Trojan pony

But the meeting with Bennett only further agitated the residents, who were more dedicated than ever to stop SMU from controlling their fate. They wanted to limit SMU's ownership to 10 percent, which required a change in the declaration to be passed by 67 percent of the complex's voting members. But when the vote was held in late September, only 55 percent of the owners voted to limit single ownership -- not enough to amend the declaration, but enough to pass a bylaw. At the time, SMU owned about 12 percent of the units and the new bylaw did nothing to stop them. The school continued its buying spree, and by November they owned 45 units -- almost 14 percent of the total.

SMU has made it difficult for anyone else to buy available units. According to a Park Cities mortgage banker, if a single owner owns more than 10 percent of a condominium complex, lending rates for future buyers are increased by a percentage point, and/or the required down payment, usually around 5 percent, increases to as much as 20 percent. If SMU scares off all other buyers, then it ultimately controls the price of the condominium units, which residents claim have begun to decline. Residents say some units have sold as high as the mid-$80s in past years.

The residents consider SMU's insistence in flouting the bylaw by continuing to purchase units the height of arrogance. They sent a cease and desist letter demanding they stop buying units and divest back to the 10 percent ownership limit, but SMU kept on buying. Now the board is deciding whether to impose a monthly fine on the school for defying the bylaw.

Leslie Davenport's divorced parents own units they live in, and she's afraid they will be forced to sell. "My parents watched their money their whole lives," says Davenport. "They scrimped and saved for their retirement years. They have this money to take care of themselves. If they had to move and use that money, it would cause a great hardship -- emotionally, physically, and financially.

"SMU doesn't care about what the majority of owners of University Gardens want," Davenport adds. "The way they are ignoring the new bylaws is atrocious and unconscionable. It has created a lot of anger. We don't want one entity to decide our fate."

Davenport's mother agrees. "Had they come to us in the beginning and told us they wanted right of first refusal on the land if and when we were ready to sell because they wanted to buy it, we could have co-existed peacefully," says Pat Davenport.

Says SMU's Bennett: "Our goal is to be sure the campus is not diminished by what might happen to this land. We're not imagining we'll own it in the next few years. We don't have that kind of money, and we're not in it for the development opportunity. Our time horizon is 20 years or longer."

As for SMU flouting the recent bylaw amendment, Bennett says that as the university understands laws applicable to condominiums, the declaration governs unit ownership, and "the bylaws are intended to cover building operations."

That is not always the case, according to several legal experts contacted by the Dallas Observer. Whether this particular bylaw is enforceable may ultimately be up to a court to decide. Until then, the residents will continue to picket every Saturday, except Christmas and New Year's, come rain or shine.

"The one power card we have is, we know SMU is sensitive to publicity," says Pierce. "In their arrogance, they haven't given us much credit to oppose them. They've underestimated our determination."