Letters to the Editor
Editor:
I’m writing as a fellow resident who cares deeply about our community, and the recent changes in our rules have left me feeling uneasy.
One thing that’s bothering me is how some new rules seem to be affecting everyone because of a few individuals. It’s frustrating to see the majority of us facing consequences because of the actions of a small group. One example is the new parking rule.
I understand the new gate system is meant to keep us safe and control who comes in. However, I wonder if there are better ways to handle those who break the rules. Maybe taking away their access tags could be a more direct approach.
When it comes to getting our new ID tags, I wonder if there’s an easier way. Instead of filling out paperwork, why not use an iPad to enter our information directly into the computer? It could help reduce mistakes and speed up the process. Also sharing passwords in writing seems risky. We should explore safer options.
Paying for a second ID tag can be a financial burden, especially for those of us on fixed incomes. It’s important to think about how this affects everyone in our community.
We all want our community to be lively and welcoming. Adding too many restrictions can make it harder for some of our elderly neighbors to stay connected with their loved ones. It’s also important to think about privacy and whether some rules from a long time ago still make sense today.
Regarding the parking rules, maybe we could find other solutions, like improving our carport structures, instead of spending money on unnecessary office improvements.
Heinz Schulmeister Mutual 3 Editor:
I disagree with a letter (Oct. 19) that the intersection of Golden Rain Road and St. Andrews is dangerous. The writer did not explain what is dangerous about it. The speed limit is 25 miles an hour and turning lanes are clearly marked. There have been a couple collisions there due to operator error. There have also been cars driven into the wash along a straight stretch of roadway. Should we put up rubber bumpers?
The only thing that is dangerous is the diminished capacity of people who insist on driving past their ability to react. I should know: my aunt of 90 years would not stop driving until (she had) two crashes involving stationary objects. I am still working and do not need an extra 45 seconds of cycle time added twice to my daily commute. If you don’t like turns on red lights, you don’t have to turn.
I do notice that drivers are not observing the 25 mph limit. Maybe place some speed bumps to slow them down?
I would like to add that AAA.com offers a senior driving class that is excellent. I took the online class, and now I have a discount on my insurance. I was pleasantly surprised at how much I learned. For example, the 10- and two-hand position that we all learned is not the preferred and position anymore. Who knew? David Rettich Mutual 4 Editor: How did the GRF decide to implement a vetting fee for instructors. I’m not looking for blame, but I’m wondering how a fee could be collected before the policy or rule went into effect.
Who directed Recreation to send out letters dated Aug. 17, 2023, to club presidents and instructors and demand payment be made within 10 days?
I’ve been recently told it was because the glossary of terms was revised, but a person had to make the decision to send out threatening letters.
I looked through old agendas, and the original policy was adopted in January 2023 and meant for construction contractors, not instructors. Somewhere between January and August someone looked at the glossary of terms and declared to someone that instructors were considered contractors. At the September Administration meeting, it was decided all independent contractors were to pay the fee. This was after most, if not all instructors, had paid the fee. Cart before the horse syndrome? How did this happen? Now, these instructors will receive a refund. This costs GRF, us shareholders, money. The process failed. Again, I’m not looking to blame anyone but, of course, for a process to fail, there are individuals involved. GRF should fully understand what happened so this does not happen again. Linda Herman Mutual 12 Editor’s Note: GRF staff is continually seeking ways to recover costs as part of its fiduciary responsibility to shareholders. To that end, all independent contractors working in LW are required to pay a $150 fee to recover staff time needed to verify they have met insurance requirements to work in LW. In a recent policy review, GRF staff determined that paid instructors used by clubs were conducting business on GRF property, and thus, subject to the $150 insurance verification fee. A letter explaining that finding and requesting payment was sent out in August to apprise the nine affected clubs. The fee was subsequently discussed at two committee meetings after shareholders questioned it. The GRF Administration Committee added the item to the Oct. 24 GRF Board agenda. The board voted to remove club instructors from the category of vendors and refund the fee to the 11 instructors who paid it. Editor: One would think common sense is enough to rely on, but today, on two occasions, bicyclists riding on the sidewalk forced me—a pedestrian—to yield. Since common sense and courtesy seem not to prevail, may I remind my fellow cyclists to yield to pedestrians? It is against the law in Seal Beach to ride a bicycle on the sidewalk. Riding on the street can be dangerous, I agree. But cyclists who do choose to ride on sidewalks must defer to pedestrians.
