Vote Survey Results & Feedback
We received a total of 38 responses from the survey as follows:
We believe that the threshold should be 300 of all home owners as in the past only being able to get 300 people to vote makes it hard to do anything going forward. Since home owners or vacant lot owners are not participating 300 seems reasonable to get the job done. By the way, we are not in favor of apartments being built in entrance to Burnt Store meadows. Will make it look cheap and block the view of other home owners. I believe that making it 55 or older may help if it has to be built. One of the great beauties of Burnt Store is the cleanliness and open space and quiet neighborhoods.
I would go with whatever the board seems reasonable. We purchased our retirement home in burnt store meadows, based on the value to increase, and I could not agree more, that rules need to be enforced, and well driving through the development, there are many places not in compliance. The majority of the places and areas are very well kept up, but there are places that are looking run down, and devaluations the other properties.
Thanks I hope this helps.
Keep the current requirement! I personally do not want a "smaller" or "select" group of owners to decide for everyone!I don't presently live in BSM, but intend to do so again in the future, that is why I feel VERY strongly to keep current requirement!
Thanks for listening.
Keep it at 66 2/3% and work at increasing the number of votes - We are building on 150 Acalypha and should be moving there in about 4 months. We are very excited about being part of this community and would like to be active keeping it as beautiful and well-kept as it is. I would be willing to drive people to the POA meetings and would also be willing to go door to door with a census when votes are needed.
In my mind we actually do not have a voting process. It's just ridiculous to require 66% of the number of lot owners to vote in favor to get something done, instead of basing the vote on the actual number of lot owners that care enough to express their opinions by casting a vote. If they don't care to vote, then they shouldn't have the power to defeat the process. Aren't there any recognized standards for voting thresholds for HOA's? If not, I copied the following from Roberts Rules (parliamentary) on a website. I would be comfortable with either of these requirements, but based on the votes cast:
Parliamentary law establishes two fundamental voting thresholds:
Majority vote: Except when governed by a specific rule to the contrary, a majority vote is the fundamental requirement to pass a motion. A majority, simply stated, is more than half. And a majority vote refers to more than half of the votes actually cast, not to more than half of the votes that could be cast if everybody voted. Unless a motion receives a majority vote, the motion is lost. If the vote is tied, it doesn’t receive a majority vote, so it’s lost.
Two-thirds vote: As a means of balancing the rights of the entire group with the rights of individuals, some decisions require the affirmative consent of at least twice the number of members as are not in favor. This vote is called a two-thirds vote and refers to two-thirds of the votes cast.
According to Robert’s Rules, a two-thirds vote is required:
To suspend or change a rule already adopted
To close or limit debate on a motion
To prevent the consideration of a motion
To close nominations or polls
I am for 66 2/3 of those that vote. Everyone has the chance to vote and if you don't care enough to vote you really just don't care.
I am in favor of amending the deed restrictions.
Thank you
I think it should be counted as those that vote, otherwise it's not important enough for other to vote on the issue at hand.
I would go with what ever the board seems reasonable,we purchased are retirement home in burnt store meadows, based on the value to increase, and I could not agree more, that rules need to be enforced, and well driving through the development, there are many places not in compliance. The majority of the places and areas are very well kept up, but there are places that are looking run down, and devaluations the other properties.
Thanks I hope this helps.
We do support amending the deed restrictions for our community, Thanks for the update.
Your March 21 letter was very vague. The one issue that was identified is vacant lots; it appears that anyone can park anything on them any time of the day or night. Perhaps the overnight restrictions of 4 per year need to be expanded so that people will not resort to illegal parking. My point is all of the changes to deed restrictions need to be defined to the membership. I'm not comfortable changing the required votes unless I know what is being proposed.
Good afternoon! My husband Blake and I just moved into the neighborhood a couple of weeks ago. We received the letter from the board regarding deed restrictions and agree with the importance of voting. We are happy to be involved and vote when the time comes. This is a beautiful neighborhood and deed restrictions are one of the reasons we chose it!
