|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 2, 2015 18:11:32 GMT -5
An Owner was recently told by Chap Click that they did not have Permission to pour concrete. The owner stated that the county had issued a permit to the contractor and SLohA rules were not applicable. Chap insisted the rules were still in effect and inexplicably, the contractor stopped work.
(Chap-which alternative universe are you inhabiting? The BOD declared Covenants expired-rules included--last December. Have you not received an orientation yet?)
The landowner was understandably upset when realizing that SLohA has ZERO authority over the lawful use private property and was interfering with her business relationship with the contractor. The Owner was even more distressed when her contractor apparently abandoned the contract at the advice of Chap.
Oh Chap you are treading into dangerous waters of antitrust claims, restraint of trade and tortious interference and a complaint on your CAM license.
Chap, there was never legitimate authority for the Association to restrict architectural use over private parcels in the original documents nor will a future revitalization, if approved, reinstate any authority beyond very limited oversight in the Covenants which, as you know, were written for a campground. The property owner has a permit from Polk County, which is the only authority now and in the future. The owner is free to build, has a Polk County permit and has a contract with a contractor --but you are denying the contractor "permission" to perform the terms of the contract by claiming authority which you do not have. The Owner has reached out to SNAP for legal assistance, as this corporation was established to assist in owner disputes with ignorant and out of control boards before they provoke expensive lawsuits.
Lawyer up, Chap.
Notwithstanding that, an Architectural Committee was declared at the July 14th meeting, headed by Jade Rite. It was stated and clarified that the purpose of the committee was limited to an advisory status to assist owners with the preparation, delivery and setup of new doublewide homes. Period. This was questioned during Q & A Jade reassured the owner that this was only to help owners bringing in doublewides. I think that is a nice amenity for owners as long as the Committee does not attempt to overreach its (nonexistent use restriction) authority and wade back into the same waters that resulted in a $70K legal invoice for a baseless lawsuit against 66SS.
I am disappointed to see that Chap, at the direction of Management and the Board, is already attempting to insert its will into an area that it clearly has no authority over. Apparently, the lesson needs to be repeated. Warm up your wallets!
Paradoxically, the Board is currently violating one of the clearest, protective Covenant provisions i.e. prohibition of the conduct of commercial business activity in S-bag...and then proceeds to sponsor an application to the county to allow unpermitted, ugly and unsafe tower structures whose function is to allow a private business to occupy common property and conduct commercial business inside and outside the park--without the informed consent of owners. And this happens when? In the summer when 90% of the Owners are absent from the park. I do not understand this abusive and provocative behavior.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dick Tracy on Aug 2, 2015 20:37:38 GMT -5
Maybe now is the time to start up a: Legal Defense Fund.....
16RC
Bring Bar bra back into the picture, she knows the players well...
Bar bra Billot St age
Title: Senior Attorney
Bar Number: 0042467
Location: 7635 Ashley Park Court, Suite 503-T, Orlando, Florida 32835
|
|
|
|
Post by pestcontrol on Aug 2, 2015 22:24:00 GMT -5
S-bag owners, it is time to unite. This latest incident over concrete is a stupid way for our Board to pretend it has power over us. Do not let yourself get fleeced again in another lawsuit akin to 66SS. That one cost each lot at least $86.00 just in legal fees. Stop the legal bleeding now.
In order to battle back against this injustice we will be donating funds through this forum.
