Ms. Tatman, good day.
We received your letter regarding the proposals to replace
all or part of the residents’ vehicle access system. Due to a business
commitment I shall be unable to attend Thursday’s Board meeting, so I will be
obliged if you will pass this e-mail to the Board verbatim.
1.
The proposal to require residents to have
access transponders permanently affixed to their vehicles is arrogant,
presumptuous and poorly thought through. It is flatly
unacceptable. Out HOA has no right or domain to fix anything permanently
to our vehicles. I might also add that for those of us owning property in
CA, to which we often drive, it presents something of a legal problem since CA
vehicle code § 26708 (a) (1) states: “A person shall not drive any motor
vehicle with any object or material placed, displayed, installed, affixed, or
applied upon the windshield or side or rear windows.” I own a home in FL
too and have a car there. Suction cups work fine for the toll
transponders there. They’re good enough for Cimarron Hills access
transponders. Also, I doubt you will guarantee the eternal life of these
transponders. Permanent fixture means that the driver, car and
transponder will have to be in the same place to fix any problem. The
mail currently works fine for our existing transponders. Such a use of
time may not bother the majority of retirees on our Board. Some of us
have jobs and businesses to run.
2.
You say we may only have two transponders?
My home has a three-car garage. I have paid for three transponders. Why
do you think it is acceptable to short-change me?
3.
I have lived at my home here for more than
several years. You receive money from my bank every month. There is
no reason for me to produce you photo ID to let you know who lives at my home
or to obtain access to my community. I’m sorry, but once again this
portrays an arrogant and presumptuous attitude.
This project needs a radical re-think.
I might also point out that, on December 3rd 2012
at 2:15pm you wrote:
“Trident Security will be coming on
board. There will be a substantial savings without compromising
service. “
And, later at 3:07pm the same day:
“I wanted to clarify that it is only
the contracts with Safeguard that involve access control
with the security officers at the guardhouse and the evening
patrol that are being changed. The transponders that allow you
access into the community and how you set up your visitors are done through
Quickpass and will remain the same. Trident works with the Quickpass
system just as Safeguard does.”
I don’t expect it was your intention
to intentionally mislead the residents to be sanguine about a cost-free change
in our security arrangements, but that is what you did. I distinctly
remember Safeguard holding out to us that Quickpass was a proprietary system of
theirs. Other persons now on the Board were present at that
meeting. It stretches our credulity to suppose that our new security firm
would not need to replace an access system controlled by their predecessor and
competitor. Members of our Board either knew that or should have known
it. So, having told us some two and a half months ago that the
transition would be cost-free, now we find it isn’t. If I missed it, how
much is this new access control project going to cost?
You should not read this e-mail to
say that I am against all changes to our access control system. I have
consistently championed security at our gate, and can be persuaded that changes
might need to be made and money spent. But not this project as
planned.
By the way, on the subject of
security, the Safeguard guards who did not recognize us had a password in the
system to verify identity if we drove through the guarded side of the
entrance. The Trident guards just take our word for it. Not good.
Regards
Anthony Humpage
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment