|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 14, 2013 23:00:02 GMT -5
August 22, 2013
Director : WE GOTTA HAVE RULES AROUND HERE...
Resident : Who's Rules ?
Director : I DONT WANT TO ARGUE WITH YOU...
________________________________________________________
Give the director a news update: we already HAVE rules around here--most of which were not approved by the owners, many of which are totally unnecessary, some are lame, a few are archaic and a couple of Mange-initiated reactive rules are imaginary.
It never ceases to amaze me that BOD is totally shut down and defensive about any conversation which differs with their view. Discussion is "argument"?
_______________________________________________________________
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 15, 2013 12:46:15 GMT -5
Cross-post from AnonNews
April 18, 2013
So now I am confused...maybe. Lets take the new signage of NO DOGS ALLOWED for example. This is a "RULE" but the membership DID NOT vote on the separation of areas and people. This came from the Board of Directors namely D xxxxxx to restrict, harrass and impose his/their ORDERS on the members.
____________________________________________________________
BOD should be properly counseled that the Covenants are the biggest, baddest law of SLR land use--and that EVERY OWNER and their invited guest or renter has the fundamental right to access the common properties with reasonable limits.
The Rules & Regs are meant to be reasonable restrictions on this use and should mostly reflect the kinds of restrictions that the outside world places on its use of public places. For instance, dogs are not allowed inside buildings--a public/common property. Pretty standard stuff.
The Board should concern itself with reasonable and necessary qualification/description rule-making based on a long-standing pattern of misunderstanding or abuse which demonstrates injury to people/property or proven excessive costs in terms of repairs and such.
With regard to doggie doo, every knows it happens and most people know who the very few offenders are. Most of the offenses are deposited on others' private property. There has been NO long-standing or proven poopoo problem on the open properties near the dog run which would necessitate littering our property with signs. Even if there WAS, we already have a reasonable rule for that ie "Pick up after your dog".
MANBOD has no authority to change the very nature of your right to use the common property.
The Covenants are a CONTRACT and when the material rights of a contract are changed, both parties must agree for it to be valid. ONLY Owners can do this by either changing the Covenants by a 75% affirmative vote or the Rules by a 50% vote (or Bylaws by 2/3 vote).
Unfortunately, like children, you give Boards an inch and they take a mile! The BOD does have rule-making authority vested under Florida statutes and in the governing documents. Little minds are sure to abuse it because they know that 1) the state of Florida has no enforcement vehicle in place to support offended/abused owners and 2) BOD knows the only thing distressed owners can do is, in the words of our President, "S u e Me!"
There is only one other thing owners can do short of expensive civil action. Remove a quorum of the Board. The way things are in here, you will likely never see the incumbents replaced in elections. Cronies will quit midterm and rename replacement cronies who will run for a 2nd term unopposed. Or, like D xxxxxx, now serving a THIRD term illegally, they will just continue to "take" new terms and run unopposed.
Did I get that right ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 15, 2013 12:57:28 GMT -5
Cross-post from AnonNews
August 1, 2013
to poster of 7/15 in re: "dxx's rule"--just remember, dbag can NOT make up any rules he damn well pleases, any NEW rules need to be thought out, discussed, placed on the up-coming ballot and voted on and approved by a set majority of the community, however, evidently, since our red book is pretty much a "dead book" due to our covenants and restrictions being defunct due to them not being revitalized in a timely and proper manner, the manager and a few board members have indeed taken it upon themselves to institute additions to existing rules in a highly improper manner, and this is wrong according to statute 720 on HOA's.
_______________________________________________
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 15, 2013 13:02:53 GMT -5
Cross-post from AnonNews
August 6, 2013
Anon above: Even on privately-owned property, you are subject to municipal and county ordinances and codes. In this society, there are MANY entities that have a say in how you can use your private property.
The difference is that in an HOA, you have voluntarily agreed to allow a private quasi-government run by volunteers with no executive, legislative or judicial training, (much less any "checks and balances" by separating these powers), establish rules which you must follow or be subject to various specified and unspecified penalties and consequences.
The learning that many homeowners are digesting is that this extra layer of uncontrolled and unregulated governmental power exercised by sociopathic neighbors and greedy management companies can be toxic to the enjoyment of property ownership. Rather than protecting the value of property, real estate encumbered by HOA's will likely be avoided more and more in the future making HOA properties LESS desirable.
_____________________________________________________
August 7, 2013
In regard to the above post: those "various specified and unspecified penalties and consequences" are: being stalked, harassed, and having your personal property vandalized!
This summer alone, one can see more RV's and boats being parked in certain resident's driveways than ever, and remain there, when in fact they are supposed to be removed after a certain time limit and/or put in the storage lot
...it's all about who you know and if you're on their "good side" you can break all the rules you want; this leads one to believe that only cliques of like minded cronies and "good ole boys" club members who all agree with what they want will be the only ones buying into an HOA like SLR.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 15, 2013 13:56:41 GMT -5
Cross-post from AnonNews
Board of Directors posted on CHUG 9/17/2013:
"Only by a vote and approval of ¾ of the homeowners can a change be made. It was noted that on previous ballots the issue of allowing carports in SLohA had been voted down. If a change is wanted then it needs to be brought once again on a ballot to all homeowners to be voted upon.
Guys: check the Deadbook. The Rules & Regulations must be approved by 50%--not 75%. At least you got it right about the BOD not having the authority to changing the rules without being balloted and voted on by owners.
We'll expect to see it on the next Ballot and hopefully, you will cease and desist the persecution of Bxxxx for a few months until after that vote. Don't worry, no one will S u e you for NOT suing your neighbor!
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 15, 2013 17:29:33 GMT -5
Cross-Post from AnonNews
March 2, 2013
This so-called announcement was posted by the so-called "manager" on the so-called HOA website, AKA "Management's Bully Pulpit":
Pursuant to the Covenants and Restrictions of XXXX Owners Association, Inc., several individuals have been witnessed by both residents, employees, and management to be in violation of the following Rule:
This is so pitiful! Writer sets forth the rule (or presumed rule) and then goes on to create a brand new one about "walking your dogs on the driving range/flyers range within 14 days". The RULE, as written, says nothing about the flyers area or driving range and refers only to being "IN" recreational areas, with examples given of pool, beach, buildings, porch, etc. The flyers area and driving range are open common areas and available for use by all owners/guests. There have never been any rules approved which prohibit owners from being present on the property with their pets properly restrained. I like to take my pet out for an evening golf cart ride on the property--what next? No pets on roads?
And what does it mean "refrain from.... within 14 days?" First, the property has been taken over and littered with spy cameras, and now it has been littered with signs prohibiting everything except farting!
Unattended animals running loose are the business of the county Sheriff's Animal Control, NOT the appropriate activity of so-called Security staff (which is not licensed to perform any enforcement on behalf of the county).
This idiocy was posted on the community website as a general, open letter to all registered owners--another form of littering HOA property and inane attempt at subduing the unwashed masses through intimidation.
______________________________________________________
To Anon above : I was told specifically that one could not have a dog a cart and on a leash and be in the ''driving range or flying area'' even when there are no others present. These areas are not used in the summer months. The flying area is off SLR property from the fence corner to the lakeshore, just line up the poles with the streamers and you have the line where SLR stops.
They dont fly at night or in wind, the tee off area is never used at night. But still the BOD insists its off limits even if your dog is inside your car/truck !
Never before have I seen such self importance and displays of non existant authority. These pinheads are foaming at the mouth because they (IT/bod) lost another lawsuit due to NEGLEGENCE and the word is out in them .
One last little thing, the flyers area is not SLR property and is landlocked property with access through SLR property along the driving range and storage lot fence. This is known as a RIGHT of WAY and is not subject to limited access by it/bod temper tantrums .
_________________________________________________
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 15, 2013 22:43:58 GMT -5
August 30, 2013
Commercial Lawn Contractors in the Park @ 7A.M.
The sign WE paid for and manbods RULE states 8 A.M. at the front gate .
Oh wait, the rules no longer apply
Never mind !
|
|
|
|
Post by wee willy on Oct 22, 2013 18:59:38 GMT -5
Me thinks we should bring in 9 attractive street hookers from New York,that are loaded up with every disease known and send them to the board meeting as a peace offering from the trouble makers in here.And a lezzie for M. e. l.
From that point on,they no doubt will have other pressing issues on their minds
|
|
|
|
Post by Ded Mou5e on Oct 23, 2013 8:42:36 GMT -5
Don't worry Wee Willy , before too much longer the BOD will be busy screwing each other.
|
|
Law Abiding Citizen
Guest
|
Post by Law Abiding Citizen on Oct 23, 2013 9:27:11 GMT -5
Dear Wee Willy, I don't think that calling any group of people in SLR ''trouble makers" is cute or funny . The slack jawed mentality of the majority in SLR feed on ridiculous and malicious terminology like that .
We need to NOT vilify anyone in SLR unless there is some absolute proof of this.
Some are leading with the truth and have facts to prove it , the ''trouble makers'' are the ones that have done dirty and unlawful things to try and persuade the honest and truth seekers to shut up or move out to protect themselves.
I feel that Wee Willy is on the other side of what's right and honest by making such a finger pointing statement and some of us take that very personal.
|
|
|
|
Post by NO TROUBLEMAKER on Oct 23, 2013 10:04:25 GMT -5
we willie's comment was indeed asinine and totally NOT the way we should be seen as or referred to as.
You have NO business calling people troublemakers who are telling the truth and trying to get the facts out to everyone in here.
