looks more like bias and selective enforcement. Plain as day.

Throw in a bit of discrimination too.

And I thought you was all Democrats.

Dear Club,

We hear your passion, but we need to step back from personal opinions and look at the hard legal reality. Nobody on this board is trying to play social worker or dictate how people live their lives. The board is responding to a formal legal mandate that threatens our entire site access.

To be fully transparent, here is the exact language from the Notice to Vacate, Trespass and Cease Unauthorized Activities sent to us by Encore University Hills, LLC (signed by their representative, David Hardy):

“It has come to Encore’s attention that individuals directly and/or indirectly affiliated with Crestline have engaged in ongoing and unlawful conduct on Encore Property, including but not limited to:

Unauthorized storage of personal items and equipment;
Dumping of trash and debris;
Unlawful occupancy, camping, or squatting.
This conduct constitutes trespass, nuisance… It also exposes both the individuals and Crestline to legal liability, including potential claims for damages, cleanup costs, and injunctive relief.”
The developer explicitly required the club to ensure that all Crestline-affiliated individuals, members, and invitees refrain from entering or occupying their property, and gave us a strict timeline to confirm corrective action was taken.

1. The Precedent is Consistent and Clear
Dan, looking at that first bullet point—unauthorized storage of personal items—this is exactly why the club had to issue you a notice regarding your property on their land in the past. You respected the boundary, moved your items, and protected the club.

Applying the exact same standard to the second and third bullet points—dumping of trash and unlawful squatting—isn’t selective enforcement or a personal vendetta. It is the board consistently enforcing the exact same boundary to protect the airpark from the legal liability detailed in this letter. To be clear on the timeline: Steve wasn’t just rushed off the land. He had nearly a year to move his trailer from the developer’s property. After a year-long eviction process, he finally moved his trailer, but left behind a substantial amount of garbage. It was after he vacated that the developer issued a final 15-day notice strictly to clear out his debris. He failed to clean it up, which legally turned that left-behind property into illegal dumping.

2. The Link to Our Day Facilities
Jana, you asked how Steve using the LZ during the day threatens the club if he sleeps off-property at night. Encore’s legal team explicitly tied the club to this liability because our daytime facilities—our electricity, water, internet, and shade structures—were actively enabling and sustaining an ongoing residency right on their property line.

We are currently fighting a massive battle with this exact developer and the City Council to protect our landing approaches from unsafe housing layouts. We cannot walk into city council meetings begging for land-use favors while simultaneously harboring activities that our neighbors have formally flagged as a legal nuisance.

3. The Board’s Duty
To Thomas and Jana’s points about our roles: our primary, legally bound duty under the bylaws is to protect the corporate entity and assets of the Crestline Soaring Society. When an individual’s actions result in formal liability notices and jeopardize our standing with landowners, the city, and our DWR lease, the board is required to act. We cannot allow an individual exception to compromise the flying privileges of the entire community.

Let’s Step Away From the Keyboard
Jamie, thank you for getting the minutes finalized. That will provide the structural transparency everyone is asking for.

As for the extensive, complicated history regarding Steve’s eviction, his recent actions at another flight park, and the details of his situation—it is entirely inappropriate to broadcast someone’s personal life on a public internet forum out of respect for his privacy.

If you want to read the full letter from Encore or truly understand the legal tightrope the board is walking to preserve AJX, please pick up the phone and call me @ (480) 367-8000. Let’s have a constructive, private conversation so we can stop treating each other like adversaries on a public forum.

Jana,

I need to step in here because pulling the board’s internal discussions into personal attacks against Luke is completely uncalled for, and it fundamentally misunderstands the legal position our club is in.

First, let’s address the letter from Encore. You claim those issues are “resolved.” They are not.

A legal notice of liability does not magically disappear just because Steve finally moved his trailer across the property line after a year of resistance. The developer’s letter explicitly holds the club responsible for enabling his residency because our daytime facilities—our power, water, shade, and internet—are what sustain his presence on their border. Furthermore, the substantial amount of trash he left behind after ignoring his 15-day cleanup notice remains on their land as illegal dumping.

When a developer formally flags the club as a legal nuisance, that liability stays active as long as the behavior causing it continues. We cannot walk into city council meetings attempting to protect our landing approaches while turning a blind eye to an ongoing code violation on our borders.

1. Corporate Liability vs. “Playing Security Guard”
You are absolutely right that we are not security guards for the neighbors. If a random hiker wanders across their dirt road, that is Encore’s business.

But there is a massive legal difference between a random hiker and an individual utilizing CSS amenities all day to facilitate a nightly squatting presence on adjacent land. The moment a neighboring property owner puts in writing that our resources are enabling a trespass and a nuisance, it becomes the board’s business. Ignoring a formal liability notice isn’t “standing up for freedom”—it is negligence that puts our DWR lease and our entire flight park at risk.

2. Private Context vs. Public Forum
Regarding the text messages you mentioned: those were private, person-to-person communications between Luke and Steve. It is incredibly inappropriate to drag fragments of private text exchanges into a public forum to paint a narrative of dictatorship.

Nobody on this board is trying to dictate how anyone lives. But the board is collectively responsible for protecting the integrity and purpose of the Crestline Soaring Society. A membership cannot be used as a shield to bypass standing board directives or to force the club to harbor documented legal liabilities.

3. A Board Decision
To be precise regarding how the board operates: the actions taken regarding site compliance and the evaluation of this membership were passed by a majority vote of the Board of Directors. While not every single board member may agree on every motion, a democratic vote was held, and the board must stand by its decisions to protect the the club. This is not a unilateral action or a “personal vendetta” by Luke, and trying to frame it as one is not accurate.

Look, Luke is a volunteer, and like any of us, he may not always be the easiest person to work with all the time. But as a club, we have to adopt a mindset of “principles before personalities.” If we reduce every tough operational decision down to whether or not we like a specific board member’s personality, we will tear this club apart from the inside.

As I have stated multiple times, there is an extensive, complicated history here that is not appropriate to broadcast publicly out of respect for Steve’s privacy. If you want to actually look at the facts and the legal scope of what the board is managing, please call me directly. Let’s have a constructive, private conversation over the phone.

For me the situation has gotten even more confused and distressing. I think it would help the membership if the board could address the following points:

The Board’s Timeline

The order of events have become rather confusing. I think it would help us all understand the situation if the board gave its version of the timeline of events. Specifically the dates of the following events (on or about):

1. When did the board receive of the letter saying encore was holding us liable for Steve’s squatting
   1. What was the board’s immediate actions following receipt of the letter? What was the corrective action taken as requested by the letter?
2. When did Steve stop squatting on encore property?
   1. Question: Given the concern about the liability of supporting Steve, why did the board never vote to trespass him between receiving the letter and the end of his squatting on encore property? This would have been the period where the club’s liability was the highest.
3. The board stated after squatting on encore property, Steve moved to CSS/conservancy property. What period did he live there?
   1. Question: Why did the board not trespass him this first time?
4. The board said that Steve squatted on CSS property a second time after leaving for a different site. What period did he squat here for a second time?
5. The board stated that someone called county code and compliance. Who was that? Was that call board approved? When did that call take place?
6. When did the board vote to trespass Steve? Was this vote unanimous?
7. When was the trespass notice delivered?

Having a clearer timeline of these events will really help us understand the situation better.

Continuing and Ongoing Liability

The board keeps saying that Steve presents a continuing and ongoing liability to the club by being present in the LZ and using the “amenities”. If he is no longer trespassing on encore land or any of our neighboring land, what illegal activity are we abetting by letting Steve hang out in our LZ?

The Text Message

I have also seen a copy of the text message where it appears that Luke is telling Steve that, once he has a home and a job, he will be welcomed back as a member of the club again. Does the board deny this communication occurred? If not, was this communication and condition board approved?

Cancelation of Membership

The board took a vote to cancel Steve’s membership. This action appears to violates the bylaws. I know updates to the bylaws are necessary, but, until they occur, those are the rule that both empower and constrain the board.

David,

You’ve made personal attacks and accusations against me.  I gave you the chance to discuss it because it’s a lot faster to discuss the level of detail you seem to be demanding on a call.  You clearly aren’t interested in that opportunity to clear the air.

I’ve answered your questions and I don’t owe you anything further.