"Putting the Hex on CCRs" (May 30) is an editorial that missed its mark. To blame the existence of covenants, conditions and restrictions on the ordered removal of Frank Hall's hex sign is inappropriate.
The Chief Executive Officers Management Committee, an organization consisting of professional community association management firms, feels obligated to point out the basis of CCRs as well as the need for enforcement thereof.
CCRs are an integral part of community association living. They set forth the "ground rules" under which the community shall operate and guidelines that attempt to maintain a civilized environment for those living in the close quarters inherent in community associations.
One of the more important aspects of CCRs is architectural control. It is this provision that The Times editorially opposes. Yet, this provision is important to retain the original character of the community. Without architectural controls little could be done to prevent the erection of antennas, sheds or other structures. Each owner could choose the color of his unit, tolerable in single family homes, not so in multi-unit structures. Each such change would alter the identity of the community, an identity that originally attracted Frank Hall to purchase his home at Evergreen Homeowners Assn. in Santa Ana.
Hall's hex sign may be a permissible addition, if he had sought approval before its installation. Most CCRs provide appeal procedures should such prior approval be denied. The Evergreen Homeowners Assn.'s Board of Directors is simply fulfilling its responsibilities under the CCRs in asking Hall to remove an unapproved alteration. It would be breaching its fiduciary obligations not to have done so.
CCRs are a part of every community association, and they serve a necessary purpose. The remedy in this case would be for association directors and Hall to sit down and reach a mutually agreeable solution. It has been done elsewhere, but it requires open ears and minds.
SANDRA R. SWANSON,
Chief Executive Officers