MISSED OPPORTUNITY

For those of you who may not know this, the Las Colinas Association recently missed out on a tremendous opportunity to provide a wonderful educational opportunity to the residents of Las Colinas. Thanks to the effort of many people, including our own Nell Anne Hunt, The Las Colinas Association was given the opportunity to “partner” with Uplift Education, the organization that created and operates North Hills Preparatory School, nationally ranked by publications such as Newsweek and The Washington Post as one of the very best high schools in America, to start an elementary school in Las Colinas that, unlike North Hills Preparatory School, would have restricted admission to children who resided within the boundaries of Las Colinas. To get this school started and hopefully other schools to follow, Uplift Education required land to build the campus on and a funding commitment of $500,000.00 per year for five years by a specified deadline.

Unfortunately, The Las Colinas Association could not make this commitment by the deadline imposed by Uplift Education because, in the opinion of their legal advisors, it lacked the power to provide funding for education in its Articles of Incorporation, as opposed to its providing educational services. Article Four of its original Articles of Incorporation adopted back in 1973 permitted The Las Colinas Association to “provide educational and entertainment services.” Pursuant to this power, for a long time we residents enjoyed cable TV service provided by The Las Colinas Association. Using this analogy, while The Las Colinas Association could provide cable TV services, it lacked the power to pay a cable TV provider to furnish its residents cable TV service. While this may be viewed a splitting hairs over a technicality by some, a strong argument could be made that the powers of The Las Colinas Association, like any corporation, originate from and are limited by its articles of incorporation, i.e., “if it isn’t in there, you don’t got it”.

Proposal No. 1 of the upcoming proposals that you are being asked to vote on in April can change this so that The Las Colinas Association will be in position to help financially support quality educational opportunities for the children of Las Colinas residents in the future. By amending Article Four of the Articles of Incorporation to allow The Las Colinas Association to provide funding for “corporate, public, private, quasi-public, or quasi-private educational institutions and/or services,” hopefully, the residents of Las Colinas and their children will not again miss out on a superior educational opportunity like the opportunity we had with Uplift, should one become available in the future.

I believe that passing this amendment is a no-brainer; however, I respectfully disagree with one thing Nell Anne said about Proposal No.1 in her blog, namely,“in order to vote on education, you also have to vote to ‘provide entertainment services’”. The Las Colinas Association already has this power. It has had the authority to provide entertainment services along with educational services in Article Four of its Articles of Incorporation since 1973. The proposed amendment to Article Four of the Articles of Incorporation does not change this, however, the important distinction that needs to be made is that the proposed amendment will authorize the Las Colinas Association to also be able to provide funding for educational institutions and services only, but not for entertainment.

MARTIN KAHN

RESPONSE TO NELL ANNE'S EARLIER POST

I attended the evening meeting, so I am not privy to the earlier meeting discussions. However, I would like to respond to Ms. Hunt’s initial blog and add a few comments of my own. While I’m sure Ms. Hunt’s intentions are genuine and she has University Hills/Las Colinas in good interest, the blog may be slanted with her interpretation of the proposals/discussions and the writing is somewhat misleading.

In regards to the proposed changes to the articles of incorporation, my understanding of what you are casting your vote for is NOT “in order to vote for education, you also have to vote to “provide entertainment services.”” as well. That language was already part of a previous standing article and is not the intention of the proposed change. Yes, the proposal does not provide funding. However, this change has been recommended by counsel to allow the association the ability to legally raise and distribute funding as they see fit. How can this be interpreted as “lip service”? A start has to be taken, specifically on this most important issue.

A commercial realtor representing The Studios or some possible interested partner in the Riverside Creative parcel was present at the evening meeting. He expressed his concern that the land would not be utilized for its current deed restrictions and that there was interest in expanding the studio properties. This property has remained undeveloped for more than 20 years by the previous owner(s). Who was the previous owner and why wait until a critical vote to occur to bring up a possible expanded studio development? It is now owned by Hines who wants to build higher end homes that would increase our tax base and attract the type of families required to build a prosperous community. Keeping the community ideal first, a yes vote would seem to be a foregone conclusion.

