Settlement Proposal Fact Checks

Carefree Unity continues to believe that the biggest issue at stake as North Boulders Homeowners vote on water condemnation settlement is whether Association members wish to put this controversy behind them by accepting the settlement proposal and ending the case, which otherwise could extend for another year or more.  The settlement itself emerged through the mediation and negotiation process and is a compromise.  If accepted, neither side wins or loses.

Since voting began last week most North Boulders HOA (BHOA) residents have received multiple emails from the BHOA and from other groups and individuals seeking to influence resident voting.  These mailings have often focused on secondary issues, and some have included errors or misinformation.

To help readers understand these issues, CU has decided to report on statements that require context in the Fact Check page of the Carefree Unity website.  Click on the following link to read the complete reports.  Included in this mailing is a brief outline of the first three entries.

Carefree Unity 11/8/22

Fact Check Summaries

Claim One:  If the jury awards more than the town’s offer of $25,500, the town will be required to reimburse our trial expenses.

Rating: False.  Quote from an experienced condemnation litigation attorney: “The statement (that the town will be required to reimburse costs) is contrary to law.”

Claim Two: We must be concerned about future attempts by the Town to seize more of our common area by eminent domain. Our frontage along Tom Darlington Drive is some of the most valuable land in the area. Our land along Stagecoach is also at risk.

Rating: Misleading.  Condemnation attorneys have indicated the Arizona constitution and A.R.S. §12-1131 (strengthened by the Private Property Protection Act in 2006) prohibit condemnation for commercial development or private use.

Claim Three: We believe that any future settlement offer, foregoing our advantages at trial, should include a binding commitment by the Town not to take any more of our land for any purpose.

Rating: Irrelevant (and likely unnecessary).  Statements from two condemnation attorneys indicate such a contract would have little legal effect.  Carefree Unity research supports those statements.

For more detailed explanations and more topics, link to the Carefree Unity Fact Check Page.

%d bloggers like this: