&ID=1033973456FBEE6D76949637DB5B2A7F&oID=2111623076

27 Comments

Hal

9/5/2021 08:30:48 pm

This would appear, if not immediately corrected, as another blatant attempt to harass owners… First financially, now by selective enforcement.

D C

9/6/2021 10:43:14 am

Item 17 states: " Any person who operates and/or advertises a STVR without a permit ... " is subject to violation of the STVR rules etc. That means that if one even just talks about renting the property is in violation of the Rule and may be fined. Even if the property is not rented. How absurd is that?!

David Abbott

9/10/2021 09:19:38 am

I can’t understand how they can implement a rule after you may have rented the unit in advance for the 2022 season which has been renting for the last few months .. there should be at least 1 year notice so everyone could plan accordingly.. ..change bourse in mud stream then punish those who don’t comply .. that’s like posting 50mph speed limit then 10’ later make it 30 mph .. impossible to comply

[email protected]

9/5/2021 08:30:50 pm

Correction: The board meeting date is 9/24. Hope you can all attend...

Bruce

9/5/2021 09:13:31 pm

This Rule sounds reasonable to me. If a Rental Owner is delinquent on his Bills, Monthly payments, fines etc…… why should they be able to rent their Property for profit and not be up to date in those Arrears ? If I didn’t pay my Bills, monthly dues……etc. then a process is put in motion to start warnings, fines, possible Liens and possible eventual foreclosure even though I don’t offer my Villa as a Rental I can be charged as an Owner not in Good Standing then also.

Bill

9/5/2021 09:30:21 pm

On the surface that sounds reasonable. Let’s say you are a golfer that is no longer in good standing. Should the golfers membership be suspended?

Bruce

9/5/2021 09:51:50 pm

IMO if you’re not a Member in Good Standing why should you be allowed any of the Benefits offered to Members who DO pay their Bills, abide by the Rules and do what they contractually agreed to when you came here to live in this HOA Governed Community ? These Rules protect the people that ARE in Good Standing.

David Abbott

9/10/2021 09:15:48 am

Ridiculous.. suppose you need or counted on that $$ to pay .. so you propose to punish those residents who perhaps count on some additional income .. so if it doesn’t benefit or applies to you .. you don’t care ..

Zeeda

9/5/2021 09:40:30 pm

I've never known an HOA to share the name of a person that files a false complaint. I love the idea of fines for nusiance or untrue complaints but not sure how this will work. As for the "In good standing rule" this is less of an issue for me than the color coded placards. This could be a recipe for bias and or racist behavior or rules that unfairly single out guest not to mention lawsuits.There are too many vigilante owners already. Whether questioning kids, people with pets, guest or plan racial profiling. I've seen it all in 20 years as an owner. Let's not encourage vigilantesim in our community or overwork our security officers or allow our rights as homeowners to be stripped away becuase we choose to live in a gated community. Thankfully our adjecent neighbors are thoughtful, kind, have each other's phone numbers and thoughtfully look out for each other.

Takis P Vartelas

9/5/2021 10:30:00 pm

What happens if "regular" and permanent residents do not pay? What fines they incur? And what about if loud music comes out of any of those permanent residents homes? It does not count?
How about we all start with a small claims court filing against the board for discriminating? No attorneys needed for either side and many of us can appear as witnesses. That can start the ball rolling and see how far we can take it after that....
I have NO problem with any rules or fines as long as they are for EVRYONE not just the few...And bill's comment about the golfers is very accurate and to the point

D C

9/6/2021 10:21:23 am

Takis, I agree with your points completely. In fact the issues that you brought up during the "Owner's chat" were very pertinent, and, as a result they were summarily and rudely dismissed by Terri Swartz. Unfortunately, small claims court is not the forum to address civil liberties issues. In small claims you can only address damages. That is, if you are imposed a fine, assessment etc. you can dispute that. First you have to pay it "in protest", go through the administrative process (e.g. appear in front of the BOD and demand your money back), and if there is no satisfaction, than you can sue in small claims for damages (including treble damages, statutory interest and court costs). You also can subpoena for all documents and witnesses pertinent to the case. In my opinion, being treated differently than other owners gives you (us) and others like you (us) a legal course of action. Another option would be to consult an attorney, to determine if there is a possible class action. Count me for support in either case. These are my personal opinions

John Dye

9/6/2021 03:33:48 pm

Thanking you.

John dye

9/6/2021 03:32:55 pm

That has already happened to many permanent residents. This board has gone toooo far !!! Certain residents have paper trail that goes back to starky & storage.

Marianne Thomas link

9/6/2021 06:56:50 am

It seems to me that instead of going into the weeds with all these little details, etc. the board should be having an honest discussion with the owners and try to determine what the best course of action is. Has anyone ever thought of installing security cameras around the pools, property where incidents have occurred?
Too few individuals (the board) making too many decisions for too many people (the homeowners).

