A homeowner in Goodyear, Arizona is locked in a dispute with his homeowner’s association over his practice of distributing free cold water from his driveway.
A homeowner in Goodyear, Arizona is locked in a dispute with his homeowner’s association over his practice of distributing free cold water from his driveway.
To play devil’s advocate for a moment, having a sufficient vote notification period is important.
Though if that were the board’s true concern, they surely would have announced intention to notify the community alongside their statement cancelling the vote for this reason, which hasn’t happened insofar as I can tell.
Voting details:
According to recent census data, Goodyear has 2.7 people per household. It doesn’t say for the city specifically, but Arizona appears to have a minor population of 21%. I saw in the statement this association represents “over 1,000” households. In my experience, that could mean anywhere from 1,001 - 1,099 homes. The city of Goodyear held a vote earlier this year to approve a water utility contract, which lists an expected voter turnout of 17%.
By this, I’m guessing less than 3,000 people live in this community, with about 2,400 eligible to vote on an association proposal, but likely around 400 people that would go to the effort of voting on such a tedious issue.
I think that if half of the community shows up with less than a day’s notice to make themselves heard, that’s probably representative enough for how the community feels about these board members.
I appreciate your comment.
I dislike administrative issues on votes being called out by the board after the vote takes place. When administrative issues are noted after the vote, it looks like the board is trying to subvert the membership.
Thank you. I did think about that also.
‘Volunteers’ did the counting, but surely they should have known or been informed that a quorum of votes equal to x% of the community are required for the vote to be valid. If the count doesn’t meet or exceed that value, discard the ballots.
Or even why was the vote permitted to take place in less than the required notification period? I presume the answer to these questions is either incompetence or bravado on the part of the board members taking their position for granted.
I find it unlikely that if the vote had went the other way, the board would have had the integrity to raise the same objections.