Megan Timberlake of 293 signing in, unsure what can unfold, but THANKING current Board for trying to get neighbors to interact productively. Please keep it simple to use this site: FaceBook & all the rest simply rob a person of time & meaning - so never make AV Members have to navigate those sites to share here!


I opened this site today to read an electronic version of the Member Handbook, having had till now only a paper copy: seems a good idea to try to comment on it, and ask AV to be slow to add to the only rules ever properly voted-in [ratified], those from 1957. New rules should not contradict those, or do it as little as possible. Marie Kochaver and Ron Kane, as well as the late Dave Deforrest [and perhaps his AV widow Nida] willingy consider ramifications of proposed rules, rather than focus only on proposals' intentions. (Please remember what the Road to Hell is paved with.) Other Members able and willing to look fully at proposals include also Susan Barnard, Renae Garabedian, William Hyman, Susan Brooks, Helan Smith, Christine Baetge, Barry Burgess, Barb Postel, the "Elizabeths" Claman & Whipple, Luz, Patti French, Liam Caffrey, Ormond & Lynda Otvos, Millie Fredricks, Ingrid Stephan, Grace Porter, the Arbogasts, Karen S - the list goes on and on: the "usual suspects" who at least try to stay active in AV, attend meetings, discuss, and use logic in debating better solutions, rather than supposed "common sense" or excuses for decisions "in the interest of -" whatever, rather than the good of the whole-AND-individual-person's rights. We can find rare, individual sense, rather than what is "common," and need people to inspire a majority to channel our collective sense, and not simply bow to rules or rulings, some good, and many sloppy.


The copy of the MH I saw seems as legally fragile as rules we currently let Boards make more and more of, with inadequate attention to enforcement. In fact, having a GM could mean that a lot of rule-enforcement is delegated to that stellar personage, even if we try to hand issues via committee. The latter is not enough.


Consider AV'S potentially dangerous dogs [read: RESIDENTS who keep dogs poorly]: Boards already have power to deal with them, and must do it if they decide to deputize Members at large to take on the wrath of out-of-line residents, who insist they have some sort of horrible "right" to mistreat dogs, rather than keep them well enough that the dogs never bark neurotically. What a trashy reflection on AV we have now!


Asked onto the new Pet Committee, I see its forming as an example of Boards' tendencies not to use existing, sound ruls [pun INintended] in volatile situations, whether or not outside authorities neglect or mishandle them, as with "pets." The Pet Committee will endanger its Members if the Board or staff ignore that AV is alread in peril from pit bulls and insipient AV racism, even as we publish how "diverse" AV is. Pit bulls in AV have killed three AV pets in as many years, and a houseguest of mine and I were almost attacked by pit bulls [about 2008] kept within 100 feet of my back gate by non-Member residents, still there - three bad incidents in as many years.


The issues mark a "cultural divide," too. The Pet Committee cannot protect anyone on it at all from neighbors whom AV allows impunity in acting as if I have no value - less even than dogs they abuse. AV already has the authority to protect AV and me - from injury, lawsuits, or forcing... someone to move. Similar difficulties happened, in effect, to William Hyman a few years ago. He too simply tries to ignore his neighbors, who also act with utter, nasty impunity toward him, because AV ignored that two women, one living on either side of him, attacked HIM - "reportedly."And three AV pit bulls pets have ripped to death in AV beloved pets of Members in good standing, but few AV residents even know.


If we salute the banner of "diversity," we must also support "minorities" in cases of "opposite"racism [or "reverse discrimination"], which is no opposite or "reversal" at all, except in the typical skin colors. The results are the same: perilous to all. AV'S ignoring known dog-abuse by long-term non-Member residents keeping powerful dogs they neglect or abuse, and that neurotically bark, allows a needless decrease in neighborhood "security," and other, more-personal threats. The "elephant in the living room" that this Board or another can end must end. All residents must neuter-&-train or get rid of such dogs, or AV does not keep those people living here. And such dogs must not simply be silenced: as the Humane Society says, "We are their voice/s."


AV Boards and staff are required to ["should"] uphold each Member's safety, and ditto have legal means to, whether or not in hand with a small committe or even a Village majority vote. AV must act in a timely manner to uphold the good of the whole, and individual rights, even of senior citizens, no matter how marginal or unpopular. We do not need the nasty surprise of having a powerful family sue AV for millions of dollars after some such seemingly inconsequential Member got torn to death, etc.


And AV has not only not protected me from hostile neighbors willing to fight me for a perceived "right"to let dogs bark for hours, shiverving in the cold, and getting worse. End the abuse of animals and toward whistle-blowers, for we who know of the issue cannot protect anyone else in AV if we alone must protect ourselves.