Thank you for your response, and thank you for the selfless efforts of yourself, Diane Rosenberg, Karen Castle, Matt Krafft, and Tom Seamon on the committee. I remain concerned regarding this “wholesale changing” of the Restrictive Covenants. I am unaware of the specific issues that the committee is addressing that “requires” a revamping of all of the Restrictive Covenants. As you can tell by the multiple postings regarding this issue, many owners remain confused by the need for the extent of the changes. I would like to restate some of Jim Croker’s comments from his May 11th posting because I believe they are very relevant to this project, but Jim posted to a different subject:
“With respect to the existing proposals, I think they are objectionable in numerous respects and unnecessary in most, and I am aware of a number of other owners that object to various aspects of the proposals as well (and the entire project). As everyone who has been a Tower Shores owner over the last decade knows, we have had various Boards submit proposed amendments to the bylaws/covenants/rules. The community has never asked the Board to undertake these projects. While there may be some silent support, each time there have been substantial objections. My recollection is that at one meeting there was a vote passed not to spend any more money on the project (which may or may not have been ignored by the Board). I don’t think that the problems have been a function of membership of the Board. I think that if any small group of us decided what we might think the bylaws/covenants/rules should be, we would not be aware of the perspectives and special circumstances of many other members of the community. I am not opposed to improving our bylaws/covenants/rules, but rather than continue this iterative process of having the Board prepare proposals that do not reflect community guidance or support and redoing the proposals after the objections roll in, I think we should start with determining whether the community wants amendments to address particular issues and proceeding to draft and vote only on amendments that the community has already supported.”
As Jim states, if there are objections to individual covenants, lets determine whether the community wants amendments to address those specific covenants and proceed to draft and vote only on amendments that the community has already supported.