Judge

9/6/2021 03:34:59 pm

That will NEVER happen. Unfortunately.

Jeanette Morocco

9/6/2021 07:49:47 am

Is everyone forgetting the risk a home owner takes when renting their property ? I have mentioned this before and will state it again ...the development - the board ---people should be so grateful that some folks take that risk and rent their properties to vacationers. THESE PEOPLE BRING IN A TON OF REVENUE TO THE DEVELOPMENT for food, golf etc etc. Folks that live here full time are very frugal with their funds and are NOT spending their money on "nice to do things " food, Pro Shop etc as these vacations are doing !!

These funds will be sorely missed if not generated by these vacationers. Penalizing a home owner who takes that risk and rents their property is a huge mistake. Inflicting any fees on these homeowners is just not acceptable. What was that $ 100 fee for ??? What is the newly increased fee to be used for ????
NO ONE HAS DEFINED THAT appropriation OF FUNDS !!WHY ??

Owner who do not properly screen their renters and or who do not check on what is going on at their property - if an incident occurs - those home owners should be fined, and not penalize all home owners who rent their home . Many owners rent their property, not as a money making machine -
because it is not ! BUT because they must rent it at times to keep the property !
THE board should re think this insanity and remove and or lower these fees back to that $ 100 which is still not justified

Diane

9/6/2021 09:06:43 am

I believe the intent of this rule is to ensure that Owners (ALL) come into compliance, and come current on any outstanding assessments/fines PRIOR to renting/leasing their unit.

For example, a resident Owner (not a landlord), who has piled up unpaid assessments/fines, and may wish to simply “move out”, yet continue ownership and decide to rent out their unit, this rule #23 prevents that option.

To clarify the intent to apply to ALL OWNERS, the wording should be changed to: “……GRANT, suspend, or not renew”.

Seems fair to expect Owners(ALL) come current on dues/fines before moving out leaving unpaid debts, and inserting a tenant with full access to all amenities…I’m thinking the rule doesn’t intend to “discriminate” against rental Owners; intends to “discriminate” against freeloaders—permanent or seasonal or absentee landlords— the whole lot of any of us—-anyone who doesn’t pay dues, but wants to utilize amenities, and profit from it.

Bruce

9/6/2021 10:27:46 am

Well said Diane. My Sentiments exactly. If people pay their Bills and abide by the Rules it shouldn’t matter.

D C

9/6/2021 06:29:01 pm

This BOD is arbitrary and capricious in creating Rules and Regulations that are not uniform across ALL HOA Members. In fact it is an outrageous abuse of power!!!

Michelle

9/6/2021 01:34:39 pm

Frankly, a simple wording change to make this definitive instead of ASSUMING the "intention" of this rule. Intentions are subject to the interpretation of the DP enforcers of the day. As the old expression goes, "the road to perdition is paved in good intentions.".

Terry

9/6/2021 11:15:49 am

I do not rent my unit nor do I have any intent to do so. Seems to me the board has offloaded most of their work to the MT and the MT is now trying to offload their workload to the homeowners. The intent definately seems be to discourage rentals unless of course MT is able to profit from them. The fines are ridiculous. Appears however to be a "special" on false reports fines as they are cheap. The $200 fee for security calling the police is ridiculous. This thing is turning into a nightmare. We have an authoritarian "leadership" that appears to see homeowners as the enemy. Property rights are a very important element of our rights as Americans. They are being stepped on. This is not a short term vacation rental issue. This is a "leadership" issue. This hassle is lowering the quality of life here at DP.

D C

9/6/2021 12:56:09 pm

This BOD has got to go. There is currently a petition to recall Peter Webb. I think the whole board should be recalled, however, recalling Webb would be a good start to show this board that their actions have repercussions

David Abbott

9/10/2021 09:27:04 am

In addition, by bringing renters in …it brings additional potential home owners here … as well as revenue… when they hear about all the ridiculous fees and rules .. they say “Never mind” ..

Mike Dunlap

9/6/2021 04:15:47 pm

The board has the power to impose fines, rule against an owner at a hearing, and now can deny the property owner the right to rent his property. Seems like an eminent domain issue if they exercise this authority.

California law provides section 415 P.C. if someone is disturbing the peace. We have a city police department you can call if a neighbor is creating a disturbance. Why do we have a board trying to restrict an owner’s right to rent his property rather than simply telling those whose peace is disturbed to call the police.

I do not recall seeing an explanation for why my quiet long term tenant’s occupancy of our condo necessitates any fee increase. What does our property manager really need to do that is extra work for a tenant as opposed to an owner occupant.