There is no doubt the current voting system is ineffective for the association to move forward on any and all initiatives.
There are all kinds of ways to approach this and I am sure there will be many suggestions, but I am thinking about a system that would allow meaningful voting and representation of the "truly interested parties.
I believe we need to be realistic in the actual numbers of votes that will be cast as indicated by past history. If in fact 300 votes seems to be that maximum votes expected, some may balk as setting that as a threshold for a majority rules vote. But to those I would say, what is your involvement and voting history.
Instead of a majority, you could raise the threshold to pass with a 2/3's majority of the total votes cast. And if only 200 people care to vote, then a 2/3's yes vote on the total votes submitted would prevail.
Something has to be done to help this BOD to do their job effectively.
When we bought our home in 2000, we only had to be concerned with the grass in the green belts and empty lots mowed. That and to make sure garbage and trash were picked up. It was a nice neighborhood. Now, it seems that the board in these latter years has spent more money on lawyer fees and dreaming up all sort of nonsensical ideas. We don't need more changes and there shouldn't even have to be a board. Do like the Isles and a few other places do and let the city take care of matters.
I'm for changing it to bring it up to date
Thank you for your concerns and your time. We need to be able to address change for the better of our community.
in favor
Majority of those voting. Votes requested by the Board are not world changing events. Those that are willing to take the time to vote on issues that concern the community in which they live, either by proxy or in person, should have their votes count. Those unwilling to vote should be willing to accept the decision of those that do vote. That is the same with all voting.
Both my husband, Brian Peterson, and I support amending the deed restrictions to enable those who participate to make decisions.
We have been property owners for 5 years and voted via proxy until moving here last fall. Now we vote in person.
A simple majority or even 2/3rds majority of votes would be appropriate.
I do not want this changed. It is up to the Board to provide enough information on issues that need to be voted on so that we can make intelligent devisions. 15% is not representative of the majority. What I might add is that we receive the agenda by e-mail but never the minutes of what was decided so that we do not know what was passed. The argument to this would be "attend the meetings"! With a management company we should be able to get minutes at least two to three days after a meeting.
The issue of vote count has been an problem in every organization I have been involved in. It will definitely be beneficial for our community to change our procedure. People who are involved should be the ones to make the decisions, they are the ones that have made the effort to be informed.
Received your letter and actually read it. However, I feel that most people won't, as it is quite lengthy. It is my opinion that we would have a much better voting turn out if the ballot was sent via email to homeowners and people could vote online. I am afraid that the day of people taking the time to complete the ballot AND mail it is over.
Just a suggestion. Thank you for your time and service!
I am in favor of this. As a vacant lot owner I am mostly disconnected but assume those that volunteer their time for the betterment of the development shouldn't have the restrictions evidenced on the letter I received.
51% of votes
I think if one item at a time was sent in normal language via email and also posted to Next door to be considered with a simple Yes or No vote would improve your vote returns.
I am in favor of having all votes be decided by a simple majority of those voting, without respect to minimums. This would encourage higher voting results as a side benefit.
We are all for Deed Restrictions a yes or a no vote is all you should need. We also have to inforce them. Trash cans in front of garages, dogs run loose and barking. We know we live with it.
I would think that two-thirds of the total vote would suffice, not two-thirds of the total of eligible voters. Too many people (like myself) are from out of state or elderly and are unlikely to participate. Outreach should include color mailers that are short and to the point, rather than including the info in newsletters and other materials that looks uninteresting. Finally, is there a Facebook page? Set that up and reach out to the community to build support. Much as I detest Facebook personally, it's where most people can be reached these days.
I appreciate the recent letter sent out. After so many years of residing in BSM and attending a few meetings, it always seemed like the deed restrictions were never addressed. I now have a clearer understanding of why things were never addressed.
