Commercial Activity on SLohA Common Property

You made your case; these agents providing infrastructure for internet providers are "commercial enterprises" and, last time I looked, our Covenants specifically prohibit all commercial activity on the property (except those activities necessary to maintenance and operation of the common properties). 

They (Verizon, BrightHouse etc) will make applications to place their towers and cables on lands which are properly zoned for the particulars of the enterprise and permitted by the authorities owning and controlling use of private property.  They will not swoop in and plant themselves on someone else's property and then demand, through governmental mandate and other machinations, that the property owners purchase their service and that their service "runs with your land" by deed.  I think that is in the domain of state "sovereignty" of taxing authority exercised by legitimate government--and neither SLohA nor K C have it.

I find it curious that BrightHouse offered any kind of quote for such a theoretical and casual proposal, an effort which would normally take months following governmental clearances, engineering studies, letters of intent, site visits and what-not.    It takes a monumental effort just to get hold of Customer Service to report a cable outage.  Care to share your secret?

Mr. BS says he had a vision of what SLR could be like with his Internet and TV system . Great things come from an Idea or a Vision most of the time .
I wonder why he also didn't envision doing things correct and by the rules of business from the start ?
Mr. BS says that Contracts and Liability boiler plate agreements are a waste of time and money, this shows me he had a LACK OF VISION.

A neighbor of mine was trying to defend the Internet from BS and could only say what all the others were told and on every turn he couldn't defend .
He told me that at the meeting he was told that "these big companies wont be able to afford to keep their satellites in operation some day" and that we would only be able to get TV from KayCeeNet when that happens.

OMG ! are you kidding me ? I then mentioned that Dish has 3 Satellites , DTV has only 1 and those major companies buy and pay to put the Satellites into space . There was silence.......

Then he (neighbor) says "well....IF we have a storm and those big companies lose their towers that we will only be able to have internet with KayCeeNet ." My reply was that if Verizons tower goes down so will these puny towers . And that the big Companies have the Manpower-Equipment and Warehouses full of everything they need to get up and running within a week or so and that all KayCeenet has is an old Ford Cherry Picker truck and a few guys. He will also have to order what he needs and wait for UPS or FedEx to ship it . PLUS.....there may be more damage than just the towers, individual homes may need new ''bricks'' to receive a signal as well.

Crickets......."Well we all paid for the swimming pool to be redone" yes I replied, and we paid for it to be done TWICE I said, then asked what the swimming pool had to do with a commercial privately owned business that was NOT an amenity ?

Again crickets.....I truly like and enjoy chatting with my neighbors like this, I respect their opinion and their choice and do not fault them personally for what they say. However I do have serious issue when my fellow neighbors are told untruths and lead to believe that the sky will soon fall and that the Internet Extortion Fee is the new age of SLR and if we don't get it now no matter what is wrong with it we are doomed .

Shame on the BOD to taking advantage of elderly folks and lying to them just to get into their purses and wallets .
Shame on Mr.BS for not coming correct and presenting himself and his business in a manner consistent with tried and true business practices done legally by other companies .

And last but not least shame on the people that do not want to find the truth and only listen to what they hear . If you have internet do some research...THATS WHAT THE INTERNET IS FOR !!! not just playing cards online and forwarding jokes , the internet has the truth and anyone can find it with a little effort .

I have been following this Internet proposal and I seem to have more questions than answers these days . My personal opinion is based on that what I hear and what I believe is true seem to be two different things .

Instead of listing all the inaccuracies that I have heard about the Internet proposal and possibly clouding what some readers may or may not want to believe I tried to remove my personal feelings and look at the whole thing from an outsiders perspective . I ended up having even more questions and could get no answers that made any sense from the very people that want the internet proposed by K c Net in SLR .

After reading all the print from Mr. S I cant make heads or tails of his direction , Mr. S seems to not have it together as a person wanting to provide a good product to people ie a service with a contract and a guarantee .
Mr. S speaks of his failing health and that makes me wonder was this a ''feel sorry for me'' ploy ? Sympathy is not a good way to propose a binding agreement for one thing . Secondly and most important to me is the fact Mr. S and his wife have publicly stated that they are losing $ 15,000 (fifteen thousand) dollars a month on this business venture . This is very troubling and the fact that the math with the money doesn't add up .