The Cathedral City PD phone number is 760-770-0300.

Let Them Not Divide Us

9/6/2021 11:04:17 pm

I would like to share my thoughts on the disappointment I feel that is causing division among our community due to the actions of the majority of this BOD. At the August open session meeting, the majority of the board held a random "auction" for lack of better terms to randomly select an amount in which to reduce the annual rental application fee to. Which was a circus show in and of itself. They then proceeded to announce following that "show" that due to the reduction of the rental application fee, the difference of the funds would have to come from someplace else and other sources, paid for by all homeowners. Since they were going to be so generous to extend the rental owners a discount on the rental application fee. This is extremely divisive. Naturally and understandably so, some non rental owners, if not many, feel that this is a stab in the back to them, to have to pay for the rental owners expenses.
Namely the new compliance person that Management Trust will hire, the patrol officer and the new patrol vehicle. I would invite all owners, rental and non, to focus on the more global issue at hand.
1) There is absolutely NO data that suggests or supports the need for an additional patrol officer due to the workload from rentals.
2) Management Trust nor the HOA has any good data to support the need for hiring an additional full time, THIRD compliance officer. Stacy Atherton, the previous compliance person, is no longer employed by The Management Trust and her salary is already accounted for. That position of a compliance person would be a replacement, not an addition. Why on Earth would a third be needed when Stacy hasn't even been replaced yet? We have asked the board this question and never really answered with any substance. It's always vague and my feeling is that no one really knows what a third full time compliance person would even do.
Please focus on the more global issue. That being, that these things are NOT NECESSSARY. There is no cause for division. There is no need for an additional patrol person. The reports of man hours spent, outline this very clearly. This non-sense going on by the majority of this BOD, should be a unifying matter of discussion amongst homeowners. Let us not be distracted and tunnel visioned by the non-sense. It is up to all of us if we want to believe the non-sense and allow it to cause division between various groups of homeowners, or not. This particular matter does not warrant division. Rental owners have a right to feel upset over these increased fees because they are unwarranted. And non-rental owners have a right to be upset, not at the idea of having to cover the gap of the expenses incurred by rental owners (because they should not), but instead at the board members who have passed this non-sense to incur additional expenses that are unwarranted in the first place! These things that the majority of this board are doing warrants a real discussion based on real facts and should be a unifying matter for us to come together and say enough is enough. Enough spending our money on unnecessary and unwarranted items. Enough causing division amongst us over non-sensical things (in this case unwarranted additional employees for absolutely no good reason) and then pinning one group of homeowners against another. Under Peter Webb's leadership, there sadly seems to be one divisive matter that follows another. There is only one board member out of the 7 who has the guts to abstain from these matters of division. Let's come together. Let them not divide us.

Bill

9/12/2021 08:30:47 am

Very well said "Let Them Not Divide Us". The HOA board must provide justification for these extra fees. Why don't they do this?! Should be easy. Wouldn't you think a rational and organized group would have this information already summarized and ready to present after they have already done their own due diligence to come up with these ideas in the first place? Otherwise, this is a very unprofessional group running the show here and handling a lot of money coming from a large group of people.
Regarding the new rule 23, this is obviously another power grab for the board to wield. The basis for the new fines and the amounts of these should be totally resolved and established by the majority of the people that the board represents. What if there is a dispute? A hearing is done and the judge and the jury, in this case the HOA board serving both sides, will pull an owners permit to rent license, then more subsequent fees. The board is out of control!

Tmsr

9/20/2021 11:24:22 am

Are your really surprised that the current board discriminates, really. Then where have you been and did you sign the recall petition, no then don’t complain. Our current board is part of the problem, not the solution. Take action !!!

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.

Charter

This blog is designed as a means to provide transparency and informative access to the policies and protocols of the Desert Princess Palm Springs Homeowners Association, the governance of the HOA Board of Directors and the management of the community’s assets by The Management Trust. The expressed intent is to establish a neighborhood hub for trusted connections and the exchange of helpful information, goods, and services; it is hoped that homeowners will use it to build a stronger and safer Desert Princess Palm Springs.

This Blog will not publish any comments that are personal attacks or unrelated to the published post.

PLEDGE

BE HELPFUL
Share this space in a constructive way. Be kind, not judgmental, in your conversations

BE RESPECTFUL
Remember you are speaking to your real neighbors. Strong communities are built on strong relationships

DO NOT DISCRIMINATE
Racism, hateful or foul language, or discrimination of any kind will not be tolerated.

NO HARMFUL ACTIVITY
Any activity that could hurt someone—from scams to physical harm—are off limits.

YOUR CART

New Requirement to be "a Member in Good Standing"

Leave a Reply.

Charter

Archives

Categories