|
Post by zoe1742 on Dec 25, 2013 23:46:01 GMT -5
I think what we are missing in this internet vote is: 1. There is no contract proposal in writing. 2. If it passes what are the extra or hidden cost. 3. Do we vote again after a year if it passes. 4. Can the 15.00 mo. fee be increased at any time without a vote?
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Dec 28, 2013 12:23:08 GMT -5
All these would be excellent questions to ask in a "normal" situation.
However, if one agrees that the Covenants specifically prohibit assessing owners for items that are not part of "maintenance and operation of SLohA-owned common property", then asking these questions is not applicable in this instance.
The mandatory internet assessment fee can be characterized in many ways but it is NOT an expense of operating/maintaining Association-owned property. It should not even be considered to included on the ballot. DB's reading his already-prepared motion to put it in the budget was a blatant conflict of interest--especially considering his attempts a few minutes earlier to sell the trailer he bought to house K C's equipment back to the Association (trailer no longer needed now that the equipment has been relocated to its own locked room in the new Annex).
We should be asking BOD by what authority that is higher than our own covenants do they try to cram this down owners' throats! We should demand that they remove this item from the ballot and recall directors for this illegal act. They know better. They must do better.
|
|
Im Trying
Addict
" Chillin-Out " One Day At A Time !
Posts: 143
|
Post by Im Trying on Dec 28, 2013 14:17:40 GMT -5
I totally agree. I have also talked to some that would diffidently join a Law-Suit against Resort Wide Kay c Net Service. If this issue passes.
|
|
|
Post by zoe1742 on Dec 30, 2013 18:45:07 GMT -5
Here is a breakdown of the S-bag owners groups: 1. 3mo res X $50 = $150 a $30 a year loss. 2. 4mo res X $50 = $200 a $20 year savings. 3.6mo res x $50 = $300 a $120 a year savings. Thanks to other people helping them. This I believe is the max time Snow birds stay here. 4.12mo res X $50 = $600 a $420 a year savings. I think this is one of the smaller groups. It contains all of the owners that do not own computers. Several of them have other types of internet providers It would be nice to see how many are in each group. As you can see it is not such a great deal for us, but 787 X $15 X 12= $141,660 is very good for someone.
|
|
|
Post by FJ on Dec 30, 2013 18:59:17 GMT -5
Here is a breakdown of the S-bag owners groups: 1. 3mo res X $50 = $150 a $30 a year loss. 2. 4mo res X $50 = $200 a $20 year savings. 3.6mo res x $50 = $300 a $120 a year savings. Thanks to other people helping them. This I believe is the max time Snow birds stay here. 4.12mo res X $50 = $600 a $420 a year savings. I think this is one of the smaller groups. It contains all of the owners that do not own computers. Several of them have other types of internet providers It would be nice to see how many are in each group. As you can see it is not such a great deal for us, but 787 X $15 X 12= $141,660 is very good for someone. Well done ! and not just good for one but also a few silent partners and the office & maint. also for getting free internet on the backs of those who get nothing .
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Dec 31, 2013 6:06:05 GMT -5
THAT is what "following the money" is about when trying to identify where puzzle pieces fit!
I had done a lesser calculation along a similar route:
400 subscribers X $40/mo (most early charter subscriber rate)= $16,000 month 400 subscribers X $15/mo = $6,000/mo Revenue loss from existing subscriber base = $10,000/mo
Add 387 new mandatory subscribers @ $15/mo = $5805/mo
New Revenue Plan = $6000 (convert old high rate subscribers to reduced rate) + $5805 (New mandatory subscribers) = 11,805 NEW revenue to:
"K C Net and all its investors, present and future"
This represents a revenue loss of $ $4,195/mo.
The actual loss would be even more (by a couple thousand) because I am calculating the highest possible revenue scenario on the lowest "charter" subscription rate; I suspect that about half the rates are at the $50/mo level.
WHY? Why would K C Net propose a reduction in revenue? What are the offsetting benefits?
I have a theory.
If I was finding it harder, due to failing health, to run a thriving, growing business, I would start finding ways to "unload" responsibility. I would put out feelers to my supporters on the BOD. I might toss some ideas in the direction of my third party clients, such as Verizon or maybe even contact a business broker. Perhaps there might be some interest in investing in the business and buying me out! O happy days! But, investors like guaranteed and stable income "subscriptions" and financing is always part of a deal; the bank will require a business to show a viable, steady and dependable income. As it exists now, there are no contracts that bind subscribers.
Voila! Propose a park-wide assessment to SLohA! Let the owners screw themselves by voting in what appears to be a very attractive internet fee. Chances are 400 market-rate non-contract subscribers will say Yes--virtually assuring a majority passage on the Ballot.
