|
|
Post by jimherbst on Dec 31, 2016 17:35:19 GMT -5
As many of you already know, my opinion about allowing commercial business in S-bag differs somewhat from my friends like Bag Lady, GTO and Dick Tracy. I actually favor allowing some commercial business in S-bag –PROVIDED THAT THESE COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES ARE RESTRICTED TO THE COMMON AREAS. I also do not have a problem with those “WiFi” towers THAT ARE LOCATED IN THE COMMON AREAS. But, with respect to those towers, it troubles me deeply that our Board of Directors has made no serious effort to negotiate an agreement that reflects the standard ground-lease commonly used by property owners to generate revenues from businesses who seek to install and operate personal communication antennae (such as cell phone companies) on municipal or private lands. There is no excuse for the delay by our Board in executing a ground-lease with KCNET for the use of the towers on SLohA property. I recently did a GOOGLE search and found, literally, dozens of consultants (mostly law firms) who specialize in negotiating ground leases with cellular companies on behalf of the property owners. These consultants make it their business to keep up with current national trends in order provide their clients with the most favorable ground-lease terms. The potential revenue SLohA can receive from a ground-lease on our towers is no paltry amount. The City of Lake Wales receives a combined annual payment of $198,000 from the five cellular companies in the area for permission to mount their antennae on the City’s two water towers. Given KCNET’s representation that it currently has approximately 2,500 customers, I feel it would not be unreasonable to require a ground-lease payment from KCNET of at least $60,000 per year. Attached below are links to the`web pages of just a few of the consultants who negotiate ground leases on behalf of property owners: www.cellsiteowners.comwww.towerleases.comwww.celltowerleaseexperts.com/cell-tower-l |
|
|
|
Post by pestcontrol on Dec 31, 2016 21:02:19 GMT -5
As many of you already know, my opinion about allowing commercial business in S-bag differs somewhat from my friends like Bag Lady, GTO and Dick Tracy. I actually favor allowing some commercial business in S-bag –PROVIDED THAT THESE COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES ARE RESTRICTED TO THE COMMON AREAS. I also do not have a problem with those “WiFi” towers THAT ARE LOCATED IN THE COMMON AREAS. But, with respect to those towers, it troubles me deeply that our Board of Directors has made no serious effort to negotiate an agreement that reflects the standard ground-lease commonly used by property owners to generate revenues from businesses who seek to install and operate personal communication antennae (such as cell phone companies) on municipal or private lands. There is no excuse for the delay by our Board in executing a ground-lease with KCNET for the use of the towers on SLohA property. I recently did a GOOGLE search and found, literally, dozens of consultants (mostly law firms) who specialize in negotiating ground leases with cellular companies on behalf of the property owners. These consultants make it their business to keep up with current national trends in order provide their clients with the most favorable ground-lease terms. The potential revenue SLohA can receive from a ground-lease on our towers is no paltry amount. The City of Lake Wales receives a combined annual payment of $198,000 from the five cellular companies in the area for permission to mount their antennae on the City’s two water towers. Given KCNET’s representation that it currently has approximately 2,500 customers, I feel it would not be unreasonable to require a ground-lease payment from KCNET of at least $60,000 per year. Attached below are links to the`web pages of just a few of the consultants who negotiate ground leases on behalf of property owners: www.cellsiteowners.comwww.towerleases.comwww.celltowerleaseexperts.com/cell-tower-lWhat an excellent way to pay off SLohA 'S legal fees. Why vote down the proposed budget, just initiate our rights as owners of the common properties and charge appropriate fair market fees to commercial operations on common property. What is our Board fearing? Maybe taking monies out of the pockets of in house SLohA members? Me smells a R.A.T. (Raiding the Association's Turnstiles) |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 1, 2017 12:47:07 GMT -5
jimherbst wrote:
Jm and I differ greatly on this. My opinion is and always has been that a Covenant exists among ALL parties to the contract that commercial activity is prohibited on the property--that this is a contractual promise and should be followed by our elected representatives, regardless of the viewpoints of individuals. Our board has invited an egregious violation of the Covenants and has abdicated their first duty --the fiduciary obligation of loyalty to those they represent. The board is demonstrating loyalty to other people.
The fact that this Board waited until the Covenants had expired to incorporate these structures onto our common properties is yet another form of betrayal of owner trust.
The fact that owners have been coerced by the authority of the board to increase assessments to SUPPORT this activity and pay for the maintenance/replacement for the towers WITHOUT due process and receive absolutely no benefit is a further insult.
In the future, the board could levy a special assessment to replace the equipment because the Board has the authority to levy an assessment for maintenance/replacement of SLohA property. Owners get sucker punched again!
The Covenants have just been revitalized. The contract between SLohA and Owners has been returned by Florida (at least for now).
Will anyone step up and make a formal complaint against SLohA for this clearly unlawful action?
|
|
gusto
Addict
"A Friend of Bill W."
Posts: 117
|
Post by gusto on Jan 1, 2017 13:54:24 GMT -5
The G.O.B. Ntwerk (Good Old Boy) is a tangle web of Deceit, and the roots run deep in SLohA.
We have been hoodwinked from the beginning by cons.
