|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 9, 2017 14:40:56 GMT -5
Three 3-year vacancies created by end of terms for Chrls Schlz, Tummy Blkbrn and Clf Jnsn
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 22, 2017 17:34:30 GMT -5
The Board never fails to disappoint. They did not learn from 2014 when the first revitalization was trashed because of the failure of the Attorney for SLohA to cite the 3 subdivisions on 3 separate ballots. I was hoping this time would be different but nothing has changed. The Ballot is WRONG on Section 4 where is proposes to Amend the Amendment to Section 15 of the 1989 Amendment:  I have marked it AGAINST. This proposal needs to be on its OWN ballot for each of the three (subdivisions). EACH subdivision is a separate legal entity and only the parcel owners in each subdivision can legally change THEIR Covenants. BOARD: There are THREE Units in S-bag. EACH unit has a set of Covenants. EACH unit can only encumber its own parcels with a change! Said another way: Owners in Unit 1 cannot vote to change Unit 2's covenants. Is this concept really that hard to understand? This will be yet another invalid document to add to the growing stable of invalid SLohA documents and serve as fodder for future legal cH allenges. The Board is extremely resistant to learning from past mistakes. |
|
|
|
Post by Dick Tracy on Dec 22, 2017 17:58:12 GMT -5
This is not a Ballot ! It is just a Poll !
Remember that statement by our Leaders?
2014:
If there were any ballot that should be declared Dead and Gone, Null, Void, Spoiled etc, it is the Infamous Polling Ballot of 2014. Below is a link with more about Spoilt Votes.
Spoilt Vote
16RC
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 22, 2017 18:21:52 GMT -5
Point of Clarification:
I was asked "Why does it have to be separate for only #4?"
The reason is that the first 3 items to vote for are CORPORATE business and ALL owners are member of a single entity i.e. SLohA.
Item #4 is a PROPERTY USE Covenant and is different because there are 3 units that must each individually vote to change THEIR covenants.
The underlying concept is that there are TWO different tracks in SLohA--the corporate track and the property covenant track. They are treated differently and rightly so when you are dealing with property rights.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 23, 2017 12:51:25 GMT -5
So...it was proposed that you simply separate the ballots into 3 piles and count the votes For/Against the amendment to reduce the voting threshold.
You can skate by on that ONLY IF ALL THREE UNITS pass the proposal with 75% affirmative vote. But, to attempt it is risky.
First gamble is obvious; the language of the proposal cites all three covenants and must be recorded as proposed. IF one or more units FAILS to pass the amendment, the unit that approved the amendment proposal must record it, as written. This will place a CLOUD on the titles of the units that did not pass the amendment. It will take $$$ and attorneys to untangle the legal questions in the future and require S-bag to revoke the invalid instrument.
How much money do owners propose to gamble on that possibility in the future? Why on earth would anyone invite such a complication for future owners to waste time and money on?
The other problem is fundamental to the organization and a much more problematic one for S-bag. If only one or two of the 3 units passes the amendment, it means that S-bag will create a patchwork of unique and individual units within S-bag that have different voting requirements for amendments to covenants.
omg!
Imagine trying to sort that out! And then, if you add Rules and Regs to the mix, you will surely have a Swiss Cheese community in which neighbors vote differently and have different rules!
Remember--RULES are a Property Use Restriction--similar to Covenants. EACH unit must vote to adopt a restriction for its parcels. So, Unit Queen might conceivably adopt rules that Unit Silversides is NOT subject to! (Maybe we can also hire 3 management companies to figure all this out!)
omg!
For those reasons, I will vote against the proposal.
Is there an alternative? Yes, IMO. The first thing that S-bag needs to do following revitalization is vote to create a Master HOA. That Master would "hold" the 3 units and those 3 units would be subordinate to the Master. Thereafter, all Covenants, Rules & Regs would propose changes and voting would bind ALL units. This should have been done in the first place in the 70's, but remember, the Developer developed a CAMPGROUND and did not forsee any need to do the things which must now be done for a completely changed and contemporary housing community.
S-bag is trying to retrofit its evolved housing development into an old transient fishing campground scheme. It will be painful, cumbersome and may prove impossible to do. I believe it needs a vision, competent advice and a complete redo. Unfortunately, S-bag missed its opportunity when the covenants expired and "bought back" the fishing camp plan when it revitalized the old, irrelevant Covenants. <Sigh>
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 17, 2018 16:05:54 GMT -5
I got my ballot envelope.
I am not passing Section 4 of Replacement of Paragraph 15 which amends the voting percentage. I am not voting for it because it is not written accurately or well. It appears to have been written by amateurs. There is no way to separate out the Unit votes on a "blind ballot". The best SLR can do with this ballot item is combine the total and that is not legal. This is a vote that is the right of EACH of the 3 subdivisions to pass or fail. As stated before, other subdivisions cannot vote on another subdivision's amendment.