Guaranteed revenue secured by YOUR HOME! What could be a better deal for a business wanting to sell?
You already have a collection mechanism in place with the ASSOCIATION-PAID ACCOUNTANT and ASSOCIATION-PAID FORECLOSURE ATTORNEY!
Remember when you vote: If an owner does not pay the assessment fee, THE ASSOCIATION (that is YOU) will:
1. PAY ATTORNEY FEES to begin collection process with demand letters 2. PAY ATTORNEY FEES to place a lien on your home and 3. PAY ATTORNEY FEES to foreclose!
And don't even get me started on the many ways that MANBOD and K C Net investors will find to regulate and control use of the signal or levy future assessment increases or add-on services.
|
|
|
Post by New Guest on Jan 19, 2014 18:10:26 GMT -5
Am I to understand if this internet passes that I will be helping pay for peoples internet in S-bag even when they are away from April to November in another State or Canada and cant use it until they return ? Why would the Canadians or US want this ? They will be paying for each month of the year when they aren't here, the way it stands now they only pay for the months they use when in SLR .
I just don't see how that's a fair deal at all . I have heard some complaints about the phones and the limited D/L speed as well . I think my mind is made up on how to vote . Unless I have wrong information.....
|
|
|
Post by MoneyPenny on Jan 19, 2014 19:28:47 GMT -5
Technically, because all owners are paying the same year 'round through the assessment, all contributions are equal regardless of whether or not the service is used while owners are up north--so you are not subsidizing other owners. You are actually subsidizing the for-profit corporate entity (and other investors) which has established its equipment on our common property and services 1500+ subscribers outside of S-bag.
|
|
Anonymous Environmentalist
Guest
|
Post by Anonymous Environmentalist on Jan 20, 2014 22:34:59 GMT -5
has anyone seen the budget proposal w/internet that was in w/the ballot materials? it has certain numbers marked in red and I don't know why those numbers would be in red; that would indicate a reverse balance or a negative balance if they are in red, and there's no explanation as to why these numbers are in red. One number in the red is $141,660 for resort wide internet, another couple numbers in the red are $5,000 apiece for Pest Control/fertilization and Engineering, there's also a red $36,000 for Parts & Signs, then yet another red $40,000 under Buildings.
My questions are why are these numbers in the red? And, If red means they are reverse balances or negative balances, how come this was no so stated on the budget papers at the bottom as a footnote?
As usual, the budgets prepared raise more questions than they answer!
|
|
Anonymous Environmentalist
Guest
|
Post by Anonymous Environmentalist on Jan 20, 2014 22:45:17 GMT -5
THAT is what "following the money" is about when trying to identify where puzzle pieces fit! I had done a lesser calculation along a similar route: 400 subscribers X $40/mo (most early charter subscriber rate)= $16,000 month 400 subscribers X $15/mo = $6,000/mo Revenue loss from existing subscriber base = $10,000/mo Add 387 new mandatory subscribers @ $15/mo = $5805/mo New Revenue Plan = $6000 (convert old high rate subscribers to reduced rate) + $5805 (New mandatory subscribers) = 11,805 NEW revenue to: "K C Net and all its investors, present and future" This represents a revenue loss of $ $4,195/mo. The actual loss would be even more (by a couple thousand) because I am calculating the highest possible revenue scenario on the lowest "charter" subscription rate; I suspect that about half the rates are at the $50/mo level. WHY? Why would K C Net propose a reduction in revenue? What are the offsetting benefits? I have a theory. If I was finding it harder, due to failing health, to run a thriving, growing business, I would start finding ways to "unload" responsibility. I would put out feelers to my supporters on the BOD. I might toss some ideas in the direction of my third party clients, such as Verizon or maybe even contact a business broker. Perhaps there might be some interest in investing in the business and buying me out! O happy days! But, investors like guaranteed and stable income "subscriptions" and financing is always part of a deal; the bank will require a business to show a viable, steady and dependable income. As it exists now, there are no contracts that bind subscribers. Voila! Propose a park-wide assessment to SLohA! Let the owners screw themselves by voting in what appears to be a very attractive internet fee. Chances are 400 market-rate non-contract subscribers will say Yes--virtually assuring a majority passage on the Ballot. Guaranteed revenue secured by YOUR HOME! What could be a better deal for a business wanting to sell? You already have a collection mechanism in place with the ASSOCIATION-PAID ACCOUNTANT and ASSOCIATION-PAID FORECLOSURE ATTORNEY! Remember when you vote: If an owner does not pay the assessment fee, THE ASSOCIATION (that is YOU) will: 1. PAY ATTORNEY FEES to begin collection process with demand letters 2. PAY ATTORNEY FEES to place a lien on your home and 3. PAY ATTORNEY FEES to foreclose! And don't even get me started on the many ways that MANBOD and K C Net investors will find to regulate and control use of the signal or levy future assessment increases or add-on services. This is why I brought this up again; these above calculations are pretty much dead on balls accurate--peeps, pay heed here--this is simple math--Stob is no doubt going to sell his bizness as soon as he gets the "resort wide internet" vote swung his way--then look out! Your prices will go way, way up--you know why--no contract that's why!!
