[Everyone] Rental Issue: Process for Deliberation

Fri Sep 23 16:12:53 UTC 2022

Will be happy to join with Marc and Joanna after Jewish holidays are
concluded.

On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 10:25 AM Vincent Wimbush via Everyone <
everyone at chelseaplacedecatur.com> wrote:

> Thanks to all for participating in the announced open discussion in re:
> Rental Issue. The committee of three will take the discussion into
> consideration for helping us through the next step--likely some mechanism
> for our registering more clearly and pointedly the majority if not
> unanimous views. The latter will then be the basis for approaching a legal
> professional for assistance.
>
> Vincent
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 8:42 AM Lauren Rich via Everyone <
> everyone at chelseaplacedecatur.com> wrote:
>
>> just an observation:  I believe it's possible to restrict owners in terms
>> of whether and for how long and on what terms we rent.  I think it's far
>> more difficult to restrict to whom selling rights.  And I believe that's
>> the only way to limit commercial investors.  Also, it's a much more onerous
>> limitation on ownership rights to restrict selling rights, as opposed to
>> restrict rental rights.
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 9:01 PM Jordan Sharon via Everyone <
>> everyone at chelseaplacedecatur.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I’m on the same page with Maryann as I also don’t have enough experience
>>> surrounding these matters to add anything new. I also agree with many of
>>> the points made by Melanie, Kathleen/Ron and Molly. It seems the common
>>> thread here is we all want to protect CP from commercial investors that
>>> could have a negative impact on our community and agree that should be the
>>> primary focus. I tend to disagree on placing a cap on private owners
>>> renting, especially in a roommate type situation. However I am willing to
>>> hear the pros and cons on both sides of the matter so as to make a more
>>> educated decision.
>>>
>>> - Jordan
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sep 19, 2022, at 8:13 PM, Maryann Dabkowski via Everyone <
>>> everyone at chelseaplacedecatur.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all-
>>>
>>> I've been hanging back on commenting because I felt some ignorance
>>> around the issue and didn't want to add an uneducated opinion. I've been
>>> listening and reading all week, and don't really have much to add at this
>>> point that hasn't already been said. I do think it's important to be an
>>> active participant in the community, so I wanted to express my agreement
>>> with some points made by Melanie, Molly, and others. I tend to agree on
>>> exploring some guardrails for renting and determining if there is a way to
>>> prevent commercial investors.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Sep 17, 2022 at 1:14 PM Molly Pastin via Everyone <
>>> everyone at chelseaplacedecatur.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I’ve not had the time this week to jot down cohesive thoughts here but
>>>> Ron has summarized mine quite well. Some additional food for thought:
>>>>
>>>> - while I disagree with placing a cap, there are creative ways to
>>>> integrate elements to reduce risk of negative impact of rentals (fees for
>>>> owners in reasonable circumstances, caps on rental years, min time an owner
>>>> must live in home before renting)
>>>> - what I think every person on this chain has in common: lack of desire
>>>> to have commercial investors come in - that is the root I’m deducing we can
>>>> easily come together to tackle
>>>> - if there is no issue today, why make this devise topic front and
>>>> center when we can address the more common concern around commercial
>>>> investors?
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Sep 17, 2022 at 11:08 AM Sara Crews via Everyone <
>>>> everyone at chelseaplacedecatur.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The only problem our HOA ever experienced with tenants was in the late
>>>>> 80s when the owners of #402 divorced,  both moved to different states,  and
>>>>> they rented it to 5 college students.
>>>>> Sara
>>>>>
>>>>> On 09/16/2022 6:47 PM Ronald Baggett via Everyone <
>>>>> everyone at chelseaplacedecatur.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you Melanie!  I think you summed up my thoughts on this issue as
>>>>> well.  One of the most disturbing aspects of American life today is the
>>>>> housing inequities that have taken safe affordable housing away from so
>>>>> many in our communities. I would like to see what if anything we can do to
>>>>> prevent corporate ownership of Chelsea Place homes for investment rentals.
>>>>> At the same time I would like owners to have the availability to offer an
>>>>> affordable rental space in our community. Be that as a border using a room
>>>>> or renting a unit.
>>>>> In my experience what makes a good neighbor has little to do with if
>>>>> they own or rent.  I would be more open to adopting a code of expectations
>>>>> for owners to maintain if they do rent. I believe most renters agree to
>>>>> terms of behavior when they sign a contract. It would be the owners
>>>>> responsibility to enforce compliance.
