Lauren Beale
Real Estate Section Editor
Los Angeles Times
202 West First Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012


Dear Ms. Beale,

With regard to the Condo Q and A, column and Ms. Hickenbottom, I have taken all I'm going to take. The question and response, which appeared in today's paper, titled "Group Offers Seminars on Management Laws" is the last straw on what I perceive to be Ms. Hickenbottom's endorsement of industry conglomerates such as the CAI and CACM, in addition to employers, customers and clientele. Have these organizations paid the LA Times for advertising spots in return for her endorsements?

These very same groups offer homeowners no service of any type and are not in the business to serve homeowners in any fashion. They provide service to property managers and CID service providers.

Who is the property manager she replies to in her column that claims many years of property management experience? Am I supposed to believe this seasoned professional hasn't a clue about these highly published so-called non-profit organizations?

Am I also supposed to believe this same professional conveniently consults a condo-owner Q and A column for answers to resolve his professional dilemmas? Is it customary for the LA Times management to ignore columnists that engineer schemes to promote their private interests?

Ms. Hickenbottom promotes these organizations in a forum designed to help the weary CID homeowner and the potential buyers of CID property. I find Ms. Hickenbottom's professional experience is not suited to provide troubled homeowners the answers to their concerns.

If the forum were intended to answer questions raised by property managers I would consider her qualifications.Has the format of the column changed to provide property managers an educational tool to sharpen their management skills and acquaint themselves to the fundamentals of the CID industry? Why then has her column become a trade resource and a reference guide for the ignorant proprietors of such management firms?

She is trained to represent the interests of property managers and displays it well in her column. Why is a founding director of an organization that has no professional interest to represent homeowners, qualified to answer the concerns of homeowners? Wouldn't it make better sense to have industry professionals that represent the interests of homeowners answer questions from your inquiring readers?

A better response should have mentioned the state has allowed an ignorant, unregulated, non-licensed property management industry to continue administering services without a clear understanding of their duty or responsibility to the CID associations they represent for profit.

The alphabet soup designation offered property managers by the CACM and CAI after successfully completing a few basic courses provides a false sense of security to trusting homeowners deceived by such designations, which are not required to operate a management company in California.

The homeowner must continue to pay their fees, month after month regardless of the poor service rogue managers provide. These rogue managers have become a clear demonstration of the failure of the CACM and CAI to successfully influence an industry smothered in turmoil.

Perhaps their failure is the reason the states lawmakers won't enact their educational programs into law. It seems Ms. Hickenbottom has some housecleaning within her own organization to consider rather than handing out ill fated advise to homeowners.

If Ms. Hickenbottom's column serves to promote the CID industry pasties, then perhaps there should be a disclaimer to that effect and the columns title renamed.

As her editor you have the responsibility to protect the readers from her one sided half-truths and misinformation and endorsements that deceive and confuse the readers which have grown to trust southern California's' leading newspaper.

I challenge the authenticity and source of many letters she chooses as her subject matter and believe them to be intentionally fabricated to support her private promotional agenda and are not always genuine letters from her readers.

While I agree that injecting, a small degree of controversy and commentary into publicized editorials will entice readers to return week after week and is a smart gesture to maintain a profitable paper. I don't agree to the intentional effort to deceive your readers striving to understand and protect there're single most important investment.

You do have some gullible associates.

In response to your recent e-mails: Have these organizations paid theLA Times for advertising spots in return for her endorsements?

No. Nor have the organizations whose programs appear in the Real Estate Events calendar paid to be included in editorial space. Both are considered a public service.

Wouldn't it make better sense to have industry professionals that represent the interests of homeowners answer questions from your inquiring readers?

Yes. In fact I am considering starting an additional condominium column written by a judge but it hasn't materialized yet. I've also learned that a nationally syndicated columnist will be starting one up sometime next year and if it is suitable I'll add it to our lineup.

My observation is the section does not adequately cover condominium topics and my goal is to have three rotating columns and more coverage in our general feature writing.

I realize this response falls short of answering your many questions but I wanted to let you know I have read what you had to say and am taking it under consideration.

Thank you for your interest in the Times Real Estate Section.

Below I have taken the liberty to ask again the questions you believe to be rhetorical and intended to only hurt your feelings.

The following is a statement extracted from your reply to my December18, 2000 letter.

"You asked several questions in your letter. Perhaps most of them were rhetorical and only meant to hurt my feelings but I will try to answer the most important ones".

Below is a list of questions I asked which you didn't answer which I feel are more important than you defending your hurt feelings and PCAM and CCAM designations sewn on your sleeve.

Maybe you can help me better understand your plight by answering them rather than dodging them.

1). With regard to CACM seminars, how can these seminars benefit consumer homeowners if they (homeowners) are precluded from attending and participating in the offer you mention?

2). Do you actually think the readers of the column are so stupid to reasonably believe that this anonymous seasoned property manager consults a local newspaper bi-monthly column searching for answers to his professional dilemmas and to learn the fundamentals of his profession?

3). Has the columns focus changed to provide a trade resource and reference guide for the ignorant proprietors of such property management firms?

4). Has the CACM administered extensive background checks on newly designated managers to ensure personal creditability along with professional ability?

5). Which accrediting agency has approved the educational programs the CACM administers. Has the State of California issued the CACM an educational certification qualifying the instructors and courses offered property managers as they do with any other educational program provider, including truck-driving schools?

These are only a few questions that are important for homeowners to ask and understand so they can evaluate the many information sources, which claim to help homeowners. Maybe it would be easier for me to publish the many CCAM, PCAM, CAI and AMO designated property managers that have ripped off our association thousands upon thousands of dollars over the years.

You could go chase them down and redeem them from their sins and teach them the way it's supposed to be and then label them CCAM qualified.

This would be far better than waiting for them to come to you.