As far as changing the threshold, I'm not sure that this suggestion is "politically correct" but I believe that we should re-qualify the votes for the "owners" in BSM. We should only count residing home owners (>6 months/year) as full votes. Owning land would not count or would only hold a percentage of a vote. That way, if a person resides in BSM and also owns a lot, they do not get 2 votes. I believe that people not living in BSM full time should make the decisions for those of us that do.
The issue of vote count has been an problem in every organization I have been involved in. It will definitely be beneficial for our community to change our procedure. People who are involved should be the ones to make the decisions, they are the ones that have made the effort to be informed.
First let me say thank you for all your hard work. I truly understand, having been there and done that.My recommendation is for using the votes submitted only. Majority of the votes submitted wins.Thank you again.
Change to the majority of votes received, if only 150 votes are received and 76 are yes and 74 no, the 76 wins. I know of a few owners who don't care, so be it, let the ones who do carry the vote. Once every owner is notified., there should be no complaints, although I know better. Good Luck, I will support.
I think we ought to have a decent majority of those who vote. Like instead of a simple 51% .60% of those voting should be need to pass an item.
Seems reasonable to have only those who vote effect the outcome of the measure voted on, so long as everyone knows there is a measure to be voted on and the deadline to vote.
Perhaps a door to door campaign is necessary. Is there any way to do a vote by e-mail? This has been a unsolvable problem for more years than I can remember. Have lived in the meadows since 1998. That's why I no longer attend meetings.
We support the changes that are needed so we can go forward as a deed restricted community.
After reaching Quorum, we would be in favor of a two-thirds "Yes" of those voting required to pass. We have always voted on community issues in the past 11 years and will continue to do so. Good luck!
WE ARE VERY HAPPY WITH THE BOARD AND WILL VOTE FOR WHATEVER THE BOARD WOULD SUGGEST. ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS WE BUILT HERE WAS THAT BURNT STORE MEADOWS IS A DEED RESTRICTED COMMUNITY.
We believe that the threshold should be 300 of all home owners as in the past only being able to get 300 people to vote makes it hard to do anything going forward. Since home owners or vacant lot owners are not participating 300 seems reasonable to get the job done. By the way, we are not in favor of apartments being built in entrance to Burnt Store meadows. Will make it look cheap and block the view of other home owners. I believe that making it 55 or older may help if it has to be built. One of the great beauties of Burnt Store is the cleanliness and open space and quiet neighborhoods.
I would go with whatever the board seems reasonable. We purchased our retirement home in burnt store meadows, based on the value to increase, and I could not agree more, that rules need to be enforced, and well driving through the development, there are many places not in compliance. The majority of the places and areas are very well kept up, but there are places that are looking run down, and devaluations the other properties.
Thanks I hope this helps.
Keep the current requirement! I personally do not want a "smaller" or "select" group of owners to decide for everyone!I don't presently live in BSM, but intend to do so again in the future, that is why I feel VERY strongly to keep current requirement!
Thanks for listening.
Keep it at 66 2/3% and work at increasing the number of votes - We are building on 150 Acalypha and should be moving there in about 4 months. We are very excited about being part of this community and would like to be active keeping it as beautiful and well-kept as it is. I would be willing to drive people to the POA meetings and would also be willing to go door to door with a census when votes are needed.
In my mind we actually do not have a voting process. It's just ridiculous to require 66% of the number of lot owners to vote in favor to get something done, instead of basing the vote on the actual number of lot owners that care enough to express their opinions by casting a vote. If they don't care to vote, then they shouldn't have the power to defeat the process. Aren't there any recognized standards for voting thresholds for HOA's? If not, I copied the following from Roberts Rules (parliamentary) on a website. I would be comfortable with either of these requirements, but based on the votes cast:
Parliamentary law establishes two fundamental voting thresholds:
Majority vote: Except when governed by a specific rule to the contrary, a majority vote is the fundamental requirement to pass a motion. A majority, simply stated, is more than half. And a majority vote refers to more than half of the votes actually cast, not to more than half of the votes that could be cast if everybody voted. Unless a motion receives a majority vote, the motion is lost. If the vote is tied, it doesn’t receive a majority vote, so it’s lost.
