Mavila 61, mavila 121, mavila 3 home owner of all 3 properties
J
Jill Carter
1 year ago
Copala 3604
M
Mark McKamey
1 year ago
Villa 12 - Mavila
G
Gregg Baker and Lisa Baker
1 year ago
Owners Copala 7403
C
Chau Lan Phan
1 year ago
Owners at Mavila Towers 3404
N
Ngoc Minh Trang Pham
1 year ago
Owner at Mavila Towers 3404.
F
Fabio Nunes Ribeiro Maia
1 year ago
Owner at Mavila Towers 3404
D
Dieter Warnke
1 year ago
Owner Copala casa 42
A
Alan Ironside
1 year ago
Copala 4603
D
Donna S Kanger-Trujillo
1 year ago
Copala 6306
J
Jeff and Lynn Galindo
1 year ago
Owner Copala 5607
P
Priscilla Ann Robertson
1 year ago
My husband and I do not agree with the new policy that you are implementing. Casa 65, Copala, owners
R
RENE RUIZ
1 year ago
COPALA 6301
A
Adrian Montalvo
1 year ago
Mavila 531
C
Carl Rocky Finseth II
1 year ago
Owner Copala #4106
G
Gail Marchildon
1 year ago
Long term renter
Copala 1303
B
Brandon Kesler
1 year ago
As a fully vested homeowner in Quivira, I strongly support the stance outlined above and want to underscore several critical points that must not be overlooked by senior administration.
First and foremost, we are not hotel guests—we are full deeded owners of our properties, and our rights as such must be honored without interference. The recent access policy changes, which appear to be modeled on hospitality management protocols, are completely misaligned with the reality of residential community living. We are not under resort management. We are under the laws and responsibilities of property ownership.
Access to our homes—by friends, family, or service providers—should not be subject to unnecessary administrative or procedural restrictions. The existing system was already overly complex. This new iteration is not only excessive, but borders on obstruction of basic ownership rights.
Let’s be clear: maintaining our homes and retaining trusted service providers is not optional—it is essential. If Quivira restricts our access to affordable, timely, and quality services, the overall community will suffer—both in appearance and value. These new policies will reduce competition, inflate prices, and drive down service quality. That directly threatens property values across the board. People invest in Quivira because of the lifestyle, flexibility, and long-term value. Undermining that with restrictive gatekeeping policies is short-sighted and damaging.
I have been a full-time resident and owner in Quivira for nearly six years. I’ve seen this community grow and evolve, and I’ve invested my time, energy, and resources here. And yet, I’ve had to personally go to the security gate over 100 times just to allow friends or workers in—a staggering and completely unnecessary burden. This has been, without question, one of the only ongoing frustrations I’ve had living in Copala, and it’s unacceptable. As owners, we should not be forced to jump through hoops to access our
Mavila Villa 11
Mavila A102 John and Jennifer Harding
MAVILA unit 053
Mavila 61, mavila 121, mavila 3 home owner of all 3 properties
Copala 3604
Villa 12 - Mavila
Owners Copala 7403
Owners at Mavila Towers 3404
Owner at Mavila Towers 3404.
Owner at Mavila Towers 3404
Owner Copala casa 42
Copala 4603
Copala 6306
Owner Copala 5607
My husband and I do not agree with the new policy that you are implementing. Casa 65, Copala, owners
COPALA 6301
Mavila 531
Owner Copala #4106
Long term renter Copala 1303
As a fully vested homeowner in Quivira, I strongly support the stance outlined above and want to underscore several critical points that must not be overlooked by senior administration. First and foremost, we are not hotel guests—we are full deeded owners of our properties, and our rights as such must be honored without interference. The recent access policy changes, which appear to be modeled on hospitality management protocols, are completely misaligned with the reality of residential community living. We are not under resort management. We are under the laws and responsibilities of property ownership. Access to our homes—by friends, family, or service providers—should not be subject to unnecessary administrative or procedural restrictions. The existing system was already overly complex. This new iteration is not only excessive, but borders on obstruction of basic ownership rights. Let’s be clear: maintaining our homes and retaining trusted service providers is not optional—it is essential. If Quivira restricts our access to affordable, timely, and quality services, the overall community will suffer—both in appearance and value. These new policies will reduce competition, inflate prices, and drive down service quality. That directly threatens property values across the board. People invest in Quivira because of the lifestyle, flexibility, and long-term value. Undermining that with restrictive gatekeeping policies is short-sighted and damaging. I have been a full-time resident and owner in Quivira for nearly six years. I’ve seen this community grow and evolve, and I’ve invested my time, energy, and resources here. And yet, I’ve had to personally go to the security gate over 100 times just to allow friends or workers in—a staggering and completely unnecessary burden. This has been, without question, one of the only ongoing frustrations I’ve had living in Copala, and it’s unacceptable. As owners, we should not be forced to jump through hoops to access our