Fortuna Nonprofits and Charities

Here is the chain of email we said we would post. Your housing director was very unreasonable in dealing with us on a commonly owned & shared fence. Such a director has no business working for a non profit in caring for the elderly when he does not care and respect his neighbors. Further he should be terminated for the benefit of his employer and the elderly clients with the charge of and whose great care is expected.<br> -chain of email-:<br>From: Sent: Friday, September 27, 2019 10:18 PM To: XXXXXX<br>Subject: Absolutely refuse to sign your entrapment intended drafted letter and we will report your unreasonableness and lies to HUD of which REAC is a part of.<br><br>XXXXXXX,<br>This is AAAAAAA. Let me address each and every one of your statements and points.<br>As I explained to AAAAAAAA, the fence is on your property, you constructed it, you own it, and Newburg Retirement Center will not be sharing in the cost for maintenance or replacement. <br>•Your conclusion is ridiculous and very faulty. Let me inform you that the fence was already there when I purchased the property. So we did NOT construct it! THE FENCE WAS PUT UP BY WHOEVER BUILT THE FENCE BEFORE MY PURCHASE. Fences are put up ON the property LINE and NOT within our property as you like to claim. Your Newburg Retirement Center property borders our property. So that fence line should be on the boundary separating our properties. Fences are put up 1. TO DEFINE property lines 2. to afford occupants of each adjoining property privacy, seclusion, and protection against unwanted intruders. And 3. The primary and most important reason of fencing is the prevention of and deterrence against TRESPASS. All these are the primary and mutual benefits to both sides of the property OWNERS to which WHOEVER BUILT THE FENCE BEFORE MY PURCHASE INTENDED. You reap these MUTUAL BENEFITS AS MUCH AS WE DO. If both sides want to continue to reap these MUTUAL BENEFITS-THEN common sense, common decency, AND a sense of fairness dictate that BOTH PROPERTY OWNERS MUST SHARE THE COST FOR MAINTENANCE OR REPLACEMENT. <br><br>We had no say in the construction of the fence. <br>•As stated above, we did not either. The fence was put up by WHOEVER BUILT THE FENCE BEFORE MY PURCHASE and AGAIN for the very important reasons and mutual benefits to BOTH sides of the adjacent property owners enumerated above.<br><br>Quite frankly, we don’t care if there is a fence there or not. Your tenants could have access to Newburg Court if the fence was not there, but you chose to restrict their access to Smith Lane. <br>• I content even you cannot say that with a straight face and believe even a single word of your statements. NO sane property owner would NOT want this fence for the very mutual benefits I've enumerated and keep referring to. We have a VERY STRICT POLICY OF NO RECREATIONAL (OR MORE APPROPRIATELY "FOR FUN") RIDING OF BICYCLES, SCOOTERS, AND OTHER TOY VEHICLES ON OUR DRIVEWAYS AND THE INSIDE CONCRETE WALKWAYS WITHIN OUR COMPLEX. I scold, warn kid violators DO not DO it again each time they transgress against this strict rule. It is TOTALLY ENFORCED TO PROTECT THEM AND NOT PUT THEM IN HARM'S WAY. By the same token, we have a strict 5 miles per hour signs posted on both sides of our driveways for that very protection of our tenants' most valued assets, their kids. I hope your statement of "Your tenants could have access to Newburg Court if the fence was not there" was NOT and is NOT an OPEN INVITATION and a WELCOME TO those kids transgressors to take these restricted fun and play activities of their to YOUR SIDE OF THE PROPERTY WITHOUT ANY RESTRAINING FENCE AND NO PREVENTION OF TRESPASS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY WHICH THE FENCE WAS INTENDED FOR. As kids once ourselves, we enjoy these enumerated activities even though it is detrimental to our safety and puts us in HARM'S WAY! If it were not for the current fence, they would take these forbidden potentially in harm's way activities to your side once I scold and warn them. Think of YOUR liability and insurance rate rising costs as a result of any of those tenant kids NOW PLAYING ON YOUR SIDE OF THE PROPERTY of being run over by in-a-hurry car driver resulting in serious injuries or EVEN DEATH. Think hard if you even want a legal wrongful death or injury suit. THE COMMON FENCE prevents them from going FREELY to your side of YOUR PRIVATE PROPERTY. AND WE DID NOT CHOSE TO RESTRICT THEIR ACCESS TO SMITH LANE. WHOEVER BUILT THE FENCE BEFORE MY PURCHASE MADE THAT CHOICE BY BUILDING THAT FENCE TO PREVENT TRANSPASS TO PRIVATE PROPERTIES AND THE OTHER MUTUAL BENEFITS AGAIN ALREADY ENUMERATED FOR THE MUTUAL BENEFIT OF BOTH PROPERTY OWNERS.