“MARLENE BREENE (incumbent)
”I don’t know exactly what forces were in play at the time of the appeal. If a similar situation were to come up today, I would not support any action by the board that would undermine our CC&R’s, put Parkland or any properties at risk, or cause financial destabilization. PVHA’s objective should be to protect, and enhance our neighborhoods, amenities, and parklands.

I would very much like to put past conflicts in the history book and focus on the important challenges coming our way in the very near future. Regulations concerning Fire, ADU/JADU, 5G, and financial stability will be determining factors impacting all aspects of our community. Let’s look at the big picture and make good decisions for our future development.””

“GAYNE BRENNEMAN
”Absolutely not. Not only was it a violation of the PVE CC&R’s, but it was financially devasting to the PVHA reserves.””

“DICK FAY (incumbent)
”At the time I thought the appeal was a mistake and voiced that opposition at PVHA meetings. Had I been on the Board at that time I would not have supported it.””

“JOHN HARBISON
”I would have strongly opposed the decision to appeal. It was the wrong thing to do, and I believed at the time that appealing was also ultimately going to be unsuccessful. PVHA Board members have a fiduciary duty to defend the CC&Rs. The reasons the Board gave reflected they had not actually read the ruling carefully – so I tried to point out the flaws in their rationale. For instance, they said that they did not want to end up owning the property (for tax reasons), while the ruling made it clear that PVHA could transfer it back to the City of PVE or any other public entity duly organized to maintain the Parkland for public recreational use. The PVHA President also stated publicly that pursuing an appeal would cost the PVHA nothing because it was covered by insurance. Yet when the dust settled, the PVHA has spent more than $900k defending its unlawful actions.

After winning the appeal, I led the development of a Comprehensive Settlement Proposal which eliminated a potential $2 million exposure to the PVHA (from having to return $500k to Lugliani for a reversed sale as well as likely losing a $1 Million lawsuit from Lugliani to recover legal fees after relying on the PVHA representation that they had authority to sell parkland and spending another $500k to defend). The Settlement also increased net Deed Restricted Parkland by adding the same covenants to three+ acres of prime flat parkland in Bluff Cove.””

“L. RIED SCHOTT
”No. The Mayor at the time explained their reasoning for appealing, but it was mostly illogical. The decision against the sale of Parkland was a lopsided one against the City and PVHA. Most importantly, the City and PVHA were unwilling to accept what most residents knew and wanted; it was not legally right or in the best interests of PVE property owners to sell Parkland. The Board should have been more responsive to its members, and avoided spending six figures to appeal the verdict. Instead, they ignored us as well as their responsibility to protect and preserve Parkland. If elected to the Board, I pledge to look out for the best interests of our members and to uphold our deed restrictions and covenants.””

“CHARLES TANG (incumbent)
”If I had been on the Board in November 2015, I would NOT have approved the appeal of the decision of the Superior Court regarding the sale of parkland because the legal decision of the court was consistent with the CC&Rs and PVHA’s mission to “preserve the fine views of ocean, mountains, and parks” for our posterity to enjoy.””