The proposal if adopted wouldn't come close to the business ''breaking even'' and Mr. S stated that's all he wants . Again, I ask what business is in business to lose money ?

Another huge problem is Mr. S statement at the Proposal (internet) meeting where he states Contracts are a waste of time and money . I don't know about anyone else, but if you enter into a binding commitment and have nothing in writing you are setting yourself up for having absolutely no recourse if things go wrong .

I cant understand why our Board of Directors do not see this as a bad deal for our community and shouldn't even entertain the thought of doing business with any provider for any service with the attitude Mr. S has . Its just BAD BUSINESS !

Mr. S claims to have Subscribers outside of SLR, some 1500 maybe . This is also troubling, how will outside subscribers take it knowing that SLR subscribers will only pay $15 dollars a month for the same service they pay $ 50 dollars for ?
I don't know about anyone else but my opinion on that kind of unfair business practice would cause me to cancel my service and go with a modern and up to date Internet Provider such as Sprint, Verizon, or any reputable company with set prices and a binding agreement that protects both company and user .
Once outside subscribers start dropping their service who do you think will have to eat the loss ? Not Mr. S , the price will go up to SLR users to cover the losses and we will have no binding contract to protect us from mandatory increases to stop the cash flow loss .

Take a step back from what you think you want, think about how this one thing will cause irreparable damage to our community in the future if not already . Stop to think about what will be put on future SLR populations and ask is it right , is it worth it ?
People seem so selfish these days, only caring about what they want and not a care about anyone else. Very upsetting to see the viciousness in some folks as they get on in years .

Thank you for your time if you read this and please VOTE NO on the internet Proposal / Budget options .

B.S. stated at his Special Meeting, that you can thank me for your peasee's high speed download and upload speeds using a Verizon Modem. I think at that point he realized he just let the cat out of the bag. B.S. may have a Verizon Wireless Signal Repeater on one of the towers located on common property in SLR. Which I think that SLohA owns said towers. The owner/residents do not know who owns the towers, because our BODs keep telling us, we do not have any connections with K-- Ntwerk.  So if we indeed have Verizon 4G Wireless Repeaters on towers located within our Resort. I have a Question? It is normal for a Ntwk Carrier, like Verizon, to pay a royalty to the owner of a tower, they have placed a Hi-Speed Signal Repeater on. If this is true and Verizon has placed their equipment on towers inside of SLR, who is getting any Royalty $$$$'s. Is the Royalty divided between K---Ntwk & SLR? Did the owners of the towers, just let Verizon add equipment for free. Maybe it is  a public service to the community? I am curious, can anyone answer these questions? Maybe I should ask Verizon about any arrangement they may or may not have inside SLR, with K----Ntwk. But Mr. S. did say; "You can thank me for the hi-speeds you are getting using Verizon Wireless on your peasee." :-)

Here are some more photos; these and more were recently taken.  The forum thread will only handle three (3) at a time so I'll organize them as the "Tennis Court Tower (above post), the "Storage Area Tower" which will be THIS post, the "Bathhouse #2 Tower", the "Admin Bldg Tower" and the "Private Property Tower" on the posts to follow.

Storage Area Tower

Attachment Deleted     Attachment Deleted     Attachment Deleted

No-I have not been drinking too much merlot on the last photo--that is my inner shutter bug saying that "Something is askew here..."

How many liabilities can you pick out?  I saw two right away.
Photo #1-exposed wiring
Photo #2-support anchors and wiring hidden in shade in walkway near sheds where people are walking and likely to not see the unexpected object and trip and fall.

TWO Covenants breached--"Commercial activity and No Nuisances"

And, I'll believe it when I see it i.e. the "story" that "We can't do anything-waaaah  wahhhh".   The evidence points to the FCC allowing "personal networks for ham radio operators" to install towers on private property.  Show me..don't tell me.  I don't believe anything coming from MANBOD.

Private Lot Tower

Attachment Deleted     Attachment Deleted     Attachment Deleted