>>>>> I can not see myself agreeing to limit rental options of private
>>>>> owners during the present housing crisis our community is experiencing. I
>>>>> would be interested if there is a way to legally keep corporate investors
>>>>> from buying our properties to exploit the housing crisis.
>>>>> Would it be of benefit to create a list of expectations and
>>>>> responsibilities of renters to be included in all rental contracts used by
>>>>> Chelsea Place owners who do rent? We could also make a document that
>>>>> clarifies the expectations and responsibilities of owners when renting.
>>>>> This would address the issues of retaining the physical upkeep and
>>>>> presentation of our properties while preserving the ability of owners to
>>>>> offer affordable safe housing to those who need it.
>>>>> Ron
>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sep 16, 2022, at 14:15, melanie davenport via Everyone <
>>>>> everyone at chelseaplacedecatur.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, that's true Sara, you are grandfathered, and similarly, I believe
>>>>> any proposed changes to bylaws would also not impact current owners.  In
>>>>> addition to the general application of grandfathering, there is a specific
>>>>> item in the code that says if a community amends its covenants in
>>>>> order to restrict leasing, and if a house in the community is
>>>>> *already* being leased at the time the amendment is recorded, the
>>>>> owner of that house can continue to lease the house until ownership of the
>>>>> house is transferred to a new owner.  (Georgia Property Owners’
>>>>> Association Act,  Code Section 44-3-226)
>>>>>
>>>>> I absolutely agree, Nobody wants a party house next door, and though
>>>>> it's unlikely any current owner wants their own property values diminished
>>>>> by renting it to people who disrespect their property, there is no
>>>>> guarantee that future owners, particularly corporate investor types, would
>>>>> share that sentiment...  I understand the desire to preempt any possibility
>>>>> of that happening, and wonder if there is any other way to specifically bar
>>>>> the type of investment buyers that are ruining the housing markets across
>>>>> the country?
>>>>>
>>>>> I would like to suggest that in this conversation, Chelsea Place
>>>>> owners should also consider the possible negative outcomes that could arise
>>>>> at some point in future from a strict rental restriction policy.  For
>>>>> example, we know that life can bring unexpected challenges; at some
>>>>> point, someone may need to live abroad for work or move back home to
>>>>> care for a parent, with plans to someday return to their beloved townhome.
>>>>> If this happens to more than one neighbor at the same time, and if a
>>>>> 10% limit has been added to the covenants, who is going to make the
>>>>> judgement on which neighbor is and which neighbor is not allowed to rent
>>>>> their unit?
>>>>>
>>>>> Just weighing in,
>>>>> best,
>>>>> mel
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 2:38 PM Sara Crews via Everyone <
>>>>> everyone at chelseaplacedecatur.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> When I first began renting out my downstairs in 1993, I'm fairly
>>>>> certain that Georgia had on its books a grandfather clause.  It may still
>>>>> be in effect; and if so, aren't we wasting  a lot of time discussing my
>>>>> property?
>>>>>
>>>>> Sara
>>>>>
>>>>> On 09/16/2022 10:59 AM Vincent Wimbush <vlwimbush at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I am pleased we are having respectful discussion about some of the
>>>>> issues. Again, it is important for all or as many as are able to weigh in.
>>>>> (I generally prefer to discuss situations and issues apart from
>>>>> referencing individuals, but it seems this may not always work.)
>>>>>
>>>>> A few more thoughts:
>>>>>
>>>>> I do not recall that it was decided that Sara's rental situation was
>>>>> off the table for discussion--in re: rental issues. It seems to me that
>>>>> that situation must not be automatically set aside or taken off the table
>>>>> for discussion because it is different from Unit 412 (Mel's owner-absentee
>>>>> rental). It is the case that what is involved with Sara is a contractual
>>>>> rental situation with someone. If we collectively decide that this
>>>>> arrangement is fine it needs to be stated as such. And further it needs to
>>>>> be stated that until or unless we clearly add agreed upon restrictions
>>>>> (with respect to both arrangements) *all other owners should have the
>>>>> same opportunity or right to engage in the same kind of contract*. Is
>>>>> this what we want?
>>>>>
>>>>> I am wanting to make it clear that I have super sensitivity to the
>>>>> matter of fairness. So unless we state that a particular arrangement is
>>>>> unusual and is not to be repeated or is to be henceforth restricted in some
>>>>> respect(s), we have to face the reality (of the potential) that any (even
>>>>> all) current or future owners can do the same (as what obtains with Mel and
>>>>> Sara). I find it very problematic to support the current arrangements
>>>>> without making it clear that any and all current and future owners can do
>>>>> the same. Is this what we want?
>>>>>
>>>>> Re: suggested percentage--assuming we do little beyond agreeing to a
>>>>> particular percentage of rentals, I ask, by whose authority? By what or
>>>>> whose wisdom of experience? Is this what other townhomes/condos are
>>>>> allowing? With what success? With what lingering problems or issues? Do we
>>>>> think we need not do anything now because there are no serious problems?
>>>>> The problem is precisely that we have no clear statement of agreement
>>>>> around these matters.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think it is assumed by some that owner-occupied rental is without
>>>>> problems. Or issues. I do not know. Maybe. But again, perhaps we've simply
>>>>> been lucky to date. It is not hard to imagine a different situation with
>>>>> different parties involved.  We ought to think hard about what such a
>>>>> situation might mean beyond the one instance we know about.
>>>>>
>>>>> vlw
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Vincent L. Wimbush, Ph.D.
>>>>> Director
>>>>> Institute for Signifying Scriptures
>>>>> signifyingscriptures.org
>>>>> vincentwimbush.com
>>>>> 626-864-1357
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 10:10 AM Sara Crews <sara408 at comcast.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Good morning, Vincent.  I think it would be a rare situation for a
>>>>> roommate to live in a residence or apartment without paying something
>>>>> toward household expenses, i.e. my grandson has two roommates in his home,
>>>>> and they equally share in costs of utilities and a portion of the
>>>>> mortgage.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sara
>>>>>
>>>>> On 09/15/2022 6:08 PM Vincent Wimbush via Everyone <
>>>>> everyone at chelseaplacedecatur.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure I understand the mystery about what a "rental" is. If an
>>>>> owner--either living in-house or in absentia--asks another or other persons
>>>>> (even a family) to pay a specified amount on a regular basis for staying in
>>>>> part of a unit or in the entirety of one of the units, this is a rental
>>>>> situation. (I do not understand the concept of "roommate" in this context
>>>>> of discussion.)
>>>>>
>>>>> One may want to support the case of a live-in owner renting part of
>>>>> the unit. But we should not kid ourselves that in this situation--or one in
>>>>> which it can be imagined in the future that several persons may be
>>>>> contracted to rent space in one unit--that there are not important quality
>>>>> of life and related issues or challenges to be considered--by all of us.
>>>>> Among them--increase in noise, foot and automobile traffic. And of course
>>>>> there are other challenges and issues that can and ought to be named.
>>>>>
>>>>> Allowing/restricting a number of possible rental arrangements should
>>>>> be debated and considered. But no number or arrangement should be
>>>>> automatically accepted. Also, we should all of us have some sense of the
>>>>> terms on which rentals are arranged. One immediate reaction among us today
>>>>> might be indifference, that such arrangements are nobody else's business
>>>>> beyond the particular owner. We are in discussion about the issues at this
>>>>> time because we have gone through some changes lately that threatened
>>>>> another rental situation; and we may face more threats in the near future
>>>>> if we do not come to some agreement. In addition, some of us
>>>>> think sensitivity to the quality of life here for the rest of us is
>>>>> appropriate with any possible arrangements allowed. How best to translate
>>>>> that sensitivity into agreement is what is before us.
>>>>>
>>>>> We currently have among us two rental arrangements. Perhaps, we have
>>>>> so far simply been lucky. Apart from occasional issues having to do with
>>>>> trash and trash bins left on the sidewalk, unattractive street view (of
>>>>> front window), and so forth, there have not been (to my knowledge) major
>>>>> persistent issues with major impact on the rest of us. Should we assume
>>>>> that without the clearest agreed upon statement we shall always be lucky?
>>>>>
>>>>> vlw
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 4:54 PM Kathleen M. Baggett via Everyone <
>>>>> everyone at chelseaplacedecatur.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks Sara. I would like us to define “rental”. Does this include
>>>>> roommates who are paying rent? To me this is quite different from an
>>>>> absentee owner who is renting. I am not at all a fan of commercial buyers
>>>>> who then rent.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Kathleen M. Baggett*
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *From: *Everyone <everyone-bounces at chelseaplacedecatur.com> on behalf
>>>>> of Sara Crews via Everyone <everyone at chelseaplacedecatur.com>
>>>>> *Date: *Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 2:06 PM
>>>>> *To: *Residents <everyone at chelseaplacedecatur.com>
>>>>> *Cc: *Sara Crews <sara408 at comcast.net>
>>>>> *Subject: *Re: [Everyone] Rental Issue: Process for Deliberation
>>>>>
>>>>> Good afternoon, Vincent.  I just re-read my earlier response to your
>>>>> first email concerning rental issues and found a typo.  Rather than 1%, it
>>>>> should have read 10%.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> FYI - I spoke with my daughter, Sabra, who has been a realtor for many
>>>>> years, about your email to see if she might shed some light on rental
>>>>> issues for townhomes.  Sabra was unaware of townhome rental issues;
>>>>> however, she has sold a number of condominiums, and the bylaws cap rental
>>>>> properties at 10%.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sara
>>>>>
>>>>> On 09/14/2022 4:58 PM Vincent Wimbush via Everyone <
>>>>> everyone at chelseaplacedecatur.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Greetings to all.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I send here a reminder re: open forum on CP rental issue. All have
>>>>> opportunity and safe space to weigh in. Weighing in is important so that
>>>>> there is as much clarity as possible about where things stand among us.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I do not want to put too heavily my fingers on the scale; I really
>>>>> want to facilitate conversation. Position on the issue need not be
>>>>> considered a matter of personal attack or support. Focus on the issue and
>>>>> what it means for our shared interests is important.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Allow me to try one approach that may help some think more and weigh
>>>>> on the matter. It's a risky comparison, but here goes:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Our national political trauma being played out shows us that no set of
>>>>> written laws/agreements can ever cover all contingencies or
>>>>> situations, anticipate all types of psychoses on the part of leaders....
>>>>> Without a broadly-shared collective sense among individuals thinking
>>>>> themselves bound to one another, in a sense, owing certain things to one
>>>>> another--without that sense no rules or law-writers' work will ever cover
>>>>> everything to insure collective well-being.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Now to CP, one way we might think of the rental issue--and frankly,
>>>>> almost all issues we may confront, from upkeep of properties, sensitivity
>>>>> to noises made, the way one property presents itself to the outside, and so
>>>>> forth--is to think in terms of what we owe each other. (Peace? Being left
>>>>> alone? Assurance of a pleasant, beautiful environment? Doing one's part to
>>>>> keep values rising?)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Is rental of one's property relevant to this way of thinking? How
>>>>> might one rental or proliferation of rentals affect the other(s)? Absentee
>>>>> ownership presents some obvious challenges. What are some of these
>>>>> challenges? Is the owner-absentee rental situation the only rental issue
>>>>> that affects the rest of us? What might an increase in either type of
>>>>> rental situation mean for the rest of us?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Again, some rules may be written to cover most of what may make us
>>>>> anxious today. But they will not cover all types of situations or
>>>>> ideas....(I am not sure I would be as attracted to CP if I had discovered
>>>>> at the beginning that there were several rental situations here...)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So I do want to raise again as a framing or guiding question--what do
>>>>> we assume we owe one another? How  does this assumption get translated in
>>>>> the way we comport ourselves in all respects and situations, the way we
>>>>> live so interconnected with one another?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What might this mean for the issue on  the floor for discussion and
>>>>> consideration?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> vlw
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Sep 1, 2022 at 11:06 AM Sara Crews <sara408 at comcast.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you,  Vincent.   I totally agree with this approach.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From my perspective,  the number of rentals within our small complex
>>>>> should be limited to 1%.  Since I reside in my home,  it should not be
>>>>> counted as a rental but as a roommate situation - just my opinion,  but
>>>>> certainly am open to everyone's thoughts.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sara
>>>>>
>>>>> On 09/01/2022 10:30 AM Vincent Wimbush via Everyone <
>>>>> everyone at chelseaplacedecatur.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Greetings to all.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You may recall that at our last meeting we briefly discussed the
>>>>> matter of rental of units. (Reference last posted minutes.) We established
>>>>> a committee to look into the matter. The committee has researched HOA
>>>>> documents in order to help us find clarity regarding the situation. The
>>>>> documents available have not resulted in clarifying matters. The committee