Allowing a mid-rise (at least 10 stories) residential dwelling to be developed is an excellent choice for growing a city. There have been a multitude of studies that show the benefits of building residential communities vertically in lieu of horizontally. This is a welcome change in the city’s development strategy and would provide a concentrated amount economic influx in a relatively small footprint. The parcel is in a unique location that currently has no other residential dwellings nearby. Considering the location, I do not see where traffic will be negatively impacted. The city utility systems are more than adequate to handle the additional load and our water is sourced from the same reservoirs as our neighbors. Lastly, this is not the same type of multi-family dwellings that are in use and should not weather in the same fashion.

The proposed changes for the parcel located on Lake Carolyn are consistent with the current and recent development in the Urban Center. While I am less enthusiastic about this proposal than the one above, the need to further develop the Urban Center outweighs my concerns.

Las Colinas requires growth to keep pace with our neighbors and provide opportunity for its current and future residents. We badly need to increase our tax base and provide our appointed officials the ability to utilize funding to further education alternatives. Growth can be a intimidating , but Las Colinas is being left behind in the type of services and amenities that make living in other parts of the Metroplex desirable.

We all agree that steps need to be taken and I do not see where a yes vote on any of these proposals would allow “developers to run roughshod”. This is simply how the process works.

Thanks,

RHETT C. HICKEY

My impressions of the LCA town hall meeting

Since not everyone could be at the Town Hall meetings today to discuss the By-Law changes, I thought it would be interesting to discuss them in a neighborhood blog format. I am glad to start the discussion, and I hope everyone will enter in with their comments. I went to the earlier town hall meeting so I’ll report the pros and cons I heard discussed:

1) Relating to improving education Pro: We need more excellent education choices. Con: This provides no money for education, and in order to vote for education, you also have to vote to “provide entertainment services.”

2) The land beside the Studios of Las Colinas changing to be used for single family homes Pro: This would use the land that had been vacant since Adam and Eve Con: The Studio people are very opposed to it because they want to expand on it.

3) Five acres on the northwest corner of 114 and O’connor would be changed from office to a hotel and restaurant. (not much discussion)

4) Decker Commons from golf course related uses to assisted living residences. (not much discussion on this either)

5) NW Corner of Hwy. 161 and Love Drive from restaurant, retail and etc. To multi-family rental properties. Pro: The developer and the taxing authorities will benefit. The mass transit will also welcome this. Con: The burdensome traffic will be increased. The city services, particularly water, will be strained. Irving has allowed too much multi-family already.

6) Northeast corner of 114 and MacArthur will be all multi-family Pros and Cons: see item 5 above.

So neighbors, what do you think? Will these changes improve Las Colinas or allow developers to run roughshod over our remaining vacant land? Does the education by-law give lip-service to the issue or make it possible to correct the problem?

NELL ANNE HUNT

Las Colinas Assn Pending Amendment Vote

By now Las Colinas Association property owners have received a packet from LCA with information on six proposals requiring a vote. The issue which draws the most interest is a Certificate of Amendment to the Articles of Incorporation allowing LCA to provide and/or fund corporate, public, private, quasi-public or quasi-private educational institutions and/or services. If approved, this amendment would potentially address the desire by parents to have a quality educational experience for their children. I say potentially address that desire because the amendment does not provide funding, just allows the board of LCA to provide such funding at their discretion. In addition to the Certificate of Amendment to the Articles of Incorporation there are five Amendments to Supplementary Declarations being proposed. An issue here is the allowance for yet more high density multifamily dwellings. This is controversial because of the already existent supply of such housing. The intent of this blog is to allow University Hills residents the opportunity to speak out on these matters. Send me an email and I will post your thoughts. My email is jamese.wells@verizon.net . Please provide your name for inclusion with the post.

JIM WELLS