|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 16, 2017 14:45:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 16, 2017 14:49:27 GMT -5
Good News and Bad News on the Road Ahead...
It should be noted that the only question that has been laid to rest is "Did the DEO err in revitalizing SLohA's covenants?"
This was an administrative question asked of an agency of FL. That is the only thing that has been settled. The validity of the documents remains "arguable" and may be cH allenged in the future.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2017 8:41:49 GMT -5
Let's hope they approve front porches. The couple of places that have them look very nice and they do add to our community, not detract from it. It is too bad that the owners of the one on S-bag North and Silversides never had the peace and joy to enjoy their homes. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 17, 2017 23:58:15 GMT -5
I hope that this or future boards do not attempt to try to assert architectural control over private property. There is and never was an authority in the Covenants to do this. The revitalization accomplished only returning the weak, irrelevant and obsolete Covenants of 1972 written for a campground.
At a cost approaching HALF MILLION DOLLARS of owner assessment fees. The porch fiasco alone cost SLohA $150,000 and never forget--S-bag SUED THE OWNER. Second lawsuit $100,000. Failed Revite #1--$40,000. Second revite: $75,000. Repeal of Revite: $35,000. HUD Complaint: $50,000 Decent and Affordable Insurance Coverage lost FOREVER with increased rates and reduced coverages.
And the total annihilation of a family on Silversides--etched forever as a wretched, painful, and shameful memory of this period in S-bag history, starting with the first LIE which began in 2007, picked up speed in 2010 and turbo-charged with the help of Management Company's attorneys in 2012. Finally, coming to rest in 2017. For how long, I wonder.
Has anything been learned? What exactly was accomplished? Is S-bag destined to "rinse and repeat" again?
The Covenants that were written 40 years ago for a campground have been resurrected. Yay. And there are still no rules. And it is doubtful that a 75% vote on ANY thing will ever pass without tinkering with ballots or re-interpreting results e.g. "transforming Non-votes to Yes"--or worse. (I have zero confidence in the credibility of elections in S-bag. Despite annual "promises", there is still no electronic ballot which would restore integrity of voting, speed the conduct of business and save loads of money.)
I could care less about porches. This was never about porches.
I hope that S-bag "approves" corporate sanity and civility in the future. I hope they send the so-called "professional" Management Company and their cabal of hungry attorneys packin'.
That's what I hope.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dick Tracy on Dec 18, 2017 22:41:37 GMT -5
I hope that this or future boards do not attempt to try to assert architectural control over private property. There is and never was an authority in the Covenants to do this. The revitalization accomplished only returning the weak, irrelevant and obsolete Covenants of 1972 written for a campground. Question. Why did SLohA only revitalize the obsolete Covenants of 1972, written for a campground? Did they miss this slight detail? |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 19, 2017 21:27:31 GMT -5
Dick Tracy wrote;:
No they didn't look that closely to think about "details".
Board simply substituted the judgement and agenda of Management Company and its attorneys for its own. It lacked common sense, courage and vision. Result was Board $ bought back $ useless campground covenants at a cost of nearly half million dollars and "brought back" a problematic set of property restrictions that will very likely be the basis of lawsuits in the future...
|
|
|
|
Post by jimherbst on Dec 27, 2017 12:05:20 GMT -5
This morning I got into a heated "discussment" with a gentleman with a British accent who was encouraging my neighbors to vote in favor of the ballot proposal whereby the Covenants could be changed by a 2/3 vote rather than the currently required 3/4 vote. He argued that the change was needed because it was extremely difficult to get the 3/4 vote. I pointed out that the Revitalization was successfully approved by a 3/4 vote, so, while it may be difficult, it is not impossible. And besides, I argued, it's supposed to be difficult to change the Covenants, just like it's supposed to be difficult to amend the U.S. Constitution. The Covenants are intended to protect the property rights of individual unit owners, just as the Bill of Rights is intended to protect the individual rights of citizens - or, as James Madison so eloquently put it, " to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority".
The reason given for the proposed ballot initiative is that the Revitalization took us back to the founding documents when S-bag was an RV park. Therefore we have gone back to the 1972 Covenants. As a result, the vast majority of S-bag's units are technically out of compliance (under the 1972 Covenants, no permanent structures, like mobile homes, were permitted). I get that. I understand that it is imperative that we re-establish the 1989 Covenants as those under which S-bag has been operating for the past 28 years. I can't imagine that any owner in S-bag would have a problem with that.
