Resort Wide Internet--Round 2?

Would that be the meeting on the 10th? And, if so, can you please repost what they wrote, thanks, Bo.

My Dear Grinches

You all know that I usually exhibit a general mood of hope and cheer, especially during the holidays.  I wish I felt that way now.  But, Baglady has a feeling of foreboding about this internet thing and its not because I drank too much merlot.  My strong intuition is that there is much more going on behind the scenes than we know about or can know about.  This "proposal" did not happen without a great deal of thought.  The timing of this proposal is horrible, but I doubt that timing is all that important.  Ballot or no, I strongly suspect this internet fee is going to happen.

Is there anyone that believes this is about some higher social purpose of enhancing communications and "bringing internet" to all in SLR?  If so, let's recall the historical behavior which has been the opposite-to suppress open communication, control access to owners, control what, where and how communication is released and to make certain official communication secret, difficult and expensive for owners.

I have always thought about "following the money" when actions don't make sense and, in this case, there are several possible precedents in the making that involve money-making fee schemes.  There is a lot of money to be made from the owners in SLR by simply signing a contract for fee, deeming it a common expense and "assessing it" on your property.  The internet fee is the first contract of a NEW, non-essential, highly-discretionary amenity being forced on all owners--even those who do not even own a computer--regardless of their ability or willingness to purchase internet service.    It is also springing "from nowhere"--there is NO desire that has been expressed by owners for such an amenity.  There was a survey done a little over a year ago and "parkwide internet" did not even appear as a response. I have never heard even one person ever say "I sure wish we had internet in every person's home here in SLR!"

Theoretically, it does not matter if the issue passes the ballot.  The law of Florida has just given HOA boards the sole authority to do this.  Owners have no say in the matter if that is what the board wants to do.   And, this is possibly just the beginning.  There is more money to be made by those who are calling the shots in SLR.  If owners say O K to K C, I would not be surprised to see additional private commercial operations establish upon our common property--companies such as a real estate office, a leasing office, a manufactured homes sales office, an authorized Txxxxx-contractor for property improvements, a golf cart dealer...  I could go on but you get the idea.

If the owners do not strongly resist this "foot in the door" proposal by private business, it will send strong messages of approval for further development.  It will tell MANBOD that allowing a private company to install its business equipment on our common property--without consulting owners--is OK.  It will tell them that we don't mind shelling out money to build and maintain the business equipment that belongs to a private owner.  We will pay the insurance on this equipment and assume the liability for damage or loss without objection.  If we must pay for any loss not covered through insurance to outside subscribers or third parties who lease tower space with a special assessment, that is OK too.  It will announce to all that this business has our permission to continue to expand on our property.  And,  not only do we not mind that our part of our recreational space and new building space is being freely donated to this private concern, we will APPROVE it being here by incorporating its service as a mandatory common expense. 

By these messages, we will have no future credibility to keep business out of SLR or objecting to further amenity assessments.  And, if there are financial hardships to owners who cannot bear increased assessment increases or special assessment burdens and fall behind, it is too bad that SLohA must foreclose on their home.   SLR can just set up a Law Office next to the Real Estate office to handle collections and foreclosures.  Too bad.  Welcome to the New SLR.

It says that we will not object to even more business establishing itself in SLR.



"Would you like fries with that?"

This was a conversation I overheard in the street:
"I don't know what I'm going to decide to cut from my tiny monthly budget--necessary nutrition requirements or necessary medical requirements like my medications. I can NOT cut anymore from my budget without having to cut out even more necessities--and what's worse--I don't even own a computer, and I don't have any need for an internet connection, so why are they making people like me pay for something I don't need or want, this is just outright extorsion and robbing us old poor people even more!"

After talking to some idiots in here who think this internet proposal is like manna from heaven, I realized that this mentality goes beyond stupidity--to insanity!!! Just when I thought things couldn't get any stupider than they are, now this shit happens!

Oh Great PooBah Solution Master!

Your humble confused masses are beholden to you for reasoning this puzzle through and coming up with a positive potential solution.  I would add that this would also accomplish a stated goal of K C N ie to cap the subscribers to 2000 by year end.  That way, instead of trying to manage and service hundreds of additional park signal grubbers, K  C N  would only keep the ones it has and still get the max parkwide income! 

(Except that the income would not be guaranteed by putting it into the assessment and foreclosing the home if the signal grabbers did not pay.)

Another thought.  This plan might be hampered by market conditions where there are other competing signals out there and mifi's and tethering plans.  Maybe those same owners would alternately prefer to have blazing 4G mobile signals and just say HumBug to a static "brick on the roof" solution for double/triple the cost of a generous data plan and device on the open market.  I think your plan does have possibility for tweaking, however, even though it is on the edge with the market.   Perhaps if it was extremely flexible and allowed a summer freeze on the account while back up north it might be more desirable, though reducing the income.

The only other problem that remains is the continued occupation of a privately-owned commercial business on SLohA common property.

Keep thinking O Great Solution Master!

I am puzzled, how is it that SLR is a "Not for Profit" Corporation and we are getting ready to adopt (by vote) to allow an amenity that is paid directly to a FOR PROFIT business known as K   C   Net ? 

K  C  Net was never in SLRs original documents  and a business operating in SLR is prohibited in our original CC&Rs.


I feel that if this is somehow illegal and we vote it into place SLR Owners are accepting the criminality of purposely breaking the law to be  extorted without recourse. 

Am I seeing this correctly?

So now K  C  Net is an incorporated business in our SLohA ? Shouldn't K  C Net also be a NOT FOR PROFIT business then also ?

free willy--

I wonder what people would think if Polk County entered into a contract with Brighthouse for a bulk package of phone/TV/internet and then added the cost to the tax bill.  All without public hearings and with no recourse or subsidy for people who are financially marginal. 

And, the contract would be perpetual and run with the land, so that if did not pay your tax bill, your home could be sold on the courthouse steps.

This is really what is happening in SLR now.

Do people living in the free world outside of HOA's worry about being forced to pay for a service that they don't need or want by their leaders? 

(Oops I should probably rephrase that haha)

So then DB who has several KCN antenna on his home is just allowing KCN to USE him for nothing ?

I seriously doubt that is the case .

But that will be known soon enough .

I don’t own property in your community, but I know someone who does. I have been reading about your troubles for quite while on the external forum websites and believe that there is reason for strong concern for the future of your park.

From an outsider point of view on the internet problem, I offer some observations. These are not accusations—just observations. It is not my business, but I have been asked by my buddy to speak up. First, you could not have the problems you are having without the joint cooperation of the internet provider, the board and the management company. These agents must all agree for the problems to be present to the extreme degree I have been reading about. Also, your park has two unusual and unaddressed conditions—the covenants expiration and a long term private commercial presence on deed-restricted common property. The 3 agents above have blocked all owner access to information about the presence of the commercial activity on common property, despite repeated requests. These two things are intertwined and are a yellow flag.

As an outsider, it would appear that the provider is aware and perhaps has been for a long period of time of the altered legal status of your park with regard to MRTA expiring the deed restrictions and has taken advantage of the situation to establish a business. Additionally, the board and management company has been drawn into the situation and may themselves be hoSt ages to the reality of the park-wide lapse of use restrictions by MRTA. It is conceivable that, over time, other agents have “bought into” an opportunity not of their choice or making and now are in an “all-in” mode. If I owned at your park, I would get legal assistance immediately and force disclosures of this and your finances. I think you have bigger problems than you know.