|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 28, 2017 12:09:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Dick Tracy on Mar 28, 2017 14:56:24 GMT -5
This Board Member (Mr. Frns Sm all ) cost SLohA by his actions a total in excess of $103,000, and then a few months later he erects a Front Porch on his residents on BeaverKill. What a total waste of resources by this BOD. He was part of the problem at the time, and "Mr. Sm all Owns This Bad Decision to S u e the residents at 66 SS.
Yes Frns, The Chips Are In Your Lap ! You Own It...
|
|
|
|
Post by Lra on Mar 28, 2017 18:15:20 GMT -5
Looks like the Board Member who sued 66SS over the front porch decided to ...add a front porch!
Welcome, Mr. Frns Sm all!
Frns and Jean Sm all were two of our Dearest friends in S-bag until Clifford Jnsn and D Brnd convinced them that Gngr and I were BAD people. That's when they turned on us. Why rather than facing the fact that the Covenants, Rules and Regulations had expired, it was Frns ' s idea to "just cut off the porch". 12 feet of 2 steel beams that are part of the total home, roof disconnection, and at least $10,000.00 dollars out of our pocket so the SLohA could present that they had POWER. Now, without Rules, you can see that we had a pretty good idea. Too bad some Board members should TORTURE them the way we were tortured. |
|
sassy
New Member
Posts: 18 
|
Post by sassy on Mar 28, 2017 18:55:54 GMT -5
Hayvn't you heard it's better to ask forgiveness than permission?
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 29, 2017 11:18:15 GMT -5
Lra posted:
THIS is a prime example of the extreme folly of giving neighbors any control over architectural issues! They speak from NO expertise in structural engineering, an area best left to County employees with training, expertise, insight and most of all--authority!
Mr. Fran cis Sm all and the Gang persecuted and spent thousands of Owner Dollars on a useless lawsuit with NO chance of prevailing to torture two women for their own prejudicial reasons, while at the same time ignoring the eyesore architectural violations on Greyhackle by an ex-con and illegal squatting of internet towers on our common areas.
Mr. Fran cis Sm all is fortunate that Lra and Gngr were not on the Board when he starting building his front porch! He now joins the 15+ homes in S-bag that had front porches already built at the time S-bag decided to S u e 66SS for their front porch and cost owners over $100,000 in Legal fees and initiated the decay of the community of S-bag.
Wine and cookies now served in Ohio, Michigan, Arizona and California.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 29, 2017 23:31:37 GMT -5
Another has come over for cookies and wine! It is a lovely home and looks JUST LIKE Lra and Gngr's home a few blocks away! You remember, the one that cost Owners over $103,000 in legal fees in 2015 to try to enforce the unenforceable "rule" against front porches! I am perplexed about the placement of the stump in the middle of the driveway; it wouldn't be my first choice to gaze out at from my porch rockin' chair. I wonder if the board will S u e them; there must be some imagined expired rule against that. Attachment Deleted |
|
|
|
Post by Transit on Apr 30, 2017 2:37:01 GMT -5
My hope is the stump is in the wrong location, or a double lot maybe.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 30, 2017 9:46:55 GMT -5
Transit posted:
It looks purposeful to me. It appears that a square was cut out of the driveway to accommodate the stump. I think it looks odd but that is just a personal taste. I can say with certainty that this is not a "double lot"; the only double lots are a few on Night Owl.
And S-bag persecuted those double lot owners mercilessly, charged them double assessments and finally took them to court. And here's a piece of Sad S-bag memorabilia; that was the case that started the amendment shenanigans in 1986 (detailed elsewhere on this forum) and began the cascade of events leading us up to the pending appeal of revitalization!
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 3, 2017 11:49:31 GMT -5
Admin posted:
I am advised that this is not a NEWLY-sited home. It is a home that has been waiting and waiting and waiting for the Board WITHOUT Architectural authority, to place its blessing on an addition of a front porch.
I did not see any Correspondence Report which indicated that the Board was asked for faux permission. The last correspondence posted was in March 2017 and it contained no correspondence from the owners requesting to add a front porch.
Was there NO Correspondence to the Board in April? If yes, I would think that would be incorporated in the Secretary's report. But there is no mention...