So why not just proceed with a vote to re-establish the 1989 Covenants? Yes, that will take a 3/4 vote but so would it take a 3/4 vote to approve the proposed change that would allow for future amendments to the Covenants to pass by only a 2/3 vote. Why go through the two step process of returning us to the Covenants-in-force before the Revitalization took place?
Unless...
Unless there is a hidden agenda to also make new amendments to the 1989 Covenants which had failed on previous attempts. This is the Trojan horse that we should all be concerned about.
For that reason, I am voting no on the proposal to change the required approval from 3/4 to 2/3.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alaska HEMI R/T Jm Admin. on Dec 27, 2017 13:25:45 GMT -5
Once you vote away your rights, good luck getting them back.
Jm Grnt 2017
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 27, 2017 13:59:44 GMT -5
First, I find it curious that someone "with a british accent is canvassing neighbors drumming up support for the ballot proposal". But, I suppose it is cheaper than tee shirts and a hot dog social.
Your point is well taken ie that it should be more difficult to change the "constitution" of S-bag's governing documents than the lesser corporate documents which only need a 2/3 affirmation. Changing the constitution puts the voting threshold for changing property rights on a par with changing corporate documents like Bylaws, which do not affect property rights.
If my parcel were encumbered by these Covenants AND I believed that these covenants served a beneficial purpose, I would vote to reduce them from 75 to 66%. However, they do not encumber my alienated parcel (by virtue of the law prohibiting retroactive application of the revitalized Covenants) AND I believe that, if the threshold was lowered, it would invite future abuses by those "in power" in progressively encumbering properties with more and more restrictions to the free use of property. And that has already been demonstrated on the ballot 2 years ago...
Two years ago, S-bag attempted to force all members to pay for a private internet enterprise with equipment currently installed, against owner approval, on common property. An amendment to the Covenants was also proposed that ONLY the Board would have the final authority to approve commercial enterprise in S-bag (contrary to the covenant prohibiting commercial enterprise). This degradation of owners' protected property rights further played out when KCNET was allowed to do business here and one of our board members entered into an agreement with KCNET to pay it for installing its business in S-bag. This ballot initiative amending the "commercial" covenant was defeated and rightly so.
Unfortunately, that unsuccessful power grab cast a very long shadow on the Board's unilateral proposal to change covenants by amendment in S-bag. Owners should remember that this proposal "came out of nowhere" and was never polled or discussed with owners! KCNET is still operating on owners' common property without authority from the Owners and the contract has never been ratified by the Board --or Owners. On the other hand, it proved without a doubt that property rights can be degraded even in the presence of "laws" designed to protect the owners of those rights and this should be a cautionary tale for owners. As David Hume said in 1741, "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once."
This current proposal is also "coming out of nowhere"; members have not been asked if this is something we want. We have not been presented with the proposal and asked to consider the PROS and CONS. Remember, the half million dollar expenditure for legal fees was born from a 2012 covenant amendment proposal that "came out of nowhere". That proposal was to "allow fixed housing in S-bag"--something already pre-empted and permitted by a higher authority i.e. Polk County. This opened Pandora's Box and it was shown that S-bag's Covenants had already expired and an amendment was not possible.
The Cycle appears to be starting again! For this and many other reasons previously stated, I will vote no. I would not be a NO necessarily in another environment but at this moment in S-bag, I am a resounding NO. Because this Board and and Attorneys cannot be trusted with a YES.
One of the hot topics in HOA-land at the moment is short term rentals and I also fear that is desirous to get control of rentals in S-bag and to profit off rentals. (After all, they are making $250 off an account statement aka estoppel letter when a brokered sale takes place!) Covenants are currently silent on rentals --because they were written for an RV Park!--and this is not a current concern but is one that I see down the road after it gains "amended authorities". By opening the door with lowered voting threshold, owners give the board/ more control over property use and money-making opportunities (like KCNET private business). My suspicion is that S-bag will also begin to install controls and fees on rental activities both short and long term.
|
|
