Increased Fines and/or Embarrassment for Speeders

[BethB]

From RM.com - RMA Board Meeting:
Reading from confidential documents, he (Dick Cox) said one member had been cited three times -- for doing twice the speed limit and running stop signs. Director Chris Pedersen, who chairs Compliance, said the offenders are fined, but the fines are the same -- not scaled to match the severity of the offense.
"The guy who's speeding at 60 mph, I mean, we need to change the way we're doing business here," he said. "We need to bring these people to light. We need to hit them in the pocketbook. We need to communicate to the community who these people are."

***
Thank you Chris Pedersen! I've asked before, why can't we name the habitual speeders and DUI's in this community. Print their names in the RVT or mail them out in the monthly CSD bill. Maybe they'd think twice before doing it again if their friends in the community started getting on their case.
And why in the world would some jerk feel the need to do 60mph in the community? Maybe we should have a sliding scale for speed limits and number of times they have violated the limits and stop signs.

[Wilbur]

I remember some amendments to the fine schedules being considered a couple of years ago. I thought we increased the fine for repeat offenses, but don't see that reflected in the Rules, so now i'm doubting my memory. I suggested at the time a scaled fine for how many mph over the limit, just as the courts use. It's an idea which I think should be revisited and I'm glad Chris brought it up. The penalty for going 60 should be more severe than the penalty for going 35, and at some speed cutoff, say 40, the "first one's a warning" rule should be forfeited.

"Outing" offenders publicly is trickier. State law gives offenders the right to closed disciplinary proceedings. Though it is not clear, there's a perception that this gives rise to a privacy right and that an association might get into a legal snarl if it publicly pillories rules violators. I think that is debatable, but it is a legitimate concern.

[walkthedog]

This is not going to be popular, but
Statistically we have a very safe roads as is. Although there is a very vocal minority saying otherwise. We all fear a major disaster, but have not had one. For all the miles driven on our roads and all the (alleged) stop signs run at high rates of speed we remain safe. Now before saying there is a disaster lurking around the corner,there just might be one at any speed limit with any amount of signs.

As for public embarassment there is a director who drives a red Suburban who cruises through the same stop signs as I do for good reason, the stop signs are not needed there!

[akulasquirrel]

Originally Posted by Wilbur

I remember some amendments to the fine schedules being considered a couple of years ago. I thought we increased the fine for repeat offenses, but don't see that reflected in the Rules, so now i'm doubting my memory. I suggested at the time a scaled fine for how many mph over the limit, just as the courts use. It's an idea which I think should be revisited and I'm glad Chris brought it up. The penalty for going 60 should be more severe than the penalty for going 35, and at some speed cutoff, say 40, the "first one's a warning" rule should be forfeited.

"Outing" offenders publicly is trickier. State law gives offenders the right to closed disciplinary proceedings. Though it is not clear, there's a perception that this gives rise to a privacy right and that an association might get into a legal snarl if it publicly pillories rules violators. I think that is debatable, but it is a legitimate concern.

Look at RMA Non-Architectural Rule 2, section 4... It does establish the cut-off speed that dispenses with the warning rule. A couple years ago, I thought I'd seen the same thing you did about the fine schedule after the first one that results in a fine. It appears that Non-Arc Rule 1 sec 3 allows for increased fines after the first monetary fine.

[Wilbur]

Ah, that's what I get for skimming instead of reading. Yes, Rule 4 does now say the warning "pass" is forfeited at twice the limit (50).

Section 4. Speeding
Driving a motor vehicle, including golf carts and low-speed vehicles, at more than twice the posted speed limit constitutes waiver of the warning requirement in Rule 1, Section 3 for first offense.

Rule 1, Sec. 3 vaguely authorizes "or other appropriate discipline" in response to a fourth or subsequent violation of any rule, BUT it also states that assessment (fine) amounts shall be fixed as "set forth under each specific rule contained herein," which tends to limit the vague "other appropriate discipline" to non-monetary measures. So I think it would be dicey for Compliance or the Board to make new fines up as they go along, case by case. If the community deems that we should have an enhanced fine for either third or fourth and subsequent offense, that expansion of the penalty schedule should be debated, published to the members for comment, and formally written into the Rules.

Section 3. Violation Schedule
A. Each violation of a specific rule during the period of a year shall result in the following (See CC&R’s Article XII, Section 6(c):
First Violation - Warning
Second Violation - $100.00 Fine
B. Each violation or noncompliance within a specific rule may carry a separate and additional schedule of supplemental assessments as set forth under each specific rule contained herein. (See CC&R’s Article XII, Section 6(c) and CC&R’s Article IV, Section 4.)
C. For any violation in excess of a third violation and providing that all proper notices and opportunities for hearing have been satisfied, the Board of Directors may: (1) impose temporary suspension of the property owner's rights as a member of the Association or other appropriate discipline including denying the violator the right to use the common area including the use of vehicles on roads, or (2) determine that legal action is necessary in order to meet the Board's responsibilities on behalf of the Association's entire membership. When the Board of Directors makes this determination, they shall authorize engagement of an attorney or other technical personnel to initiate appropriate action against the cited violator. (See CC&R’s Article II, Section 1(b), Article XII, section 6(a).)
Should the Association or an individual member wish to file a lawsuit for enforcement of the Association's governing documents, Civil Code 1354 encourages parties to submit the dispute to a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) such as mediation or arbitration
prior to filing a lawsuit. For additional information, refer to California Civil Code 1354.
D. The time allowed for correction of a violation, where applicable, shall be the reasonable time required to remedy a violation before a second citation for the same violation is issued. The reasonable time limitation between citations shall be based on the particular violation and the time required for a prudent person acting diligently to remedy this particular violation. (See CC&R’s Article XII, Section 6(a)(b)
E. In addition to the monetary assessments above, RMA reserves the right to take immediate action as it deems necessary to cause a violator to come into compliance and may assess the enforcement cost against the owner. (See CC&R’s Article XII, Section 6(a) and Bylaws Article VI, Section 5) (Board Resolution 00.03.01)

[Wilbur]

BTW I want to buy a drink for the guy who figures out how to get his golf cart to do twice the speed limit. Before he dies trying, that is.

[Luke]

Don't the newer NEVs go about 35-40 mph as it is? Not that much of a stretch to get from there to 50 mph.

For someone like the miscreant caught here, RMA should be doing everything in its power within the rules to discipline him. Fine to the maximum allowed. If the fine isn't paid, then lien his house, etc. If they can take further disciplinary actions such as restricting road use, then they should do so, and take away all of the bar codes from his vehicle. That might not stop him, but at least if he left and then tried to come into the gate, he would be stopped and theoretically prevented from driving in.

There has to be more power in rules and CC&Rs than just fine him and throw up your hands, which is what I take the Compliance Committee has been doing. We need Jack and his nuanced interpretations of all the rules on this subject.

[Birdieman]

Originally Posted by Joaquin Murieta

We need Jack and his nuanced interpretations of all the rules on this subject.

God help us!

[Need2Run]

Here is an easy fix. Post in front of both gates that the streets of Murieta are enforced by the ca vehicle code. Let the patrol officers use their discretion on what cite to write. May it be an RMA cite or a Court cite. That will stop this "bad driving" real fast. Im sure with proper training which most of our officers have, this can be an easy and legitimate fix to this on going problem.

[walkthedog]

NEVs do not do 40mph+ and it would be a stretch to go 50mph. They have electronic "govenors" just as regular golf carts do.