They are the ones that have caused trouble--and a lot of it, too, by having certain resident(s) stalked, harassed, and vandalized. Anyone breaking the law against people for telling the truth are the TRUE troublemakers; get that straight once and for all people; we are NOT THE TROUBLEMAKERS AND WE SHOULD NOT BE PLAYING INTO THEIR HAND BY REFERRING TO US AS SUCH!
|
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Oct 23, 2013 21:18:05 GMT -5
Cross-post from AnonNews Board of Directors posted on CHUG 9/17/2013: . Guys: check the Readbook. The Rules & Regulations must be approved by 50%--not 75%. At least you got it right about the BOD not having the authority to changing the rules without being balloted and voted on by owners. We'll expect to see it on the next Ballot and hopefully, you will cease and desist the persecution of Bxxxx for a few months until after that vote. Don't worry, no one will S u e you for NOT suing your neighbor! These are my thoughts about the carport thing, which apparently BOD is going to "turn over" to the Violations Committe (another post). I should have added that there is NO mention of carports in the Declaration (CC&R's). To expand on the reasoning for my comments above, since the Declaration has no amending provision for restrictions, one can only amend ByLaws and Rules/Regulations. Bylaws require 2/3% and Rules require 50%, so I can only assume that BOD is referring to a non-existent authority to amend Covenant restrictions by referencing "75%". Also, the position on carports is NOW a RULE, thus subject to future amendment by 50%. I must also comment again that the "rule", as written, is NOT an architectural one and SLohA has no position at all regarding removal of the non-carport. The structure appears to be a non-enclosed porch, which is permitted. (Maybe it depends on which of the 5 sets of rules you read.) The "Rule" only says that you cannot park your car under any structure-a behavioral, functional use restriction. SLohA could adopt this as a Rule since it would not be MORE RESTRICTIVE than the covenants on permitted objects on lots -- it would add to the permitted structures-- and you would only need 50% affirmative votes. From the straw vote taken at the BOD meeting, this vote should be a slam dunk for approval of carports. I have no idea what was done on other ballots ie could they have actually passed with a 50% affirmative vote and wrongly assumed that 75% was needed for a covenant change? Maybe it's time to dig out the ballots from the Records Archive and get an attorney opinion. It's possible that the Rule passed. This whole thing is facockta because the CC&R's permit nothing except recreational vehicles and personal camping equipment. Newly-adopted Rules that specify mobile home-appropriate architectural modifications do so contrary to the CC&R restrictions and are invalid, which specifically prohibit mobile homes. So, if you adopt a rule allowing carports, you could have campers parked under carports, as defined in the proposed new Rule--and add that you could park all motorized vehicles too! Yay! The BOD should Cease & Desist pursuing the carport violation until this alleged rule is either researched and upheld or overturned or put on the next ballot. To do otherwise is wasteful of resources and goodwill--not to mention Sm all-minded, short-sighted, bullyish and really stupid. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 24, 2013 5:51:39 GMT -5
From the 10/16/2013 Minutes
Unbelievable that BOD is actually pursuing this with timeframes so tight for balloting the question in Feb 2014 and other legal problems of significance they are currently faced with. Insofar as the technicalities of the infraction, which is also questionable due to the internal inconsistencies and disarray of SLohA documents, there has been much comment. Owners who are being pursued should hold BOD feet to the fire and shoot off written requests for Official Records which validate the vote on the Rules. BOD must prove that they have legal basis to accuse. No documentation--No Rule--No Violation.
I am starting another thread on the "Violations Committee" which regrettably, BOD wants to pursue despite the several ballot measures which have been defeated in the past. This pursuit has all the markings of a Management Company "recommendation". And, by the way, while Official Records are being requested, it would be interesting to know if there is any agreement between BOD and for payment of administering the fines and the SOP stating under what circumstances lawyers can be consulted on an alleged violation. There's no doubt that SLohA owner money will be paying lawyers to send out collection letters, placing liens and possible foreclosure. There is money to be distributed. Where there is no money, there is little interest.
We should always remember that Property Management is sometimes only coincidentally about property management and the ancillary services and fees might also be part of the overall plan of "management".
|
|
|
|
Post by wee willy on Oct 24, 2013 18:43:45 GMT -5
Don't take.it personal
It just eats you up inside
Don't get mad,Get even
|
|
|
|
Post by Anonymous on Oct 24, 2013 18:57:27 GMT -5
Oh me, Oh my!
|
|
|
|
Post by Dick Tracy on Oct 25, 2013 22:42:34 GMT -5
The Red-Book is a Dead Deed !!! It has know Bite!!! "Only Bark" I would love to see a resident's lawyer request the Votes from years back. We are being taken for a ride, I do believe.... If you Let Them !!!
