South of Sunnyside

This is several weeks late at this point, but shortly after my previous posts regarding Fresh & Easy, I drafted a letter to the Sunnyside Property Owners Association to inquire about their objections. I never sent the letter, but since Kim decided to attend the board meeting tonight, I asked her to hand deliver it.

Based on delays at other locations, the issue seems moot, but I really am curious to know what SPOA supports, and how they justified their objections to the rezone that would have made this possible.

March 10, 2009

Sean Sagardia
President
Sunnyside Property Owners Association

Dear Sean,

My wife and I are Sunnyside property owners, residing in the Granville development south of the country club.

Several months ago—it may have been close to a year now—a representative from Granville shared with me plans for the vacant land that separates our neighborhood from Clovis Avenue. I was ecstatic to learn that these plans were anchored by Fresh & Easy, as our options for prepared food are very limited in Southeast Fresno. I’d prefer more restaurants, but I would certainly consider an option like Fresh & Easy as a step forward for our area.

Recently, The Business Journal outlined several proposed locations for the Fresh & Easy’s expansion throughout Fresno and Clovis; to my surprise, Sunnyside was not included in the list. I considered that the chain’s slowed development might be to blame, though other proposed locations were mentioned, but then I read in the recent edition of Sunnysider that SPOA has opposed the zoning change that would allow for the market, and that application has been put on hold.

I have no doubt that the mixed-use development described in the newsletter would increase traffic, but I’m curious to know if SPOA has access to any studies that quantify the specific affect on noise and traffic. Clovis Avenue, especially at this location, could handle additional vehicles—then again, such a development would serve residents already in the area more than it would provide a destination for those outside of Sunnyside.

I’d appreciate additional information on SPOA’s objections to this development and the required rezone. To that point, I’d also appreciate an outline of things—shared values, projects, plans for the future—that SPOA supports, as my only awareness at this point is of things the group has opposed.

Thank you for your time.

Kind regards,

James Collier

I’m still riled up about the attempted class-action litigation that an L.A. lawyer wants to bring against my home’s builder. Thus, I decided to send a note to the instigator.

March 5, 2009

Law Offices of Danil Monteleone
8160 Tunney
Reseda, CA 91335

Dear Mr. Monteleone,
I’d like to thank you.

I attended the community meeting last week that you held for Granville homeowners. I was disappointed to hear that the previous night’s meeting was less than friendly, but I left the gathering quite optimistic.

You see, our neighborhood has seen every challenge imaginable: high foreclosure, negligent home owners, theft—of personal property, vehicles, the wire that passes power through to our streetlights. Add to this a variety of cultural and economic backgrounds, and there’s one thing that we have lacked: unity.

But you helped us find that. You helped us come together, and to find a common voice—a voice that I imagine is still ringing in your ears.

So, I’d like to thank you. But I just can’t muster enough respect for your business, or your personal ethic, to do so.

If you want to stir up doubt and prey on confusion, please do so elsewhere. You are not welcomed here.

A proud Granville owner,

James Collier

The following was submitted to The Fresno Bee this afternoon for consideration as in Saturday’s Valley Voices. It’s an in-depth follow up to a previous post about attempted class-action litigation against Granville Homes.

It’s been a long time since I’ve sat in an elementary school cafeteria. I don’t have many pleasant memories of my first years in school…let’s just say I was an overweight out-of-towner from a low-income split family, and leave it at that.

Needless to say, bullies loved me.

Evidently, they still do, and they still hang out on the schoolyard, as evidenced by last week’s neighborhood meeting at John Wash Elementary School. The host: Danil Monteleone, a lawyer working out of a home office in Reseda. The purpose: to unite homeowners in a class-action suit against our homebuilder, Granville Homes. It seems the entire Sunnyside development is defective.

I’m of the opinion that the perfect home is about as tangible as the perfect homeowner—or the perfect neighbor, for that matter. It just doesn’t exist, no matter who the builder is, though I’d argue that Granville comes close. The literature distributed by Mr. Monteleone prior to the event highlights pictures of cracked stucco and concrete, chipped tile and rotting exterior wood; I don’t suppose that gravity, use, or weather could factor in to these "defects," but perhaps I’ve exposed my bias.

From Mr. Monteleone’s initial letter:

California law entitles you to recover money from the builder and its insurance carriers for stucco cracks, roof leaks, toilet leaks, window leaks and other types of damage. While we cannot guarantee a result in your case, our firm has a track record of obtaining sizable settlements for homeowners. This may be your last opportunity to compel the builder to stand behind its product. [Italics added for emphasis]

A letter from Granville announcing a meeting to discuss the implications of litigation notes that they, "think it is very likely that these lawyers have never even seen [our] neighborhood." They also provide contact details for the customer service department, urging homeowners to let them know if there’s a problem.