|
|
Anonymous Environmentalist
Guest
|
Post by Anonymous Environmentalist on Jan 20, 2014 22:56:38 GMT -5
I think what we are missing in this internet vote is: 1. There is no contract proposal in writing. 2. If it passes what are the extra or hidden cost. 3. Do we vote again after a year if it passes. 4. Can the 15.00 mo. fee be increased at any time without a vote? Everyone had better start asking these questions, because as I see it, if they've already been asked and we Hayvn't gotten any answers on this, then we better take this asinine, stupid, ridiculous proposal off of the table which it should NEVER have been put before owners to a vote! The board is crooked and so is the internet biz owner in here.
Vote NO on Internet and Vote NO on the budget increase, and while you are at it, vote NO for the capital expenditures and against all of the covenant changes--since none are even legal to be changed to begin with!
|
|
Forensic Cartoonist
Guest
|
Post by Forensic Cartoonist on Jan 21, 2014 10:21:24 GMT -5
I liken this K C Net internet to The Flintstones . And the modern up to date Internet you SHOULD have as the Jetsons .
I looked at a computer with K C Net and laughed, its OLD OLD OLD and has LESS features that are Standard with ANY OTHER PROVIDER !
A person would have to be stupid to want K C NET if they knew what they should be getting from any other Provider . Not to mention a contract to protect you from a bill that could get hiked up at any time without your say .
The BOD will take full advantage of the line on the Ballot giving the BOD FULL CONTROL over any Commercial business in SLR.
Vote NO on Sponge Bobs Internet or suffer the cost increases without controls .
Hear me now Believe me later .
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Jan 21, 2014 11:02:11 GMT -5
These are all good and reasonable questions, however, do not give adequate recognition to the fundamental invalidity of the conditions giving rise to the questions. The invalidity being, the prohibited occupation by a for-profit corporation "conducting commercial activity on or from the lot" and common property contrary to the prohibition to such activity in the Covenants. This means side issues qualifying the desirability of the "vote" is invalid "ab initio". Questions about terms and contracts, while interesting, relevant and reasonable under other "normal" business conditions, are not meaningful in this instance.
An agreement is said to be "void ab initio" if it has at no time had any legal validity. The illegality of the conduct or the revelation of the real facts makes the entire situation illegal ab initio (from the beginning), not just from the time the wrongful behavior occurs. Example: If a sheriff enters property under the authority of a court order requiring him to seize a valuable painting, but instead he takes an expensive marble sculpture, he would be a trespasser from the beginning. Since the officer abused his authority, a court would presume that he intended from the outset to use that authority as a cloak from under which to enter the property for a wrongful purpose.
One might say that XX also had "authority" (although that authority is arguable) in 2010 to reconstruct a non-functioning tower already in place on the Admin office (by the defunct Lake Wales Wireless) for the use of S-bag internet connectivity ONLY... AND convinced the Board that the FCC trumped SLohA's covenants and gave him permission to put a tower on his lot and "register" the business out of a room on SR60. Whilst "under cloak of permission from FCC/SLohA" , K C expanded the business, placing huge additional towers on common property, leasing business property to third parties such as Verizon and providing services to 1300+ subscribers outside of S-bag. Though this process may have "evolved" for various reasons and was probably not anticipated for a "wrongful purpose", the altruistic motive does not alter the illegality of the situation.
The ballot vote is illegal "ab initio" because the BOARD DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO NULLIFY THE COVENANTS (prohibiting commerical activity) and permit the trespass of K C on common property to conduct commercial activity.
Disclaimer: The is given for informational purposes and should not be relied upon as a legal opinion. I am not an attorney and if you wish to act on this issue, you should seek counsel of a lawyer.
|
|
Anonymous Environmentalist
Guest
|
Post by Anonymous Environmentalist on Jan 21, 2014 11:40:43 GMT -5
Forensic Cartoonist has made some very good points here--plus, the term: "Sponge Bb" really fits here--this is one "sponge" that is going to suck up (your) money, unless we kick this "sponge" and his business to the curb!
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 21, 2014 19:34:57 GMT -5
Less than one day "out" and eleven (11) letters of objection to the ballot have been signed and turned into the Office. From reports, there are five more ready to be collected and delivered tomorrow.
|
|
Im Trying
Addict
" Chillin-Out " One Day At A Time !
