This web page describes our position regarding the Olympic Ridge Estates Community Association's proposals for a turnaround which would take land from of the north side of our home site. This turnaround is at a dead end in an area of 2-acre to 5-acre lots, not a busy road.

We hope that after reviewing this web page you will agree with us that the proposal from the Board is misguided, and that the Board is not allowed to encroach upon the land rights of its individual landowners. Please support us with your vote at the Association's next meeting: Saturday November 1st, 2003 at 9:00am.

Please contact us with any question or comments. We would be very happy to discuss this issue with you and to show you the area in question “on the ground”.

On October 12th, we wrote an open letter to all of the property owners in the community association in order to explain our position. If you have not yet read it please click here to read the entire letter. In a nutshell, the proposals from the Board would:

• Take much of the 30 foot easement from the north side of our property
• Widen the existing 18 foot roadbed up to 55 feet. That's triple the existing width!
• Create a giant parking lot, an eyesore, and maintenance headache, very close to our house
• Set a precedent in diminishing the property rights of all landowners in the association The Board has no legal authority to make or enforce a proposal to take a landowner's property.

• Original Proposal from the Board with photos
• Proposal "A" from the Board with photos
• Proposal "B" from the Board with photos
• Our counterproposal with photos

The private road system for our entire Bywater Way community is covered by separate covenants, not our ORECA covenants.  Use of an easement is allowed for its designated purposes, i.e. for ingress and egress to the properties and utility access. The Board has not shown that our present system is inadequate for these purposes.  Increased maintenance costs would have to be covered by the private Bywater road system (i.e. you).

Perhaps at this point you ask yourself if we have tried to pursue alternatives other than legal action. All of us prefer to live in an association which is full of neighborliness and good cheer, not litigation. Even though there is no need to widen the turnaround, we made a counter-proposal in February 2003. We made this counter-proposal in order to avoid a protracted battle over this issue. Unlike the Board’s proposals, our counter-proposal both meets Jefferson County standards and attempts to minimize the amount of land taken. However, this counterproposal was dismissed by the board without consideration and they have refused to discuss it with us, either privately or in a meeting.

For the full letter from our attorney with the counter-proposal and full explanation, please click here. In summary, we have been (and still are)  reasonable in our approach to this issue. We are the unfortunate recipients, not the initiators, of these misguided actions.

Unless the Board withdraws its proposals immediately, we will be forced to pursue legal action to protect our land rights and by extension the land rights of all landowners within our Association against any future such actions by the Board.

We do not want a legal fight. But fight we will. Taking of property from an unwilling landowner by the association is a very grave matter, and such action must not be initiated arbitrarily. Encroachment on individual landowners rights by the Board can not be tolerated.

There is no government entity which has oversight power over community associations. Thus, it is up to each of us to ensure that our associations act in a reasonable, deliberate, and equitable manner.