Two-thirds vote: As a means of balancing the rights of the entire group with the rights of individuals, some decisions require the affirmative consent of at least twice the number of members as are not in favor. This vote is called a two-thirds vote and refers to two-thirds of the votes cast.
According to Robert’s Rules, a two-thirds vote is required:
To suspend or change a rule already adopted
To close or limit debate on a motion
To prevent the consideration of a motion
To close nominations or polls
I am for 66 2/3 of those that vote. Everyone has the chance to vote and if you don't care enough to vote you really just don't care.
I am in favor of amending the deed restrictions.
Thank you
I think it should be counted as those that vote, otherwise it's not important enough for other to vote on the issue at hand.
I would go with what ever the board seems reasonable,we purchased are retirement home in burnt store meadows, based on the value to increase, and I could not agree more, that rules need to be enforced, and well driving through the development, there are many places not in compliance. The majority of the places and areas are very well kept up, but there are places that are looking run down, and devaluations the other properties.
Thanks I hope this helps.
We do support amending the deed restrictions for our community, Thanks for the update.
Your March 21 letter was very vague. The one issue that was identified is vacant lots; it appears that anyone can park anything on them any time of the day or night. Perhaps the overnight restrictions of 4 per year need to be expanded so that people will not resort to illegal parking. My point is all of the changes to deed restrictions need to be defined to the membership. I'm not comfortable changing the required votes unless I know what is being proposed.
Good afternoon! My husband Blake and I just moved into the neighborhood a couple of weeks ago. We received the letter from the board regarding deed restrictions and agree with the importance of voting. We are happy to be involved and vote when the time comes. This is a beautiful neighborhood and deed restrictions are one of the reasons we chose it!
There is no doubt the current voting system is ineffective for the association to move forward on any and all initiatives.
There are all kinds of ways to approach this and I am sure there will be many suggestions, but I am thinking about a system that would allow meaningful voting and representation of the "truly interested parties.
I believe we need to be realistic in the actual numbers of votes that will be cast as indicated by past history. If in fact 300 votes seems to be that maximum votes expected, some may balk as setting that as a threshold for a majority rules vote. But to those I would say, what is your involvement and voting history.
Instead of a majority, you could raise the threshold to pass with a 2/3's majority of the total votes cast. And if only 200 people care to vote, then a 2/3's yes vote on the total votes submitted would prevail.
Something has to be done to help this BOD to do their job effectively.
When we bought our home in 2000, we only had to be concerned with the grass in the green belts and empty lots mowed. That and to make sure garbage and trash were picked up. It was a nice neighborhood. Now, it seems that the board in these latter years has spent more money on lawyer fees and dreaming up all sort of nonsensical ideas. We don't need more changes and there shouldn't even have to be a board. Do like the Isles and a few other places do and let the city take care of matters.
I'm for changing it to bring it up to date
Thank you for your concerns and your time. We need to be able to address change for the better of our community.
in favor
Majority of those voting. Votes requested by the Board are not world changing events. Those that are willing to take the time to vote on issues that concern the community in which they live, either by proxy or in person, should have their votes count. Those unwilling to vote should be willing to accept the decision of those that do vote. That is the same with all voting.
Both my husband, Brian Peterson, and I support amending the deed restrictions to enable those who participate to make decisions.
We have been property owners for 5 years and voted via proxy until moving here last fall. Now we vote in person.
A simple majority or even 2/3rds majority of votes would be appropriate.