<br>•Let me further question whether you actually believe in your statement of "Quite frankly, we don’t care if there is a fence there or not" AT ALL. Without fences, there is would be no barriers or physical lines to draw up and define the dimensions of your own unique PRIVATE PROPERTY. Without these barriers, trespassers would not know they have trespassed onto your PRIVATE PROPERTY. My point being this. Without the fence, my tenants would park at the available parking spaces across what they believe to be a "public road" FOR CONVENIENCE when it is in fact PRIVATE PROPERTY! Newburg Court will need to put up signs stating 'PRIVATE PROPERTY-UNAUTHORIZED PARKED CARS WILL BE TOWED AT OWNER'S EXPENSE." Without the warning signs, you CANNOT legally tow them! And we do not want the added task to constantly remind our tenants NOT to park there to APPEASE WHAT WOULD BE YOUR constant and continuing COMPLAINTS WITHOUT THE FENCE. •NOW IN LIGHT OF THESE ENUMERATED BENEFITS OF A BARRIER AND OBSTACLE, CAN YOU HONESTLY SAY "YOU DON'T CARE IF THERE IS A FENCE THERE OR NOT? <br>....So what you actually should saying and what I am hearing is: "We want to continue to reap the mutual benefits of A FENCE as long as we don't have to pay for any maintenance and replacement. THAT is not acceptable to us. <br>•Without OUR COMMON fence, there would be no barrier to prevent your family and friend visitor of the occupants from driving through my driveway with entry and exit through both sides of Smith Lane and Newburg Road. Similarly, a lot more cars would use the alleyway connecting Newburg Road via my driveway as another "public street". If you don't care about THAT potentially puts kids playing on my driveway (and against our HOUSE RULES for ALL our tenants) PLUS your elderly occupants on the alleyway in GREATER HARM'S WAY WITH GREATER AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC especially in-a-hurry- drivers taking this convenient short-cut not previously accessible, WE DO. My concrete driveway is NOT paved to withstand heavy and a ton of traffic-NOT a highway. But if you don't mind traffic or people going through your alleyway, go ahead and take out the barriers and whatever fencing remains on your Smith Lane side and let Everyone go and DRIVE THROUGH not just "Your tenants could have access to Newburg Court if the fence was not there." If you don't, then fencing as a barrier against trespass IS IMPORTANT to you. ........ <br>These decisions were all yours<br>•As I repeated said, NO, WE DID NOT MAKE THESE DECISIONS.....<br><br>If you choose not to sign the letter, that will make my inspections with REAC more difficult. I will have to explain the situation to the inspector, siting you as non-cooperative owners.<br>•Your entrapment intended letter will NOT be signed. We will report this to the REAC through HUD....<br> <br>-----Original Message-----From: XX To: AAAAA Cc: X Sent: Wed, Sep 25, 2019 8:08 am<br>Subject: RE: Letter pertaining to fence along Newburg Ct. in Fortuna, CA (attached)<br>BBBBBB,<br>As I explained to AAAAA, the fence is on your property, you constructed it, you own it, and Newburg Retirement Center will not be sharing in the cost for maintenance or replacement. We had no say in the construction of the fence. Quite frankly, we don’t care if there is a fence there or not. Your tenants could have access to Newburg Court if the fence was not there, but you chose to restrict their access to Smith Lane. These decisions were all yours.<br>If you choose not to sign the letter, that will make my inspections with REAC more difficult. I will have to explain the situation to the inspector, siting you as non-cooperative owners. That will not change the fact that you own that fence. It will also not result in us sharing the cost of fence maintenance and/or replacement.<br>Regards, <br>XXXXXXXXXXXX<br>Lutheran Home for the Aging<br>From: AAAAA Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 8:55 PM<br>To: XXXXXXXXSubject: Re: Letter pertaining to fence along Newburg Ct. in Fortuna, CA (attached)<br>Hi XXXXXXX,<br>AAAAAA and I have read your email and decided we will not sign your letter stating we exclusively own and maintain the fence. As neighbors, it is common courtesy to share in the cost of a common and/or replacement fence. <br>Best Regards!<br>BBBBBBBBBBB <br>--Original Message-----From: XXXXXXXXX To: AAAAAA<br>Cc: xxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Tue, Sep 24, 2019 2:15 p<br>Subject: Letter pertaining to fence along Newburg Ct. in Fortuna, CA (attached)<br>Hi BBBB<br>Thank you for taking my call regarding the fence that runs along Newburg Ct. for YYYYY. Please see attached the letter that states that you own and maintain that fence. Please print it, sign it, scan it, and send it back to me at this email address. I will use it for future REAC inspections at Newburg Retirement Center. Thanks!<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>