To the editor:
In his letter to the editor, homeowner and board member Fredrick Wilkening expressed his view that the purpose of homeowner associations is to benefit the cities and counties where they are located (“HOA board loses valuable members,” March 17 Review-Journal. He says that the intent and purpose of HOAs is to use homeowners for enrichment of those government entities, because those entities enjoy full taxes from the homeowners in HOAs but provide substantially fewer services than are provided to those who do not live in a community with an HOA.
It is noteworthy Mr. Wilkening makes no mention of any intent for the HOAs to provide benefits to the homeowners in such communities.
As to Mr. Wilkening’s assertions about complaints by unworthy homeowners to the state’s HOA oversight board, I have attended almost all meetings of the board for years. To my recollection, there has never been any homeowner who has complained about the HOA they live in per se. There have been copious complaints about abusive, cruel boards and hostile community managers who use their authority, power and unlimited financial resources as weapons to harm and punish naive and helpless homeowners.
Mr. Wilkening laments about representation on the HOA oversight board. Nevada law defines “unit-owners’ associations” and “unit’s owners.” Three of the seven members on the HOA oversight board in fact represent the interests of unit owners. It seems Mr. Wilkening’s problem is based on the notion that an HOA is the board of directors, not the homeowners who actually live in the community. Some education in Nevada law might illuminate him to the folly of his point of view.
One of the key responsibilities of both the HOA oversight board (the Commission for Common-Interest Communities and Condominium Hotels) and the Ombudsman for Owners is to protect homeowners from abuse and to punish the perpetrators. The homeowners are by far the weaker and disadvantaged party in any dispute against an HOA board, which enjoys unlimited professional services and financial resources. Homeowners need and deserve the protections provided by the state.
Localized news coverage
To the editor:
Adding to the recent letters about the Review-Journal’s new main focus on local news, I’ve been thinking lately about nearby small towns, such as Cedar City and St. George, Utah. We visit there often, and when we do, we usually pick up a local newspaper. Guess what we read? All local news.
Publishing primarily local news is appropriate for smaller communities. But isn’t Las Vegas striving to be a world-class city? And if Las Vegas is a sophisticated, urban city, visited by people from all over the world, doesn’t Las Vegas deserve a world-class newspaper?
I wish the Review-Journal’s publisher and editor would move on to a small town somewhere in the West, where they could focus on printing mainly local news for their readership. Then the Review-Journal could return to its original format and everyone would be happy.
To the editor:
Michael Stilley’s letter to the editor forgot to mention George Soros and Michael Bloomberg for trying to influence elections toward the left (“Buying politicians,” March 18 Review-Journal). This type of influence buying happens on both sides of the aisle.
Mr. Stilley also believes that such financial support creates an undue influence on voters and buys elections. Unfortunately, it does influence the low-information voters. You know, the ones who can tell you everything about professional sports, reality shows and rock stars but know nothing about our governments or their representatives. They are the dumbbells influenced by which candidate has the most signs on the fences or calls the most during dinnertime. They get the government they deserve. The minority of us who actually try to be informed just have to suffer.