Possible security changes discussed by RMA BOD

[Birdieman]

Originally Posted by Luke

Nobody is upset that $20,000 was spent on the lawyer, least of all the lawyer.

What we are ALL saying (except you, and perhaps TDS, although that's actually difficult to discern) is that we are satisfied with the outcome and the new landscape that Security must operate in.

Why is that so difficult to understand?

Luke,
From reading on RM.com it seems you have also left out Dick Cox. I am very dissappointed in reading the story and Dick's take on what he thinks this community needs and desires.

Dick,
I know you read and post on here. Have you not been reading what the majority of the people on here are saying? Since when do we have a HUGE crime problem? And what on earth do we need to hire an outside security force for? When did Murieta turn into Oak Park? I am ashamed to say I supported you and your efforts in the past. I will no longer be doing so.

[Martha]

Originally Posted by Birdieman

Have you not been reading what the majority of the people on here are saying? Since when do we have a HUGE crime problem? And what on earth do we need to hire an outside security force for? When did Murieta turn into Oak Park?

Yeah.

What Birdie said.

[Golfingbear]

Dick,
I know you read and post on here. Have you not been reading what the majority of the people on here are saying? Since when do we have a HUGE crime problem? And what on earth do we need to hire an outside security force for? When did Murieta turn into Oak Park? I am ashamed to say I supported you and your efforts in the past. I will no longer be doing so. Quote BM

Aw BM you are breaking my heart. I do read what's posted however, I've noticed 90% of the posts are made by approximateldy 23 people. My phone has rang off the hook with people who are not happy with where we stand on Security and what the future looks like. Perhaps some of you have forgotten the 34 car break-in we had in a two week period a couple months ago. I know this isn't Oak Park however my phone calls tell me people want the CC&R's enforced and they want to know their property is safe. I'm just looking for ways to comply with these request. If the membership doesn't like what we come up with in Non-Arc rules they have the right and chance to speak their mind when these rules go out for public comments. What amazes me is all the hulabaloo over these possible rules before any of you have even seen them. Don't I read where you are always asking Lisa T. to provide you with facts? That being the case maybe you should hear the facts before you judge me. The BOD is trying to be part of the solution. Jumping on our case before the facts are presented is being part of the problem!!!!!!!!!!!

"I may not agree with your opinion, but I will defend to death your right to express it."

[Birdieman]

Originally Posted by Golfingbear

Aw BM you are breaking my heart. I do read what's posted however, I've noticed 90% of the posts are made by approximateldy 23 people. My phone has rang off the hook with people who are not happy with where we stand on Security and what the future looks like.

Exactly how many different people made your "phone ring of the hook"? Was it 10, 20, 30? Why do the voices on here count for less than if we picked up the phone?

Perhaps some of you have forgotten the 34 car break-in we had in a two week period a couple months ago. I know this isn't Oak Park however my phone calls tell me people want the CC&R's enforced and they want to know their property is safe.

I haven't forgotten, but even if we had 10 security guards on patrol, these things will happen.
Why would we need a outside security agency for this?

I'm just looking for ways to comply with these request. If the membership doesn't like what we come up with in Non-Arc rules they have the right and chance to speak their mind when these rules go out for public comments. What amazes me is all the hulabaloo over these possible rules before any of you have even seen them.

I made no mention of any of the new proposed non-arch rules, I will address that when I see what you have to offer.

Don't I read where you are always asking Lisa T. to provide you with facts? That being the case maybe you should hear the facts before you judge me.

I'm going by what I've heard you say, at the CSD meeting in May and the quotes from you in the lastest RM.com story. I'm judging you on your own statements.

The BOD is trying to be part of the solution. Jumping on our case before the facts are presented is being part of the problem!!!!!!!!!!!

No one is jumping on the BOD's case, I was addressing your comments. If what I hear from you and read as your quotes is what I see as being done to adress the "crime problem", do I not have the right to question why? Where your information is coming from? What your reasoning behind the proposed decisions your making? I'm looking for answers as to why you think we need to spend RMA money on an outside security agency, and what your justification for that is. Because I can't see any.

And last but not least, thanks for replying. I do appreciate it.

[akulasquirrel]

Originally Posted by Golfingbear

Dick,
I know you read and post on here. Have you not been reading what the majority of the people on here are saying? Since when do we have a HUGE crime problem? And what on earth do we need to hire an outside security force for? When did Murieta turn into Oak Park? I am ashamed to say I supported you and your efforts in the past. I will no longer be doing so. Quote BM

Aw BM you are breaking my heart. I do read what's posted however, I've noticed 90% of the posts are made by approximateldy 23 people. My phone has rang off the hook with people who are not happy with where we stand on Security and what the future looks like. Perhaps some of you have forgotten the 34 car break-in we had in a two week period a couple months ago. I know this isn't Oak Park however my phone calls tell me people want the CC&R's enforced and they want to know their property is safe. I'm just looking for ways to comply with these request. If the membership doesn't like what we come up with in Non-Arc rules they have the right and chance to speak their mind when these rules go out for public comments. What amazes me is all the hulabaloo over these possible rules before any of you have even seen them. Don't I read where you are always asking Lisa T. to provide you with facts? That being the case maybe you should hear the facts before you judge me. The BOD is trying to be part of the solution. Jumping on our case before the facts are presented is being part of the problem!!!!!!!!!!!

"I may not agree with your opinion, but I will defend to death your right to express it."

My suggestion is for you to keep track of these calls you're getting. What level of service do the members want? What are they upset about? Pass this stuff on to the CSD Board. You know, that sort of thing. I think that both bodies want to do something but also they want to make sure that it's done right the first time!