I do not want this changed. It is up to the Board to provide enough information on issues that need to be voted on so that we can make intelligent devisions. 15% is not representative of the majority. What I might add is that we receive the agenda by e-mail but never the minutes of what was decided so that we do not know what was passed. The argument to this would be "attend the meetings"! With a management company we should be able to get minutes at least two to three days after a meeting.
The issue of vote count has been an problem in every organization I have been involved in. It will definitely be beneficial for our community to change our procedure. People who are involved should be the ones to make the decisions, they are the ones that have made the effort to be informed.
Received your letter and actually read it. However, I feel that most people won't, as it is quite lengthy. It is my opinion that we would have a much better voting turn out if the ballot was sent via email to homeowners and people could vote online. I am afraid that the day of people taking the time to complete the ballot AND mail it is over.
Just a suggestion. Thank you for your time and service!
I am in favor of this. As a vacant lot owner I am mostly disconnected but assume those that volunteer their time for the betterment of the development shouldn't have the restrictions evidenced on the letter I received.
51% of votes
I think if one item at a time was sent in normal language via email and also posted to Next door to be considered with a simple Yes or No vote would improve your vote returns.
I am in favor of having all votes be decided by a simple majority of those voting, without respect to minimums. This would encourage higher voting results as a side benefit.
We are all for Deed Restrictions a yes or a no vote is all you should need. We also have to inforce them. Trash cans in front of garages, dogs run loose and barking. We know we live with it.
I would think that two-thirds of the total vote would suffice, not two-thirds of the total of eligible voters. Too many people (like myself) are from out of state or elderly and are unlikely to participate. Outreach should include color mailers that are short and to the point, rather than including the info in newsletters and other materials that looks uninteresting. Finally, is there a Facebook page? Set that up and reach out to the community to build support. Much as I detest Facebook personally, it's where most people can be reached these days.
I appreciate the recent letter sent out. After so many years of residing in BSM and attending a few meetings, it always seemed like the deed restrictions were never addressed. I now have a clearer understanding of why things were never addressed.
As far as changing the threshold, I'm not sure that this suggestion is "politically correct" but I believe that we should re-qualify the votes for the "owners" in BSM. We should only count residing home owners (>6 months/year) as full votes. Owning land would not count or would only hold a percentage of a vote. That way, if a person resides in BSM and also owns a lot, they do not get 2 votes. I believe that people not living in BSM full time should make the decisions for those of us that do.
The issue of vote count has been an problem in every organization I have been involved in. It will definitely be beneficial for our community to change our procedure. People who are involved should be the ones to make the decisions, they are the ones that have made the effort to be informed.
First let me say thank you for all your hard work. I truly understand, having been there and done that.My recommendation is for using the votes submitted only. Majority of the votes submitted wins.Thank you again.
Change to the majority of votes received, if only 150 votes are received and 76 are yes and 74 no, the 76 wins. I know of a few owners who don't care, so be it, let the ones who do carry the vote. Once every owner is notified., there should be no complaints, although I know better. Good Luck, I will support.
I think we ought to have a decent majority of those who vote. Like instead of a simple 51% .60% of those voting should be need to pass an item.
Seems reasonable to have only those who vote effect the outcome of the measure voted on, so long as everyone knows there is a measure to be voted on and the deadline to vote.
Perhaps a door to door campaign is necessary. Is there any way to do a vote by e-mail? This has been a unsolvable problem for more years than I can remember. Have lived in the meadows since 1998. That's why I no longer attend meetings.
We support the changes that are needed so we can go forward as a deed restricted community.
After reaching Quorum, we would be in favor of a two-thirds "Yes" of those voting required to pass. We have always voted on community issues in the past 11 years and will continue to do so. Good luck!
WE ARE VERY HAPPY WITH THE BOARD AND WILL VOTE FOR WHATEVER THE BOARD WOULD SUGGEST. ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS WE BUILT HERE WAS THAT BURNT STORE MEADOWS IS A DEED RESTRICTED COMMUNITY.