|
|
Post by BagLady on Jan 4, 2014 14:39:15 GMT -5
A little birdie told me that a Board Director reported to an owner that the internet fee proposal is illegal and is off the ballot.
The birdie is a truthful little thing and this info fits the other details of this pathetic scenario ie that BOD was getting a legal opinion about it and would discuss on the Tuesday BoD meeting.
This uproar could have been avoided if the BOD were able to read and comprehend our governing documents before they act.
The removal of this proposal from the ballot in no way mitigates the egregious breach of covenant that the directors have sponsored and supported in favor of K C N to the detriment of owners.
This business operation is built upon common property, housed on common property, insured by lot owners and conducted from within S-bag contrary to the contract and promises contained in our CC&R's. The business has expanded and incorporates third party lessees and 1500 subscribers outside our community.
It is way past time for K C N to find a new home outside S-bag.
|
|
Believe it when I see it
Guest
|
Post by Believe it when I see it on Jan 4, 2014 15:54:38 GMT -5
Sorry but will all the misinformation flying around the community, this owner will only believe it when he sees it for himself.
This internet proposal has been fought too hard & too long by the manbod for to just suddenly die. The manbod and bird turd probably want the letters to stop the letters from coming to the office and making it official.
DO NOT BELIEVE and keep the letters going to the office!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 4, 2014 16:09:35 GMT -5
Absolutely! The office has received many letters and owners should continue to register their objection to the Board's actions. Owners also should protect their interests by documenting their objection to the illegal fee and giving BOD written notice.
Who's to say that this bunch will simply ignore the attorney's advice and continue to ram it down owners' throats?
The BOD has not yet put anything in writing. Letters to the BOD must be answered in 30 days. The Attorney's opinion on this is available to all with a written official records request.
Let this be the BEGINNING of a goal to do what owners should have done a couple years ago. Attempts by owners to object were half-hearted, the BOD response was hostile and intimidated owners-- and official records requests were met with an absolute stonewall.
That yellow flag is now orange!
|
|
Im Trying
Addict
" Chillin-Out " One Day At A Time !
Posts: 143
|
Post by Im Trying on Jan 5, 2014 1:15:28 GMT -5
When the BOD's received Kx-Nxxxxxx's proposal letter back in November, they should have done their homework. It is very clear our BODs have not studied Our Redbook, or they would have called the Attorney back in November, for a little advice. This Resort Wide Internet Service is a big controversial issue. Now they have egg on their face, if this has indeed been removed from the ballot. We will know for sure, after the BOD Workshop on Jan 7. (Tues.)
|
|
SPRINT WIRELESS USER
Guest
|
Post by SPRINT WIRELESS USER on Jan 5, 2014 7:49:53 GMT -5
A little birdie told me that a Board Director reported to an owner that the internet fee proposal is illegal and is off the ballot. The birdie is a truthful little thing and this info fits the other details of this pathetic scenario ie that BOD was getting a legal opinion about it and would discuss on the Tuesday BoD meeting. This uproar could have been avoided if the BOD were able to read and comprehend our governing documents before they act.
The removal of this proposal from the ballot in no way mitigates the egregious breach of covenant that the directors have sponsored and supported in favor of K C N to the detriment of owners. This business operation is built upon common property, housed on common property, insured by lot owners and conducted from within S-bag contrary to the contract and promises contained in our CC&R's. The business has expanded and incorporates third party lessees and 1500 subscribers outside our community. It is way past time for K C N to find a new home outside S-bag. Signal strength for NetK C for 1/5/14 > POOR/FAIR and UNSECURED
SPRINT SIGNAL> GREAT SIGNAL and SECURE
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Obvious on Jan 7, 2014 18:18:00 GMT -5
When the BOD's received Kx-Nxxxxxx's proposal letter back in November, they should have done their homework. It is very clear our BODs have not studied Our Redbook, or they would have called the Attorney back in November, for a little advice. This Resort Wide Internet Service is a big controversial issue. Now they have egg on their face, if this has indeed been removed from the ballot. We will know for sure, after the BOD Workshop on Jan 7. (Tues.) With Mr. S failing health as stated in his Business Proposal and the uncertain future of KcN combined with no written contracts or agreements as claimed by Management or bod and added to the private internet and phone business in SLR that is against our CC&Rs wouldn't it make more sense to try for a company that has contracts , terms and agreements , length of contract to customers such as any number of Companies like : Sprint, Verizon , ATT , T-Mobile ,Nextel and several more ?
Why settle for some Sm all scale FM Bandwidth Unsecure operation with towers that will surely come down with an F3-F4 hurricane ?
The Verizon tower services a larger area, and Radio Shack by Walmart and Wendy's can set up SLR with guaranteed service for the entire resort that SLR wont have to live with from here to eternity if we decide to change companies in 2 years for a better plan.
It wouldn't have a start up cost of $144,660 per year to residents and then skyrocket in a few years either .
Plus an outside provider would not be violating a Supreme Court Ruling i.e. Cohn V Grand Condo HOA www.ccfj.net/CCFJSupCourtFLGRAND.htm
SLR wouldn't be buying new and expensive equipment in the event of catastrophe and wont be replacing old equipment .
Certainly Brand "S" 1500 subscribers outside SLR would not be asked to chip in to get the internet back in operation after a catastrophe nor would they be billed for equipment necessary for what ever reason so SLR can have what they want and any expense .
Here is a thought , if the Internet is voted in @ $15.00 per month to every owner of every lot , then do we also vote to increase the cost as well year after year or is it LOCKED IN FOREVER @ $15.00 ? Get me that in writing please .
|
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Jan 7, 2014 19:37:32 GMT -5
All of the above is true. The main problem is that KCN is hosting the dishes for these guys and they are paying leasing fees to KCN. So, with KCN, there IS no Sprint, Verizon, T Mobile or Nextel DATA (internet). These companies simply do not have a sufficient subscriber base to invest money in capital improvements in our area (the original reason for KCN doing what it did when Lake Wales Wireless went bust!)
I personally admire the initiative and creativity of KCN's owner to find and fill a need in the marketplace. However, there are conditions that might not have been anticipated until the die was cast and now investors are fighting for life. Deed-restricted property is not going to be an easy way to go, though the investors are trying to ram it down the throats of owners.
Owners have the law on their side but as the TV ad says "Justice is not automatic". Someone will have to pick up the phone and call 1800Gary and force accountability and conformity to the laws. HOA's are well aware of the cost of a lawsuit. Uniquely and shamefully unprotected by the state, retired elderly HOA owners are sitting ducks to be "handled" because they rarely have the financial or emotional resources to S u e.
That is the crux of the issue as described at agonizing length by KL--who we can agree needs to lobby harder for the internet. No neutrality or impartiality there! KL has an agenda and the other directors mostly keep their mouths shut and let KL do all the talking. But, KL does have a point. All business is conducted by internet these days. Without the internet provided by KCN, we are back to paper and fax machines for all SLohA business. And who wants to do business with a retro outfit using PostIt Notes? Maybe not even Tu kkR!
But, this problem of place and technology is not sufficient to break a contract--the Covenants. And that is what KL is advocating--that owners believe that "he thinks he has the authority (though no authority cited) and that he is right and that owners willingly and without comment hand over their vested contractual rights to KL.
|
|