|
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Dec 17, 2013 6:28:41 GMT -5
It bears repeating. This was asked of me yesterday:
Question: Someone told me that the Board can make rules. Is that true?Answer: "Yes (sort of) and NO". Simply, BOD can "promulgate" rules according to SLohA Bylaws. This is what BOD is doing putting all the hideous dog signs all over the place. ("Promulgate" means: to promote or make widely known (an idea or cause). synonyms: make known, make public, publicize, spread, communicate, propagate, disseminate, broadcast, promote, preach) Promulgated rules must be ratified by a vote of 50%+ of owners. The promulgated rules must not conflict with rules set forth in superior documents nor can they be more restrictive than any rules previously adopted by the Association's superior governing documents (Covenants, Bylaws or Articles) or FL statutes. In short, the Rules & Regulations are the bottom of the pile in the hierarchy of legal strength of public and private contracts. Here is an example: FS720 says owners have right to records inspection with 10 day notice. (State law-superior in the hierarchy) Redbook Bylaw says "Request for records inspection must be in writing". (Lower in heirarchy; this bylaw can only be modified by 67% affirmative vote. The Bylaw does not conflict with the statute or the Covenant. If the Redbook were silent on records inspection, the FL statute would be the governing law). BOD might then "promulgate" a rule that "Records requests must be made either in writing on paper or via email. If by paper, it can either be delivered by Certified Mail or hand-delivered to Administration Office". This has no contractual force--it is simply a operating guideline that BOD wishes to promote. The BOD might motion to put the promulgated rule on the ballot for 50% Owners to ratify. Note that the new "rule" does not conflict with or diminish owner substantive or material rights. If owners choose not to ratify, it remains a suggestion. If a new rule were inadvertantly adopted which conflicted with FS720, state law trumps the Redbook rule and the Rule becomes Rubbish. Similarly, if a rule conflicts with or is more restrictive than the Covenants/Bylaws/Articles--the Rule becomes Rubbish. The main problem here is that there is no mechanism in Florida to enforce the homeowner association law. This is an intentional deficiency which is applicable only to HOA's. HOA boards know this and arrogantly say "S u e Me" if cH allenged when attempting to enforce imaginary rules. At present, the only relief to abused homeowners is civil action via S m a ll Claims court or expensive litigation in superior court. (This may be changing as there is a comprehensive HOA reform bill being sponsored this legislative session in Tallahassee) BOD should exercise good judgement in promulgating and clarifying rules and to specifically refer to the higher order rule in the "new" rule language to make certain the enforcement of the rule does not conflict with other rules and negate the rule, subjecting the Board to ridicule and expensive legal repair and re-balloting measures. Ideally, an informed Rules Committee, overseen by a competent and knowlegable Director, would exist to thoroughly review proposed rule clarifications desired by BOD, draft the language and describe the rationale for setting the new rule or clarification. This should then be presented and discussed in a focused manner with members before anything is motioned to go on a ballot. The ballot should contain the language of the old rule (if any) as well as the full text of the proposed new rule. This process would make it easy for later Boards to understand the evolution of rules, get support from the community and better compliance, enhance credibility in the rule-making process and get rid of rules that are no longer applicable. Rulesdec2013.pdf (86.61 KB)
Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and the above is provided for educational and informational purposes. It should not be relied upon for taking any action. Consult an attorney if you wish to take legal action.
|
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Dec 17, 2013 7:17:15 GMT -5
Here is the Bylaw language with reference to the authority of BOD and rule making Redbook Article V Section 12. The Board of Directors sH all have all the powers vested under common law and pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 720, Florida Statutes, together with any powers granted to it pursuant to the terms of the Articles of Incorporation of the corporation and any plats, conveyances or Declarations of Covenants and Restrictions filed by the Developer. Such powers sH all include but sH all not be limited to the following: g. Power to make and amend regulations respecting the use of the property provided, however, that all such regulations and amendments thereto sH all be approved by not less than a majority of the votes cast by the membership. Provided further however, that all proposed regulations and amendments thereto, sH all be placed on a ballot and mailed to each member of record at least thirty (30) days but not more than sixty (60) days prior to the meeting and in compliance with Article IV.
Remember that expiration of our Covenants does not impact the Bylaws of the non-profit corporation--SLohA. It only extinguishes the use restrictions contained in the Covenants and Rules. The Articles and Bylaws are the corporation's procedural law and will survive the revitalization process (although many bylaws have been altered in the past without due process--but that is a problem for down the road).
The Covenants are the contract with--the promise to--each owner AND WITH THE PUBLIC! If and when the Covenants are judicially declared to be extinguished by MRTA, the Covenants and Rules will have to be revitalized in accordance with statutory law. Some properties in SLR are exempt from being re-encumbered by an approved revitalization which would require 50% affirmative vote of owners.
Attachments:Rulesdec2013law.pdf (213.71 KB)
|
|
