Parker/Arapahoe Road Neighbors

You are strongly encouraged to attend the covenants discussiion on March 24th
from 6:30-9:30 at Holy Father Lutheran Church, 6335 S. Holly Street in the
Fellowship Hall.

Don't let other's make decisions for you by your not being there.

Any passed covenants will apply to EVERYONE, whether you voted for them or
not, or whether or not you are a member of the PVCA.

Please be there. For more info, contact any Board member.


By Denver Fox

Homeowner Against Covenants

Your flier informed me of something I only partially realized, we do already have a number of county ordnances that regulate the same things that the covenants were addressing. My wife Joan and I distributed our flyers some time ago opposing the covenants (If it Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It!). We are in Filing 2 at Maplewood and Kearney. We got a lot of response from others who agreed with us. Keep up the good work you are doing, and we hope to meet you at the meeting. I feel veryreleaved that now that I don't think I'll have to move. That $6000 'Draft' gave us a real chill (pun intended). It's just not fair to impose strict covenants on us now, when many of us moved here because the covenants were not overly restrictive.


By Gary Metheny

Homeowner Opposed To Additional

1) A major factor concerning purchase of a home upon transfer to Denver in 1993
was the absense of restrictive, oppressive covenants. Many bought homes in Palosthe understanding that restrictive covenants were not an issue. 2) Now retired, the prospect of restrictive, oppressive covenants incorporating expense for:
fines, assessments, enforcement, and approval fees for improvements threatens
financial planning, even "life style" as I envisioned it. 3) The homes in Palos Verdes are 30 years old. If restrictive covenants were to be imposed, such covenants should have been imposed from the very beginning, during the filing procedure. It is not fair to now impose a new, additional regulatory level on homeowners who accepted the existing non-restricted covenanted community as a location to own a home. Those of us who bought homes in PV chose a decent, affordable mortgage arrangement; we did not choose to be a "slave" to our mortgage; instead, we chose to live in a respectable neighborhood and still have some means to enjoy our life-styles, unmolested. 4) Our homes have appreciated in value, NOT DEPRECIATED, during the years. There is no need for additional restrictive covenants to protect market value of PV homes. We, PV homeowners, chose decent, affordable housing, we do not need additional restrictive covenants to "protect" us from spectulative declining property values, which may, or may not aterialize in the real world. There is risk involved in living one's life; most people are mature enough to accept the responsibility for incurring risk.


By Bob Mace