I Agree it is high time to take a close look at this Sweet Deal.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 4, 2017 16:02:33 GMT -5
KCNetLease.pdf (1.87 MB) The Lease Agreement between KCNet and SLohA is attached. It was signed by leery listerine and Virginia stab (proxy owner for Bb stab). It states that the REASON for the agreement is because S-bag could not get internet service from any other provider. It also states a PROPOSAL was made to SLohA by KCNet. When did that happen? Where is it? Why isn't it attached if it is referenced in the Lease Agreement? It represents the business address of KCNet as a post office mailbox at Storage of Lake Wales. This personal mailbox is called "East Suite 13". (There is no physical business location such as this from which KCNet has operational business activity. It is not even a shed or a garage container. This is a personal mailbox leased by Storage of Lake Wales--not a directional physical location.) It has an initial term of 5 years. It provides free reign for KCNet and its employees/contractors to have unobstructed access to their/our land/equipment and to maintain and construct more towers. S-bag gets NOTHING---ZERO.Indeed, S-bag MUST PAY KCNet for monthly internet service AND gets must pay for maintenance of "security cameras" ie service call fees and per/hour labor on cameras. S-bag also pays for any ad valorum taxes on OUR previously tax-free property and hope it gets reimbursed by KCNet. SLohA is responsible for billing KCNET yearly and trying to collect. This is from a company that HABITUALLY and REGULARLY forces the state of Florida to file LIENS in order to collect sales taxes. stab has commercial insurance with SLohA named. This is a business transaction with a convicted felon--or more accurately his wife who "holds" the business under her name. The spouse of the corporation owner of KCNET cheated large banks out of a lot of money and who spent 3 years in prison. Why this business is not in Bb stab's name may or may not be obvious. Our BOD should be ashamed. Virginia stab (KCNet) is exempt from Worker's Comp but KCNet's contractors are not and must supply SLohA with proof of Workman's Comp. There was no proof attached to the Lease Agreement that ANY worker had Workman's Comp coverage. Who is paying the Workman's Comp for SLohA workers? (SLohA) Who paid to have this Lease Agreement prepared--which was not acknowledged? (SLohA) In fact, the paperwork is surprisingly rough-looking with cross out and inserts rather than professionally word-processed. It misspelled an technical term "ethernet" -it was spelled "eithenet". All it takes for SLohA to be left holding the financial bag is another bankruptcy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dick Tracy on Jan 4, 2017 19:01:48 GMT -5
Will S-bag's residents ever wake-up?
We Have Been Had, Big-Time !
It is Just Not Right !
Jm
16RC
|
|
|
|
Post by jimherbst on Jan 4, 2017 20:03:23 GMT -5
Given the shockingly one-sided terms of this lease, it may very well be unenforceable. But unenforceability is not the same as invalidity. The lease would be valid as long as both parties abide by it. But let's say, by some miracle, a new S-bag Board is elected. The new Board decides that the terms of the lease are "unconscionable" - a legal term meaning that the terms of a contract are grossly unfair. The new Board decides to seek another internet service provider for the purpose of entering a lease of the towers with more favorable terms to SLohA. KCNET then sues for breach of contract. But, upon reviewing the terms of the lease between KCNET and SLohA, the court agrees with the Board that the terms of this lease are unfair and, therefore, unenforeceable. Based upon the court's ruling, the new Board would be free to enter into a lease with the new internet service provider.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2017 5:13:30 GMT -5
A question to leery listerine (President),
What motivated you to sign such a one sided lease agreement? Please explain to the residents.
Reset Here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dick Tracy on Jan 7, 2017 21:19:33 GMT -5
I will not be "Voting for leery listerine" in the up coming election as a Board of Director,
representing SLohA's.
JA
16RC
|
|
gusto
Addict
"A Friend of Bill W."
Posts: 117
|
Post by gusto on Jan 16, 2017 22:38:37 GMT -5
leery listerine signed off on this Lease Agreement, to me this says a lot about this person.
Very poor judgement on his part. I would not cast my vote for this person as a Board Member for SLohA.
IMO he is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
We need new leadership, so we can make SLohA Great Again !
|
|
|
|
Post by Dick Tracy on Feb 13, 2017 20:43:40 GMT -5
My personal opinion is that KCNetwork Internet Service is a good deal for our Canadian Owners.
leery listerine (Our Board President) is a Canadian citizen, so I believe that was a motive to sign this one sided Lease Agreement with KCNetwork.
I can not think of any other reason to sign such a lop-sided deal.
Just My Opinion...
16RC
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 7, 2018 15:36:26 GMT -5
S-bag has, as of Dec 6, 2018, been paying a private company (Kay c Ntwerk) to operate a for-profit company on SLR common property, without remuneration or any consideration to SLohA, and without benefit of a Ratified Lease Agreement, for Two Full Years.
Indeed, owners' fees have been paying this company for internet services, service calls, advances on fees and taxes, repair and replacement of towers and mounted equipment etc. Probably some other things too like cutting down tree branches to clear away signal disturbances etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by tinman on Dec 8, 2018 18:11:50 GMT -5
Seems to me that this is “Misappropriation of funds” and “dereliction of financial duty “ by the Board of Directors, Site Manager and the Management Company.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 10, 2018 15:08:28 GMT -5
They know what they did. That is why the fingerprints of the SLohA attorney is not on the lease agreement. This was a "fast one" for the benefit of a few. This act is consistent with the establishment of a "new norm", enabled by the short term memories of people and distractions of the "next new shiny object". I do not have a short memory.
|
|
