Re: Common House Use Proposal | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Kay Argyle (Kay.Argyle![]() |
|
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 12:07:50 -0700 (PDT) |
To go back to the original question, which is to say, the proposal, I would put #1 about nonresident owners as a subclause to #2, or following it. Putting it first seems to give greater importance to nonresident owners than to residents. Personally, this proposal wouldn't greatly motivate me to work, because I almost never schedule our common house. On the other hand, I like the fact it links rights to responsibilities. Kay Wasatch Commons
- Re: Common House Use Proposal, (continued)
- Re: Common House Use Proposal Wayne Tyson, May 10 2011
- Re: Common House Use Proposal Naomi Anderegg, May 10 2011
- Re: Common House Use Proposal Wayne Tyson, May 11 2011
-
Re: Common House Use Proposal Sharon Villines, May 11 2011
- Re: Common House Use Proposal Wayne Tyson, May 11 2011
- Re: Common House Use Proposal Wayne Tyson, May 11 2011
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.