I tried to process all of this before the public gathering, but only came up with questions:

• Could Mr. Monteleone have a genuine concern for me and my neighbors?
• Would litigation affect what little value my home has retained?
• Have some of my neighbors already been turned away by Granville’s customer service department?

So, I attended the meeting. I found a seat in the cafeteria, and I waited. Half an hour after the scheduled start, Mr. Monteleone welcomed everyone; he then proceeded to outline the reasons why we were not going to talk as a group. He explained that a similar meeting the night before turned aggressive, due to the overwhelming turnout by a "cheering section" of Granville homeowners. He wasn’t willing to go through that again, though he offered to meet with us individually.

Several attendees tried to ask questions, but they were shrugged off. One woman noted that she was not dissatisfied, but she was a new Granville owner, and wanted to hear the concerns of those who weren’t happy. That didn’t happen.

Instead, Granville’s president Darius Assemi pleaded with the room, requesting that each homeowner give him the chance to address their concerns—whether physical or financial—before turning to a lawyer. And with that, we were dismissed.

Though I was disappointed in the resulting non-meeting, I was encouraged by the overwhelming voice of those in attendance, not only affirming the quality of our homes, but challenging the motive of Mr. Monteleone. We’ve suffered enough in our neighborhood: numerous foreclosures, negligent owners, theft (of personal property, vehicles, the wire that passes power through to our streetlights). We don’t need a career instigator preying on our vulnerabilities.

I would be wary of any builder that claimed perfection, and I don’t doubt that there are legitimate claims for which the service that the Law Offices of Danil Monteleone provides is warranted, but my personal experience with Granville has been extremely positive, and I know others in the neighborhood that share in my satisfaction with what they’ve built.

To other homeowners who receive correspondence from Mr. Monteleone, or anyone with a similar "service," please consider the impact on not only your home, but those of your neighbors. It’s highly unlikely that a lawyer from outside of the community is looking out for your best interest.

To Darius and the team at Granville, my wife and I thank you. Thank you for your commitment to quality. Thank you for your commitment to this community.

Our neighborhood isn’t exactly what I had hoped for when we signed the contract to build almost four years ago. Reflective of the national collapse in the housing market, countless homes have been abandoned; some are now being purchased as foreclosures, at less than 60% of the original purchase price. And we’ve seen plenty of theft—of wire, of vehicles, of personal items inside our neighbor’s home.

The banks may or may not be helping, but lately, we’ve found that others are looking out for our best interest. Or so they say…

Last week I received word from our homebuilder, Granville Homes, that a law firm from Southern California was contacting homeowners in the neighborhood about a class-action lawsuit; on Saturday, Kim and I received a package from the Law Offices of Danil Monteleone in Reseda.

I won’t claim that our home is perfect—no built structure is. But we’ve found Granville to be very responsive, and the builder’s customer service reputation was one of the reasons we selected their tract. From the letter:

A lawsuit is being prepared against the builder of your home for construction defects. The lawsuit involves many of the homes in your neighborhood. To join, simply sign the enclosed "Contingent Fee Agreement" and return it by fax or mail. An envelope with prepaid postage has been provided for your convenience.

California law entitles you to recover money from the builder and its insurance carriers for stucco cracks, roof leaks, toilet leaks, window leaks and other types of damage. While we cannot guarantee a result in your case, our firm has a track record of obtaining sizable settlements for homeowners. This may be your last opportunity to compel the builder to stand behind its product.

You will not be asked for money if you join the lawsuit. All fees and costs will be paid out of the recovery. The Law Offices of Danil Monteleone will advance all costs associated with this case. No fee or cost will be charged to your until and unless there is a recovery. There is no financial risk to you.

The packet also includes a picture book of possible defects; what I find interesting about this is that most of them are common results of a settling foundation, and pose no real harm to a home. From the back of the book:

Why join a construction defect suit?
Because your home is your biggest investment, and you paid to have it built right!

It’s hard to argue with this answer, but that’s the reason that homebuilders (ours, at least) have a customer service department, and I’ve found Granville’s to be exceptional (in fact, I’ll outline my test of their service in another post).

I’m not opposed to class-action litigation, if they’re warranted. But my fear with this particular scam is that my neighbors will buy in—we’re all affected by the economic downturn, and the promise of easy money is quite attractive. Despite what the packet says, however, I can’t imagine that such a law suite won’t affect property values, or even the ability to sell a home.

For those in the neighborhood, there is a meeting at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, at John Wash Elementary School.