Termination vs. Amendment - Part II

This is a revamp of the first thread I posted, where I was proposing that termination could be applied to subsets of clauses (e.g. allow some sheds, but not all sheds).

Now I'm just wondering who out there has witnessed use of the "termination" clause to conduct the "removal" of certain clauses.

Our CC&R's document that termination can be done with 51% vote while amendments require 67%. And so, it may be appropriate to "terminated" (i.e. remove) some clauses based on the 51% vote.

I've heard some argue that the "Termination" mentioned in CC&R's always and only refers to the WHOLE document at once, and not just parts of it.

And I've also heard others agree that it can be applied to individual Restrictions, so long as you are just simply "REMOVING" a clear-worded restriction (e.g. "no sheds", removed).

What is the truth here? Is the Termination clause *only* permitted to apply to the WHOLE document at once?

Our TERM clause reads as follows:
29. TERM. The foregoing plat covenants and restrictions,
as the same may be amended from time to time, shall run with the land and shall be binding upon all persons or entities from time to time having any right, title or interest in the Real Estate and on all persons or entities claiming under them, until December 31, 2013, and thereafter they shall continue automatically in effect unless terminated by a vote of a majority of the then Owners of the Lots in the Subdivision; provided, however, that no termination of these covenants and restrictions shall affect any easement hereby created and reserved unless all persons entitled to the beneficial use of such easement shall have consented thereto in writing.

It's a modified approach that is meaningful. My first proposal mainly got shot down because I wasn't proposing simple terminations.

Now I want to find out the opinions of folks when only dealing with "simple terminations" (i.e. "removals").

This thread is meaningfully different. Think a little harder, maybe you'll see it.

And I'm reminded of Donald Trump.

Please, let’s not.

If I were younger, they probably would have diagnosed me as autistic. I'm obsessive, and have scored top 99.99% on most tests through school without trying. Then in college went to highly competitive engineering college, and was top 5% here, again without trying (missed half my classes). In the Greek Games, I was in charge of one event, and devised a "cheat" to win - and won. Next year, they outlawed the cheat, but for the year we won, we won, and it was an engineering victory. I did this again at my first job, engineered a cheat here and there, some rewarded some not. I'm an outside-the-box thinker because it's how I was built, and am very good at it.

When it comes to law, I realize that strong engineering logic doesn't equate to "winning cases", because it's up to a judge, and for HOA law, the magistrate isn't cream-of-the-crop in mental capacity. They're even more likely to just go with easy convention and be done. This is important to note, and I've noted it.

As an autistic, I really do obsess on "fairness". It's how I'm built. In mind mind, I've concluded that the most fair approach is to help ensure that the majority get the freedoms that they want, while deterring the minority from forcing their ideas onto others. It's the camp I lean towards.

Politically, I lean Left, but am mostly centered minded. With regard to logic and honesty, I'm not Donald Trump at all. With regard to thinking unconventionally, I'm somewhat like Trump. I don't like him; I don't hate him. But I take it, you hate him.

I behave differently in real life, because real life isn't about arguing. But I love to argue at heart, and love to learn from others arguing against my ideas -- and so I come here.

AugustinD has been very helpful. Most others here... not so much, other than representing establishing that the majority of people really really didn't like my initial proposal.

===
So in all sincerity, this new thread is truly a NEW DISCUSSION. I'm trying to explore the path of "simple terminations" as it appears 3 of those responding here, actually agreed with.

Let's not and say we did.