Posts: 143
|
Post by Im Trying on Jan 21, 2014 21:19:40 GMT -5
I helped my neighbor, by taking their letter to the front office, there was a resident also turning in a letter. So slowly the count is going up. I was also told by a friend, that a Petition Objecting to the Ballot was circulating around the park... I do not know if that is being confused with the Ballot letter. I hope what was said is true....
|
|
Anonymous Environmentalist
Guest
|
Post by Anonymous Environmentalist on Jan 21, 2014 21:52:41 GMT -5
Here's an open letter to the owner of kay see net, I guess I just didn't want to risk getting threatened with another federal subpoena, so instead of sending him this letter, which would do NO good for anyone in here, I thought I would present it to my fellow fighters on the forum and also to Mr. B.S., internet owner, here on this forum:
Mr. B.S. : The following is reference to a word-for-word transcription of the internet proposal meeting on 1/8/14; here is what you, the internet business owner had said:
"Because we cared about S-bag and we saw a vision of what S-bag can be but 20 people conspired to remove the majority's rights to vote. That is contrary to federal law. The attorneys will be subpoenaing those forms Monday and a suit in a federal court against those 20 forms will be filed on Tuesday." (Then PB, our VP spoke: "One comment: we didn't take it off the ballot because of the 20 people's letters.") Then, you, the internet business owner interrupted and said: "I do not fault the board at all. If you were wrong, there was a way to have it solved later. But the way it has been handled at the last minute when you had no time you were handed a choice where you were probably, in my mind, had no choice but to remove it. So I do not blame S-bag or the board but I do see there is a very clearly perfect conspiracy, even if they had legal rights and that form reeks of advice from amateur attorney or somebody that says he's a real one. Either way, I have forfeited their actions, and the harm that their actions caused us."
Obviously, NOW your cheese has slid off your cracker due to your (above) damming statements obviously directed at the 20 people or so who basically wrote an inquiry letter to the BOD, NOT you! The letter had nothing to do with you and it had nothing to do with violating anyone's rights to vote, and there certainly was NO conspiracy! Actually, though, you could be brought up on slander charges by each of these 20+ individuals--that's what happens when you shoot your mouth off without thinking. Mr. BS you need to personally explain to everyone, since even I would love to hear what federal laws were broken and what type of conspiracy are you claiming has been done? Since you said it, you need to back it up. Put your money where you mouth is--you said these things at the meeting, so lets have it out. If you took those forms to any attorney (or even any judge for that matter,) they would laugh you right out of the court room! Go ahead and try it--you'll see--there is no way, no how, no body is going to be able to subpoena anyone for anything.
By the way, we didn't need an attorney to write that form letter, just so you know, we have the truth and facts on our side, and that works, and what do you have, according to our By-Laws and Covenants, you have an illegally placed business in SLR. You know that, your attorney knows that and so does our board and management, what they don't realize is that just about everyone else will soon have the opportunity to know this as well as a lot more, and, for the record, we DO have a good attorney on our side and also for the record, he's NO amateur.
What reeks in here is the lying and deception by you and the board to ram this down the owner's throats in here and call it good.
Our board should have acted when they got one of our letters, but now they have over 40 and they just still don't get it--how loud of a message needs to be sent to this board before they get that what they are doing is wrong?!?
Mr. B.S.: Your internet business was wrong from the beginning and illegal to be operating on common property and you knew this, and so did the board, and how much legal problems do you think are going to be caused by the boards' inability to make proper, right and/or sound decisions with regard to your business? it's really not a matter of IF the board will get into legal entanglements, it's a matter of WHEN, and that WHEN is coming soon, and they better believe it.
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Jan 23, 2014 8:18:05 GMT -5
Yes this was made clear at the 1/22/14 meeting: there are TWO separate "form" letters--from TWO different originators-- being circulated and signed by owners objecting to the Ballot.
|
|
|
Post by Tree Hugger on Feb 12, 2014 10:53:48 GMT -5
Why did SLohA funds get used to pay D&D Tree Service to cut and top trees @ Bath House #2 so that some Kay S ee N et subscribers get a better signal ?
I am against our SLohA funds being used to support a commercial business on SLohA property AND also cut down our old growth trees for a 3 year old internet business .
The MANBOD needs to back bill Mr. S for D&D Tree Service as this was done specifically to improve his signal to his subscribers. I can see the tower at bath house #2 now because the top of the old growth Oak Tree was removed .
Why would we want to cut down our oldest and tallest trees for any reason ? Certainly NOT because a few visitors complaints about a weak signal .
|
|