Well JS, I agree.............

that dialogue, discussion, and compromise whenever two or more groups (or individuals) disagree is necessary. However, most would agree you can't "dialogue" or "discuss" or "compromise" your way out of legal documents. Most would also agree that there is an appropriate way to proceed, like placing board members on the board legitimately. For example, Mr. Kerber sat on the board illegitimately. Is that negative? Ok. Fine. But the fact remains the Association's attorney verified it and the board hid the attorney's findings, even from other board members.

Did Tom Davis who won by 7 votes over the next candidate hinder his opponents by preventing them from communicating with the apartment owners? Sure he did. Negative? OK. Fine. But the fact remains. 5 people, board members that “won” in part by an incorrect tabulation of apartment votes, voted him to the board in 2005. Negative? OK. Fine. But the information is available.

Mr. Navratil and Mr. Kuhlman said they were on the board for one reason and one reason only; to dissolve Jonathan. Well, the board voted last year NOT to look into that matter any further and came up with an expensive lawsuit where the Association sued the homeowners. So, why didn't Mr. Navratil and Kuhlman resign? They were only on the board for one reason and it wasn't on the table any longer. I know, negative.

But I don’t agree with you presumption that my post "implied (incorrectly) that the newer neighborhoods in Jonathan have some sort of duty to pay for the upkeep of the older portions of Jonathan." I never implied that or stated it, nor do I drink that Kool-Aid. In fact, as a supporter of the PBJ platform, I believe each community within Jonathan has an equal responsibility to maintain all the assets of the association. For example, more money has been spent on replacing the trails in Autumn Woods then on improving Lake Grace beach over the last 3 years. No gripe here. But I do have a complaint when the Autumn Woods board members choose not to share dues allocation information to the homeowners. The numbers are available, but it's against "their agenda'. When residents from Autumn Woods complained at the Special Meeting in October about not getting their fair share of the "dues dollar", none of the board members pointed out this inaccurate information. However, they were quick to correct others who didn't agree with their agenda during this meeting, as well as other meetings. Negative? Sure, but don't put your head in the sand and scream negativity when someone points out a concern. Blame those who created the situation to begin with. Some call it accountability.

On February 19, 2005, Tom Kerber wrote a Letter to The Editor of the Chaska Herald stating, "The city portion of the property taxes on the hypothetical $160,000 home in Chaska is $315. If this same house is situated in Jonathan, the combination of city taxes plus association annual dues is 66 percent higher or a total of $522. What are the residents receiving for this additional money? After 3 years on the board, member of the Executive Committee and Treasurer, I don't see a single improvement in this area. Why is that JJ?

And I don't agree with the small-minded people who think that just because Lake Grace beach and pavilion is on the fringes of Original Jonathan, that it's not an asset the association should be taking care of for everyone. For example, Lake Grace is closer to Autumn Woods than many other places in Jonathan. You can watch the association meetings and see Autumn Woods’s board members suggest it's a useless amenity to the "newer neighborhoods" as you describe them. I won't speak for all "Original Jonathan" members, but I do agree everyone should be contributing equally to improving the beach area.

Unfortunately, many residents in Autumn Woods and Clover have been drinking the Kool-Aid administered by the recently departed board members. I don't agree with, or believe your premise that the residents of the newer neighborhoods "are valued and appreciated only for their ability (and willingness) to continue to provide much-needed cash for the upkeep of assets located within the older original neighborhoods". I think that's the garbage that the removed board members want you to believe. Must be the cherry Kool-Aid.

But I think I understand the dilemma; JJ and we are all victims of it. The Jonathan debacle over the last x number of years has been created due to people not taking an active role in the association and not paying attention and staying informed. I’d like to be more informed. Help me to understand how those in the newer neighborhoods know “ they are valued and appreciated only for their ability (and willingness) to continue to provide much-needed cash for the upkeep of assets located within the older original neighborhoods". Your insight would be appreciated.

A few brief moments in time where there is some temporary discomfort is far outweighed by the positive direction we can take the association. Those who have been misled have a wonderful opportunity to contribute positively to our community. We hope you join those working towards this end.

Cash Cow, a.k.a Kool Aid

Once again JS, you are misinterpreting the comments. Providing ACCURATE information is actually relevant!

As you point out, I did state "... the Board was self-serving for trying to remove certain neighborhoods from Jonathan" and "... This wouldn’t be a big deal to those whose interests they served, the homeowners in Autumn Woods and Clover, but the homeowners who live in “Original Jonathan”. This is all accurate in my opinion and many of the other homeowners within Jonathan.

However, my comment "Original Jonathan" would be left holding an empty wallet and dilapidated capital assets…” does NOT suggest AT ALL your supposition. All of Jonathan’s money should be spent on Jonathan amenities and the responsibilities of the Association. Not spending everyone's money on a ridiculous lawsuit that holds very little water or merit and serves a few.

The empty wallet we now have is due to irresponsible board members who have left the Association in a very difficult financial position serving their illegal agenda. No one would gripe if you and those who agree with you use your money to sue the Association. That's appropriate. But using everyone's money (estimates as high as $180,000 but who knows for sure due to the poor record keeping as commented on by the Association's own auditor) to get a judge to answer a question is ridiculous! Suppose the judge didn’t agree with the mal-contents. What would you do then? Spend another $250,000 to appeal?

I guess if homeowners wanted to sue the malintended board members for taking the association down this path, you would also support the Association paying for it. Not a bad idea.