Get off your bike. Ride on the grass. Don’t force pedestrians to make way for you.
Mark Bloomfield Mutual 4 Editor:
GRF has a couple of restrictions in converting the RV lot to residential property. First, its own by-laws restricts its authority for the number of residential units to the current number, 6,608 units; this language can be found in Article II of the by-laws in the last sentence of Section 3. While that can be amended to a greater number, it would take an election of the GRF certificate holders (us, not the GRF Board of Directors) to do so.
Second, Exhibit B to the Trust Agreement between GRF and the Mutuals does allow for a total of 6,752 units, so the increase would not violate the agreement between the Mutuals and GRF, but Section VII, paragraph J says GRF is “expressly prohibited from exercising any power vested in it for the primary benefit of Trustee or for the benefit of any person other than the beneficiaries of this Trust and their stockholders.” Adding more residential units would not benefit the Mutuals nor their stockholders since no “Mutual 18” would exist until after being built and only GRF would benefit by converting the RV lot to a more profitable use.
Complicated? A little, but who would want to open this expensive can of worms by trying to develop the area against the popular will of nearly 9,000 residents?
I think we are safe even if the City of Seal Beach “recognized” the RV area as a potential site for more housing. As a practical matter, it is functionally like making a minor adjustment to the city zoning plan.
It helps the city to avoid expensive penalties levied by the State of California without changing the RV lot from what it is.
Richard Winslow Mutual 8 Editor:
September’s Security Report (Oct. 26) reported 249 incidents, including six thefts. These numbers are comparable to the August report. Only one of these incidents, in my reading of them, might have been prevented by the significantly heightened security that is purported to result from instituting the RFID system, but maybe not. The family member that was arrested after a dispute might not have been on the approved list had RFID been in operation in September.
How pressing is/was our need for a state-of-the-art security system?
And I am still curious about how much of our monthly GRF assessment is due to RFID and other associated elements of the new security system.
Lee Hoyt Mutual 11
Editor:
The other morning, I was rudely awakened outside my bedroom window by a dog barking at another dog. Their owners stood talking, ignoring their barking dogs.
Unfortunately for me it was 6:30 a.m. and one of the few days that my work schedule allowed me to sleep in.
I also have a neighbor across the greenbelt in another Mutual who likely keeps her dog on the patio all day long.
Her dog barks incessantly whenever others walk past the unit. The dog barks at other dogs, mail and delivery persons, squirrels and even rabbits. The bark is loud, annoying and continual, disturbing the peace that I and most Leisure World residents desire.
I hope this letter serves as a friendly reminder for people to train their dogs to be polite and quiet. It would also do their dogs a service.
Jeanne Pontac Mutual 10 Editor:
Usually my dog Marley and I head out for our morning walk at 7:15. Today, he was very antsy. He sleeps with me and he has a ladder to get up on the bed. This morning (Oct. 24), he pushed me to get up and take him out at 6:15. Marley is 7 years old and weighs 10 pounds.
We went on our regular route through Mutual 10. As we got toward the south end, we saw this coyote that was twice Marley’s size.
Marley was on a 6-foot leash, and he pulled toward the coyote barking a very loud bark and kept moving toward the coyote that kept moving away.
Marley was being aggressive, and the coyote kept backing away and then ran south to the next Mutual. A woman came out of her home and applauded Marley for doing such a great job.
When we got home, he had a nice shower and rubdown for being a good protector.
Barry Allen Mutual 10