I know that at times both the CSD and the RMA have had a bit of an adversarial relationship. This isn't the time to be that way.

[Luke]

I appreciate your comments Dick. I am just responding to what was posted on RM.com re: new non-Arc rules and $500.00 fines. Seems extreme to me.

I can appreciate that people aren't happy when there is a car break-in. I'm not either. I just fail to see how adopting a bunch of non-Arc rules for the sake of adopting rules solves that problem.

Maybe there is more to your position than presented, but basically what I got out of the RM.com article is that we've had enough of these kids and we're going to take care of them to make sure they aren't engaged in evil skateboarding, are off our streets, and if we catch them, then off with their parents' heads with ridiculously sized fines. And to make doubly sure we get them, lets hire private security to follow them around.

We have criminal laws to enforce crimes. If someone is caught, let the criminal process take its course. We don't need the CC&Rs and non-Arc rules venturing into the Penal Code. Just my humble opinion.

However, I will wait to see the actual proposed rules. I trust they will be readily published and available prior to the final, final public comment period.

[Matthew]

Dick, Thank you for addressing this issue directly. I appreciate the direction you are taking the RMA board meetings and your take the bull by the horns approach.

However, on the issue of security I believe you are headed down the wrong path. We do not have a crime problem in Rancho Murieta. We have a few people (kids and adults) that feel it’s okay to break the law and they should be dealt with. I do not want my dues spent on hiring a private security company. I believe that will be a complete waste of money. They will not be any more effective than our own CSD patrol officers. Short of bringing in the National Guard we will not stop vandalism, theft, skateboarding, and graffiti.

When you say your phone is ringing off the hook, how many calls is that? Also do you have any idea if the people calling you have kids living at home or not? I would guess that they do not. I think your phone calls represent a very limited subset of the RM population. I talked with several of my friends who have kids and frankly most of them do not pay attention to RMA and CSD meetings until it affects them directly so they had no idea what was said at the recent meetings. Most of them were pretty shocked by what you are proposing. The overwhelming comment I heard was “These older folks need to understand this community is getting younger and they need to get use to the idea”. I believe they all support prosecuting crimes, but none of them felt skateboarding is a crime. I would like to hear more about your opinion on skateboarding. My son skateboards and I am just curious why would you think he is somehow a deviant because he is trying to master an ollie backflip.

IMO having our own security is part of the problem. I love having them, but most people out here will call security when a crime occurs. We need to stop this practice. We need to call SSD when a crime occurs, then follow it up with a call to security. SSD does not get the full picture when residents do not call them. If at that point we are not happy with the response we need to put pressure on SSD and not CSD or RMA. Crime should handle by law enforcement. If we do ever go down the path of getting a police force out here it should be handle 100% by CSD and RMA should have zero involvement. RMA should remain what they are, an HOA, nothing more.

I am happy with security. I guess it’s all about expectations. When crimes occur I expect a response from SSD, CHP, FBI, DHS, or the CIA and not CSD, RMA, RMCC, or the RMDCCC. Thanks for listening.

[DBCooper]

Keep up the good work Dick. The shift in direction for the community will always have its naysayers. Thanks for stepping up to the plate and giving the community much needed direction.

[nana]

Matt, you're on the right path. For a crime in progress, call SSD ASAP and f/u with CSD security. For a "crime" (i.e., vandalism) discovered after the fact, report it to the VIPs.
I think RMA and CSD are working more closely together than they have in quite a while (years?). As long as the Directors clearly establish policy and staff/subordinates listen to the BODs' direction, we should be okay.
Look, I am not crazy about a skateboard park maintained by RMA if it should ever be built by private funds, but the situations Dick described about pickup trucks and golf carts "towing" skateboarders are not acceptable to me due to the safety issues involved.
The RMA Compliance Committee decided to not pursue a non-ARC rule about golfcarts. That troubles me; while a kid on a bike or a skateboard should be wearing a helmet, the overloaded carts with 3-4 youngsters--no helmets, no seatbelts, yada yad--that, to me, is an accident waiting to happen--even at 15-20 mph!

[Wilbur]

I favor an incremental response. Penalties for vandalism should go up. WAY up. We already have restitution rights which I believe are never or almost never pursued. QWw ahould go after that even if it isn't "cost effective."

There should be no warnings for traffic offenses after the first one. But the one reminder is worthwhile as an educational experience. We just did rules changes, I believe, which foreited the right to a warning for extreme speeding, and ramped up fines for chronic offenders on their repeat offenses. I have seen no information on what impact that has had. The impacts of recent reforms should be assessed before dreaming up more and even more draconian ones. The board should get, and share, some statistics on numbers of tickets written, numbers of fines imposed, how much of that collected, whether we have yet hit ANYONE with the recent "repeat offender" enhancements.

I don't believe in "outing" members for public disgracing and have concerns about legal consequences. If we have members who are chronic offenders AND are just letting the fines ride unpaid indefinitely, as legend has it, then in at least those cases RMA should be suing to reduce those fines to judgments and seizing some assets, so as to make the point that nobody is immune even if they have a well stuffed pocket.

But what we don't need is to outlaw a bunch of things not currently outlawed. If we're to replace the moderate and legal curfew ordinance we had, that is one thing, trying to write the state's toughest one is quite another.

If we haven't been vigorously enforcing something with $100 fines, let's try vigorously enforcing with $100 fines before going nuclear with $500 fines. Except vandalism. That needs to come down hard and is not a lifestyle management intrusion into personal autonomy. Some of the other things being suggested are.

Let's go at this in incremental steps rather than go all "martial law" about it in one fell swoop.