The board has failed again to get it right without a redo.
READ IT CAREFULLY. As the amendment is currently written in 1989, the amendment could be reballotted immediately if the Board decided to do so (this was done in 2007 with a failed amendment). Owners should also be aware that this amateurish amendment statement, authored by Schlz and passed on to Toneesha (who is NOT permitted by her CAM license to offer an "unlicensed practice of law" opinion) shackles the Association to balloting ONCE a year on an annual ballot! I have never heard of an amendment that constricts voting on an item of business to only once each year. That is ludicrous. On that basis alone (idiocy), I would fail the proposition.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 18, 2018 12:54:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 27, 2018 13:47:34 GMT -5
As if owners need yet another reason to distrust the competency of leadership with regard to the governing documents, here is an additional one. It is the most significant mistake and would not be made by a professional (even Gargleknees et al).
It is a mistake of legal continuity and reference and, it is my opinion that it is fatal.
The mistake is in the lack of accurate and legally sufficient actual notice in the amendment. If you read carefully, the "replacement amendment" references the Plat books "casually". Plat books are PROPERTY books and have legal descriptions, easements etc. Plat books do not record other restrictive, later enacted documents. These are recorded in the OFFICIAL RECORD Books. The Plat Books do not contain the original nor the amended covenants! The OFFICIAL RECORD Book does. In order to provide the public with actual notice on a title search, the proposed amendment would have to reference the recorded amendment, which is OFFICIAL RECORD Book 2731 Pages 530-31.
But, the language which purports to amend the amendment does not point to the location of the amended document. Thus, there is no reference nor a pathway to the recorded document which the Board wants to amend.
The proposed amendment is legally insufficient, IMO. A future title search will not reveal the amended amendment. The public can only discover and rely on the current amendment calling for a 75% affirmation. While this may or may not affect the current owners in a legal dispute, it could very well prove punishing to SLohA should a future owner call a foul on the HOA. This could easily happen if the board should pass this amendment and put an contentious issue up for a covenant change in the future.
When I look in my crystal ball, I see things like the board setting up new covenants for a real Architectural Review Board, Fines, Foreclosure authority, Rent Limitations and passing these with an invalid amendment of 66 2/3% and being cH allenged by a new owner.
Does anyone think that I would not S u e SLohA from California if they attempted to enforce a limit of my ability to rent my home with a 66 2/3% affirmation of covenant rent limitation (or even a 75% one)? Does anyone think I would passively accept SLohA attempts to control use of my private parcel and damage me further? After all, it was due to SLohA that I abandoned my home in the first place and now must rent it out! I guess you could call Covenant enforcement a Red Line for me.
I hope that owners will put on their Big Boy/Big Girl pants and get serious about the possibilities of SLohA's actions today and how this could impact not only owner wallets, but owner quality of life, in the future.
This is very poor work product and is yet another reason to vote NO on this ballot item. It will surely involve the owners in another legal expensive dispute in the future, if passed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alaska HEMI R/T Jm Admin. on Jan 27, 2018 17:36:46 GMT -5
Does anyone think that maybe 500 people might file a lawsuit over this ? Or even 100 owners. I Know i would/will !
Does anyone think that I would not S u e SLohA from California if they attempted to enforce a limit of my ability to rent my home with a 66 2/3% affirmation of covenant rent limitation (or even a 75% one)? Does anyone think I would passively accept SLohA attempts to control use of my private parcel and damage me further? After all, it was due to SLohA that I abandoned my home in the first place and now must rent it out! I guess you could call Covenant enforcement a Red Line for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dick Tracy on Jan 27, 2018 22:29:05 GMT -5
President leery listerine, what do you say ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 30, 2018 14:20:35 GMT -5
President leery listerine, what do you say ? I think Board has been gagged by attorneys from responding to owners. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 30, 2018 22:31:30 GMT -5
A comment to think about before you adopt that pink checked ribbon and mark the ballot:
IF the members had been subject to a low 66 2/3 voting threshold in 2014, the ballot proposition giving the Board sole and complete power to reverse the covenant against commercial property activity in S-bag would have passed. The 75% affirmation threshold protected the covenant from being usurped by the board.
Said another way...if the lower voting threshold had been in effect at that time, S-bag would have no more covenant against commercial enterprise on our property and we might now have a real estate office, Donald's or whatever other scheme could be dreamed up by a future board of directors. As it turned out, the current 75% voting requirement was not met and this prevented the board from taking over control of commercial presence in the park.
Recall that, in 2014, the board was trying to force a mandatory internet assessment against owners for the benefit of KCNetwork and wanted to gain control the business operation of KCNetwork within S-bag, contrary to the existing covenant protecting owners from commercial development.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dick Tracy on Jan 31, 2018 19:46:06 GMT -5
I just do not Trust SLR's Leadership ! Thanks for sharing the above post.
16RC
|
|
