WHAT WE WANT

• NO HOA and acknowledgment, written legal opinion on record stating that SHHA does not meet this criteria.

• Written recognition that mandatory dues or damage assessments are not allowed in Sandia Heights unless a Unit writes this into their Unit covenants

• Stop all Board actions at unifying covenants.  This is not SHHAs or ACCs function. Residents didn't not approve, nor support this path, and do not approve of hiring an outside marketing firm to do so.  (again this is the SHHA campaign from July 2024.)

• SHHA to remove "homeowners association" from its name

• ACC applications open to the Unit residents, because under the covenants, each Unit has an ACC created. The covenants do not specify one ACC for all Units. Residents in a unit can be called upon to review their Units' applications. This would save a lot of current harassment, inconsistencies and favoritisms.

• Disapproved applications known to the Unit residents

• No Units forced to pay dues since residents can pay as you go for any ACC applications.

• Independent group of residents used for APPEALS to the ACC and CSC

Residents bought into the covenants, not SHHA

ACC is defined in the covenants; not SHHA

IN a new org, dues would be optional.   If resident's need to submit an application, pay the fees to the new company as it is now.  The new entity would still have an AC committee.  This committee could be made up of residents in each Unit to approve or disapprove the applications in their own Unit and according the Unit covenants.  For instance, if an application came in for Unit 5 which wanted to put on a light color stucco, Unit 5 residents would make this decision.  Residents own the covenants and their applications.  It should be kept that way.  The way it is now, a group of 7 people, probably who don't even live in Unit 5, are making this decision.  Why is that any better for the community?

Other committees don't necessarily need to exist in Sandia Heights.  It may be nice to have, some residents might like it, but it is subjective, and not necessarily a benefit to the entire community.  CSC is a fabricated for residents to complain. This is not codified in any covenants, and people didn't purchase into a CSC.  This is a service from this outside entity and there is a cost to use it.  It might be $15/month.  Sound familar?

If other committees exists, this is where residents may pay for their services too,  just like a regular corporation or store.  If you like the membership directory, pay for it.  If you like getting the GRIT, pay for it.  If you want, cheaper tram tickets, support this entity that would provide them.  But don't think these are benefits to all in the community and all residents must support it.  They are not common properties. 

An architectural committee would not need a Board.  SHHA big office doesn't need to exists either, or it could be smaller and open only 2 days per week.  Everything is digital these days.  Again, applications that come in for a Unit would be sent to the Unit residents.  Those who live in the Unit would be able to decide, not by a committee who doesn't live in said Units or whose covenants read differently.  This provides transparency and keeps the residents responsible to their Unit covenants.

This is how it began with only one committee and transparency.