>>>>> agreed that consultation with legal professionals who work with HOAs is
>>>>> needed in order to help us clarify for our times CP HOA position on the
>>>>> issue.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But before consultation with legal professionals is pursued we want to
>>>>> make sure there is a clear sense of the current owners about matters. So we
>>>>> propose the following process for consideration:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 1/ Open Online Discussion--for a period of 21 days (beginning
>>>>> September 1, 2022). All are welcome and encouraged to share--on multiple
>>>>> occasions, if you like; on a range of issues/questions of importance--views
>>>>> in re: matters having to do with rental of CP TownHomes. Courtesy and
>>>>> respect are expected.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2/ At or near the end of the Open Discussion and based on issues
>>>>> raised the committee will devise a simple poll to which all will be asked
>>>>> to respond. This poll will allow us to make the collective position more
>>>>> pointed or specific.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 3/ Based on the responses to the poll a statement will be composed
>>>>> that will seek to reflect the views of the majority, if not all, of the
>>>>> owners. As owners--one per unit--we will have the opportunity to vote yes
>>>>> or no in re: proposed statement.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The deliberation and making of statement of agreement process will end
>>>>> as soon as is reasonable for all.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I hope all of you will accept this proposal and its protocols and will
>>>>> be willing to weigh in and participate in the deliberations during the
>>>>> proposed period.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is an important matter that goes to the heart of assumptions
>>>>> about what we are.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for your cooperation and participation.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> With receipt of this message, the floor is open to the sharing of
>>>>> views and opinions in re: Rental of Units at CP.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Vincent L. Wimbush
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Everyone mailing list
>>>>> Everyone at chelseaplacedecatur.com
>>>>> https://chelseaplacedecatur.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/everyone
>>>>> <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fchelseaplacedecatur.com%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Feveryone&data=05%7C01%7Ckbaggett%40gsu.edu%7Ca7eba4342a6f4b54182608da9744f7a8%7C515ad73d8d5e4169895c9789dc742a70%7C0%7C0%7C637988619732964220%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=62ZtqwnK%2BHN56dSOj5RaSM14BpXiEbI6k7cgSXZ9gMY%3D&reserved=0>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Everyone mailing list
>>>>> Everyone at chelseaplacedecatur.com
>>>>> https://chelseaplacedecatur.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/everyone
>>>>>
>>>>> CAUTION: This email was sent from someone outside of the university.
>>>>> Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and
>>>>> know the content is safe.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Everyone mailing list
>>>>> Everyone at chelseaplacedecatur.com
>>>>> https://chelseaplacedecatur.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/everyone
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Everyone mailing list
>>>>> Everyone at chelseaplacedecatur.com
>>>>> https://chelseaplacedecatur.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/everyone
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Everyone mailing list
>>>>> Everyone at chelseaplacedecatur.com
>>>>> https://chelseaplacedecatur.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/everyone
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Melanie G. Davenport, PhD
>>>>> Associate Professor of Art Education
>>>>> Georgia State University
>>>>> meldavenport at gmail.com
>>>>> 404-413-5260
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Everyone mailing list
>>>>> Everyone at chelseaplacedecatur.com
>>>>> https://chelseaplacedecatur.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/everyone
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Everyone mailing list
>>>>> Everyone at chelseaplacedecatur.com
>>>>> https://chelseaplacedecatur.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/everyone
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Everyone mailing list
>>>>> Everyone at chelseaplacedecatur.com
>>>>> https://chelseaplacedecatur.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/everyone
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Everyone mailing list
>>>> Everyone at chelseaplacedecatur.com
>>>> https://chelseaplacedecatur.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/everyone
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Everyone mailing list
>>> Everyone at chelseaplacedecatur.com
>>> https://chelseaplacedecatur.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/everyone
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Everyone mailing list
>>> Everyone at chelseaplacedecatur.com
>>> https://chelseaplacedecatur.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/everyone
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Lauren Rich
>> Atlanta, GA
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Everyone mailing list
>> Everyone at chelseaplacedecatur.com
>> https://chelseaplacedecatur.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/everyone
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Everyone mailing list
> Everyone at chelseaplacedecatur.com
> https://chelseaplacedecatur.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/everyone
>

-- 
Lauren Rich
Atlanta, GA
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://chelseaplacedecatur.com/pipermail/everyone/attachments/20220923/a9168e9c/attachment-0001.htm>