Is my conclusion "reasonable" that the Board has finally abandoned its desperate efforts to seek compliance to non-existing architectural standards and to falsely represent itself as having authority over such matters?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dick Tracy on May 3, 2017 12:44:19 GMT -5
Polk County is the only one that needs to bless any addition in My Book ! Cha d and Company is not the answer... 
|
|
|
|
Post by pestcontrol on May 3, 2017 13:12:23 GMT -5
Admin posted: I am advised that this is not a NEWLY-sited home. It is a home that has been waiting and waiting and waiting for the Board WITHOUT Architectural authority, to place its blessing on an addition of a front porch. I did not see any Correspondence Report which indicated that the Board was asked for faux permission. The last correspondence posted was in March 2017 and it contained no correspondence from the owners requesting to add a front porch. Was there NO Correspondence to the Board in April? If yes, I would think that would be incorporated in the Secretary's report. But there is no mention... Is my conclusion "reasonable" that the Board has finally abandoned its desperate efforts to seek compliance to non-existing architectural standards and to falsely represent itself as having authority over such matters? This would have been in SLohA BOARD correspondence in 2015 after 66 won their case via mediation. Circumstances were such that the owners waited until 2016 to act on the approval from the Board |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 3, 2017 13:41:17 GMT -5
pestcontrol posted:
The owners sent correspondence in March 2014 and Dec 2015 requesting "permission" to build their front porch. The board said NO and "suggested and appreciated" that they would honor the "intent of the rules" even though there were no ACTUAL rules in effect.
Sometime between then and now, presumably the owners went ahead with their porch since there is no evidence of any further communication on this subject between them and the board.
Members should realize that there are still no Rules in effect-regardless whether the Revitalization is upheld or reversed. The rules were never submitted for Revitalization so if it is upheld--no rules unless and until adopted by Members in the future.
If the Revitalization is reversed, it is likely there will never be rules--only suggestions to those who want to sign up.
|
|
GTO
Addict
Life is Tough ! It's even tougher when you're stupid ! Jhn Wayne J ohn Wayne
Posts: 198
|
Post by GTO on May 4, 2017 15:58:52 GMT -5
Quote:
(If the Revitalization is reversed, it is likely there will never be rules-
-only suggestions to those who want to sign up.)
Question?
Would that also apply to some lots that have been reimposed correctly during a transfer/sale of property before the 30 year dead line had expired. I do not see how SLohA could have 2 different Pink Books.
One book for Us and one book for Them.
I would assume this issue would need to be addressed at some point in time.
But, this is SLohA, and nothing comes easy.
Thanks for any insight.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 4, 2017 17:06:41 GMT -5
GTO posted:
IMO, all lots are now encumbered by the revitalized covenants unless the revitalization is reversed or if any owner cH allenges the (IMO) unconstitutional encumbrance.
If the revitalization is reversed by appeal on the grounds of SLohA not being a homeowner association under FL720/712, then those few lots are technically still encumbered by the original Covenants because MRTA did not expire them. Those particular lots, in the above reversal scenario, would NOT be regulated by FS720 and would only be subject to FS617-the corporate statute.
It would be a horror story if S-bag attempted to enforce any CCR's on those lots which self-reencumbered (of which there are very few--I know that yours is one of them and there are a number of them on Queen). For starters, SLohA would have to do a title search on each and every lot to detect who they might want to impose restrictions on--my guess is maybe 40. At about $250 per title search (787), that's a pretty pricey deal. And they would have to track all those parcels ad infinitum and update the title search if they anticipated suing the owner for a violation of CCR's. (They would also discover the one parcel in SLohA that does not have and never had a CCR attached to it from the Developer!)
Secondly, voluntary HOA members would be unlikely to contribute to the $ cost of persecuting/prosecuting those few owners for any CCR violations. I believe it would be impractical for SLohA to attempt to further divide the owners into three pinkish books "those we can legally prosecute, those we cannot prosecute and those we will just bully until they leave". Imagine Shn trying to keep those groups separate! Rather, SLohA should be busy trying to establish a NEW set of covenants or attempting to solicit generous donations from voluntary, goodwill members rather than scrambling for leftovers.
Your question raises a bigger, unknowable question of "how far will S-bag go?" to exert control. They have already shown that they will go beyond reason when they irrationally pursued a NO WIN strategy of egomaniacly launching a lawsuit based on nothing in fact. They spent over $100,000 to prove that they can do whatever they please because they have control over the checkbook. And fee-hungry Management/Attorney has control over the Board.
Perception IS reality, so it might serve SLohA to maintain optics of ultimate control of all owners by facing off with those few owners who may be still legally bound by CCR's and who they do not want to be on the property. Interesting question to toy with, GTO.
|
|
GTO
Addict
Life is Tough ! It's even tougher when you're stupid ! Jhn Wayne J ohn Wayne
Posts: 198
|
Post by GTO on May 4, 2017 19:59:49 GMT -5
Thanks for the information.
A work around, could be to pickup stakes and move to a expired lot. Some of SLR's properties are selling for less then cost. The property up the street just sold for $30,000. That owner had invested over $65,000 in the property, then it sat vacated for 3yrs. Properties on Grey Hackle have KCNet eye sore, that reduces the value of properties on that street.
I would not let them bully us. I do not think the residents have the stomach at the present for more Lawsuits over frivolous property issues. I am hoping the future does not include Stmbug Ixx Inc. and their/our Lawyers.
They are one big $$$$ Pit...
|
|