|
|
|
|
Post by confused on Aug 3, 2015 9:33:25 GMT -5
An Owner was recently told by Chap Click that they did not have Permission to pour concrete. The owner stated that the county had issued a permit to the contractor and SLohA rules were not applicable. Chap insisted the rules were still in effect and inexplicably, the contractor stopped work. (Chap-which alternative universe are you inhabiting? The BOD declared Covenants expired-rules included--last December. Have you not received an orientation yet?) The landowner was understandably upset when realizing that SLohA has ZERO authority over the lawful use private property and was interfering with her business relationship with the contractor. The Owner was even more distressed when her contractor apparently abandoned the contract at the advice of Chap. Oh Chap you are treading into dangerous waters of antitrust claims, restraint of trade and tortious interference and a complaint on your CAM license. Chap, there was never legitimate authority for the Association to restrict architectural use over private parcels in the original documents nor will a future revitalization, if approved, reinstate any authority beyond very limited oversight in the Covenants which, as you know, were written for a campground. The property owner has a permit from Polk County, which is the only authority now and in the future. The owner is free to build, has a Polk County permit and has a contract with a contractor --but you are denying the contractor "permission" to perform the terms of the contract by claiming authority which you do not have. The Owner has reached out to SNAP for legal assistance, as this corporation was established to assist in owner disputes with ignorant and out of control boards before they provoke expensive lawsuits. Lawyer up, Chap. Notwithstanding that, an Architectural Committee was declared at the July 14th meeting, headed by Jade Rite. It was stated and clarified that the purpose of the committee was limited to an advisory status to assist owners with the preparation, delivery and setup of new doublewide homes. Period. This was questioned during Q & A Jade reassured the owner that this was only to help owners bringing in doublewides. I think that is a nice amenity for owners as long as the Committee does not attempt to overreach its (nonexistent use restriction) authority and wade back into the same waters that resulted in a $70K legal invoice for a baseless lawsuit against 66SS. I am disappointed to see that Chap, at the direction of Management and the Board, is already attempting to insert its will into an area that it clearly has no authority over. Apparently, the lesson needs to be repeated. Warm up your wallets! Paradoxically, the Board is currently violating one of the clearest, protective Covenant provisions i.e. prohibition of the conduct of commercial business activity in S-bag...and then proceeds to sponsor an application to the county to allow unpermitted, ugly and unsafe tower structures whose function is to allow a private business to occupy common property and conduct commercial business inside and outside the park-- without the informed consent of owners. And this happens when? In the summer when 90% of the Owners are absent from the park. I do not understand this abusive and provocative behavior. Who is Chap? Is this the new mgr or brd member? |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 3, 2015 12:50:00 GMT -5
@ confused
Chap is an intentional misspelling of Ch ad, the new manager. As Admin, I maintain a Censored Words list (extensive) that converts Real Names to a different name, but one still recognizable to regular readers. I do this so Internet Search engines do not identify the names of S-bag owners which I have intentionally distorted. It is not a guarantee, but it is very helpful in trying to "hide" people from the internet search engines.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 4, 2015 20:42:40 GMT -5
Reports are that the concrete has been poured contrary to the wishes of Chap. So, something caused the end of the stalemate. Was it a frank conversation with the contractor whose legal obligation was abide by the contract with the homeowner--and not to SLohA? Anyone know of any details?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dick Tracy on Sept 4, 2015 23:17:50 GMT -5
Is this a SS# or a RC#? A driveway or a slab outback?
|
|
|
|
Post by pestcontrol on Sept 5, 2015 12:34:33 GMT -5
Is this a SS# or a RC#? A driveway or a slab outback? RC#. Seems like legal intervention continues to be necessary for owners to protect their rights. Bills for having to use an attorney should be sent in to Tower Hill our insurance provider. If enough claims of this nature are filed, then maybe just maybe common sense will become the new norm. Why are we owners who pay the bills not protected from harassment? |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 5, 2015 12:41:21 GMT -5
I think it is the RC
|
|
|
|
Post by Dick Tracy on Sept 6, 2015 21:42:30 GMT -5
The concrete has been poured, I do not know of any details. Maybe in time we will find out the detailed story.
|
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Mar 31, 2016 19:35:59 GMT -5
When the cat's away the mice will play?
Chap is flexing his muscle while Toneesha is away on family leave having her baby. He is harassing and bullying owners about things he has no business commenting on like siting new homes, concrete, activity on the owner property, auxillary structures etc. More of the same ole.
People are starting to cH allenge him--the word is out that there are NO RULES despite what Chap might do or suggest otherwise. Further than no rules, there are no covenants upon which rules MUST be based. Further than no covenants--there are NO RULES being revitalized if and when Tallahassee approves SLohA's application for revitalization of Covenants. And further to that, there is no legal authority to do or say anything about architectural preferences and choices owners make. Only Polk County Codes have a vote! And if you did not consent to revitalization on your parcel, Chap might be expecting even greater cH allenges with this kind of continued fraudulent behavior.
The only tools that Chap and MANBOD have are bullying, lying and intimidation. Oh and their favorite: social ostracism or banishing from the tribe.
If Chap has a problem, there is no need to confront him or get upset. Simply tell him he must leave your property and any further visits will be considered trespass and a restraining order sought for repeated violations. He is slow to learn so you might want to consider posting a "No Trespassing" sign. Advise Chap to put his concerns in a certified letter and you will refer to your attorney.
You might consider a Cease & Desist Letter to the Board (Chap is Stmbug Ixx's employee) as several owners in here have chosen to do. I have had no more problems with Chap since he ordered Security to remove my personal property from my home and I sent a Cease & Desist/No Trespassing Letter to the Board CERTIFIED Mail with a copy to my attorney.
Or you might consider covering your ears, sing Lalalalala and tell him to go away...
|
|
|
|
Post by observer on May 29, 2016 10:28:49 GMT -5
I read this morning that there is a new strain of human being that are fact-resistant. Apparently, this strain of fact-resistant people do not believe in facts. Hmmm, I think we have them on the board and in management. They cannot decipher their emotional arguments from law and fact. Take a note, Chap, THERE ARE NO RULES.
|
|
