Gated community security disclaimer

I was wondering if anyone has a sample security disclaimer they use for their community. We are a unmanned gated community, but as we all know, a gated community does not equal a secure community. The gates are really just there for access control and if someone wants to get in, they can. The fences surrounding the community are only four feet and it's very easy to walk in behind someone through the gates. You can call a random person from the call box and most likely they will let you in. We have landscape services, roofers, cleaning people, etc. that are in the community all day long.

We have not had a disclaimer with our governing documents before. I think it's important that we put out a policy/disclaimer that the gates are for access control and do not guarantee security. We have a group of homeowners who are suggesting that when that gates are broken (like after the last hurricane they were open for a couple of days) we hire sheriff's deputies or armed security guards to patrol 24 hours a day.

In reality, we have had no violent or property crimes except domestic violence in our community in the last few years.

I saw this on the Stirling Davis website. It's not exactly what we want to say. Does anyone else have something more relevant?

SECURITY DISCLAIMER. We hope that our security systems provide some deterrence to crime. However, the association can never be crime-free. For example, it is possible for someone to enter the property under false pretenses to commit crimes, for residents to commit crimes against their own neighbors, for guests of residents to commit crimes, and for employees to commit crimes. As a result, the association cannot guarantee your security. You should NOT rely on the association to protect you from loss or harm. You should provide for your own security by keeping your doors locked; refusing to open your door to strangers; asking workmen for identification; installing a security system; carrying insurance; etc.

From a legal website, note the case.

Under California law, an association has a duty to exercise due care for the safety of its residents in areas under association control. Generally, an association is not liable for crimes of third parties unless the association is under notice of a safety concern or potential for crime. Courts have found that where an association was under notice of a potential for crime (e.g., the association knows of increasing crime in the surrounding area and knows a particular area of the association is vulnerable to this crime), it can be held liable for failure to protect against those types of crimes. A key factor is foreseeability. (Frances T. v. Vill. Green Owners Assn. (1986) 42 Cal. 3d 490, 499-501.)

Our biggest issue regarding the gates is that when the community was developed 25 years ago, they built a guardhouse at the two main entrances (then changed the development plan and added a third entrance without a guardhouse). There were never guards in the guardhouses, but apparently they sold the community that way.
We have people who move into the community who want to live in a "secure" community but those are much more expensive because live guards are incredibly expensive. The county won't let us gate our private parkway, so we are pretty much stuck with what we have, unless we want to double (or more) the monthly assessment and hire guards and build a third guard house, or try to install one of those remote guard systems (they are incredibly unpopular with owners who have them at their communities).

We have a wide range of housing, from small condos to larger houses. We have an activist couple in one of the most expensive houses that have cocktail parties where they discuss security and enlist their friends to write letters to us about the gates. The extra expense would not matter to them or their friends. We asked on a recent survey if residents wanted to leave the black iron gates open during work hours to save wear and tear and speed things up (we have backups at the guest gates). There would still be barrier arms in place. Of the 50% of the community that responded to the survey, 69% said yes, they would like to leave the black gates open. This has struck fear into the hearts of our "elite".

By far, the gates in this community are our biggest expense. We have six sets of gates. We have an amazing security vendor who is very responsive if the gates go down, which only happens when a part goes bad, Comcast has a failure (we rely on their modems and internet) or we have a hurricane. We have an off-duty deputy who patrols the community several days a week. We have a state of the art camera system at the gates and our clubhouses. We have almost no crime. We include home security system monitoring as part of our monthly fees. But it still isn't enough for some people.

Apparently it's pretty common to have a security disclaimer in your governing documents in Florida. We just have never had one.

From the second section of P. 1 of our Rules & Regs— a governing doc: “Building Access. ’XXX XXX’ is equipped with video cameras, controlled access doors, locking mechanisms and entry phone systems. No building, however, has completely secured facilities and no warranty is made or implied as to resident safety. It takes the vigilant observation and prompt action of residents to prevent unauthorized access and failure of these systems. Please report any concerns and violations promptly to on-site Access Control Officers (ACOs) and/or Management.”

Our residents, I think, get a false sense of security from the 20/7 presense of 2 ACOs. But our CC&Rs and Articles of Incorp make no reference to protecting residents’ personal safety. I’d get your HOA’s GC’s advice on wording.

Our single gated drive entrance in our urban center sq. blk. high rise condo twin towers has a 24/7 staffer. A 2nd is a “rover.” Our developer 20 years ago would never have sold units without these. We have 3 building entrances by fob

Terri’s citation is classic in CA. And our HOA’s Attorney gave a similar answer to my question about this at our annual meeting last week, which I posed due to my concern that residents are sloppy about caring for their own personal safety.

Then run the numbers and present that to everyone. If these homeowners think you're making them up, they can see what was in the RFP the board sent out. If they want to do the work and find a vendor who's more affordable, and then convince the rest of the neighborhood the extra expense is worth it, let them do their thing and we'll see how it ends. Sometimesthat's the best way to show people and they find out pretty quickly how much work they want to put into a project. The board has to do this all the time and don't get paid! They do receive a heap of criticism for all the decisions they make - sheesh.

I agree with you that the developer created a false sense of security with building the guard houses, but what did they care? They split as soon as they sold the last house and it was up to the homeowners to make it work. Of course we all know real life works differently than we think it should.

Anyway, if you feel the disclaimer is necessary, talk to the attorney, come up with a draft and ask homeowners what they think. It could spark a great conversation about how much anyone can expect regarding safety.

That's exactly why, Dean, the CEO of our previous MC instructed us to term these staffers as Access Control Officers. Our GM was her employee and was directed to never say "security," or "guards." She advised our Board to use the same language.

Following up on Shelia; A cou0l eo time over the years, our Boards have appointed "ad his"committees with owners who nat something or other and they did th research to present to the Boar of thier pet desire.

I would not have used the term access officers either. I would have used the term gate attendant.

Access Control Officers ("ACOs") do far more than staff the gate kiosk entrance. We have 2 on duty 20/7. The 2 one roves our twin 25-story tower premises,including the roofs, checks for violations in our 3 P-levels, receive parcels from deliverers, gives them to residents at our Parcel rooms, quiets down loud residents at the pool or checks on other alleged violation complaints by residents.

"Gee attendent" might be a good title if that's all such a staffer does.

Sorry, my above should have said "ad hoc."

So what, Dean? Why do you think your job title is better than the very smart CEO of a large MC? And why do you care?

I can think of many functions of those to whom the word "officer" applies that imply no security function.

Another real aspect of the wording relates to tight labor markets due to our outstanding US and my state's economy. Turnover always is an issue with these officers , so things like job title matter, I think the word "attendant" is a disrespectful if the officer has a whole bunch of duties as do ours. We need to do all we can to attract & keep good staffers and job title can matter.

Afew times a year, one does, indeed, ask a "trespasser" to leave which has gone without incident.

These few always tailgate a resident entering our building from the street via our lobby doors. Often they're looking for a restroom.

I think that private gated HOA residential premises are very different than public parking lots with random cars going in & out. They have nothing to do with HOAs.

I'm happy with our ACO title. Do you still think "officer" means security or guard only? Maybe look it up?

IF an HOA has such staffers who ONLY staff the entry or gate, "gate associate" could be sorta OK, but sounds a little off to my ear.I'ts Lori who's asking anyway, Dean.