Two. That’s how many members formally objected to the exterior wood siding regulation the RSFA board just passed.
Max Wuthrich wrote a scathing argument against the regulation. In his letter he showed that about a third of all Rancho homes are negatively impacted by the regulation. But he sent it to the RSF Post and the Board late the night before the board vote and it was too late.
I’m glad someone reputable is speaking up against banning the wood siding. I agree with Max Wuthrich that each prospective project should be judged for its individual merit.
Four. That’s the number of emails that anti-wood siding regulation people sent me after I published Max’s letter. I’ve excerpted some of these comments in this article in the highlighted indents.
Max’s letter is true and bold and should be supported. The Board’s proposed blanket restriction on “wood siding” is punitive and sophomoric. The decision to even entertain such a uniformed direction is clear evidence of a lack of historical knowledge regarding the architectural use and benefits of wood siding throughout the centuries.
Sometime in the last year, I was arguing about some other Board regulation with a Board member and they brought up an argument that stopped me in my tracks. “How many people have objected to this?” he asked. “Well, one”, I conceded. Out of about 4,000 members. The point was well made. With so few people taking the time to even send an email to the Board, the only thing a board member could conclude is that their resolutions and regulations are not very controversial.
I know there are many more people out there who do not like this exterior wood siding limitation. The regulation places a fairly small limit on how much you can renovate your house for about one third of ranch residents. That cannot be good for property values if you live in a wood house. Making things even worse, the board has continued the restriction on the use of Hardie Board meaning you’d have to use wood and not a far superior material when doing renovations or even maintenance. The board couldn’t be saying, “Wood houses are tear downs” any louder if they tried.
I have spoken to Max and I too feel very strongly that this is a mistake. He suggested I email you and express my concern and go on record saying that banning wood siding is not a good idea. Professionally I am a commercial builder, specializing in federal and healthcare construction. Regardless of my specialization and market, as a builder, I know when I see good ideas and bad ones…this is a bad one.
Look, this isn’t my issue. I live in a stucco house. I’m just surprised that people who do live in exterior wood houses aren’t more up in arms about this. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. This very activist board wants to curtail Art Jury discretion even more with regard to architectural styles. They even want to impose sweeping limits on large windows and patio doors.
To recap, a respected Art Juror strongly disagreed with this arbitrary regulation, a respected 30 year long community architect wrote a scathing letter against it, a board member gave an impassioned speech during the board meeting against it, yet the board passed it anyways.
I saw your message this morning regarding Max’s letter. I agree with you that it took courage to do it – which says something sad in itself.
The only thing that might stop the board’s regulatory freight train is your emails to email@example.com. Not my writing. Not expert opinion. You. I’ll do my part by highlighting what the board is working on, but, gosh, it’s all up to you if you don’t agree with it. It has worked in the past. A proposed rental restriction board resolution got canned after about thirty residents voiced their displeasure directly to the Association.
Will the Board succeed in passing even more restrictions on what we can do with our properties? Only you can answer that question.