Ledger News Chief Article

SLR has many Ret. Military of all branches . Where else in America do you have a Pearl Harbor Survivor , Navy Divers ,Air Force Pilots and Marines living right across the street for you !

These brave Men fought for our freedom , many with their wives on base living it right along side them .

There is a wealth of History in SLR and its nice to see it recognized , my hat is off to these brave Men .

Salute !

It is not surprising what the energy is behind this whole dreadful issue--MONEY!

Here are some excerpts from the article in the NewsChief and Ledger:



"There a quite a few people who would find $545 harder to pay than $500," B S said.

BS is well aware of the disruption and financial hardship he is going to place on "quite a few people"--these people being fellow owners, neighbors and friends.  I think that is just despicable.

BS said the last Internet provider to S-bag had problems because there were only 88 paying customers, yet 450 households used the service.

What has that got to do with anything?  Possibly, K C has undertaken a similar bad business model and failed to implement internal controls to prevent subscribers from allowing others to hop on the signal.  ALL internet providers have these controls in place and prosecute people who steal service.

But he also stated that "you can't steal it if everybody has the right to have it."

This is not a problem for the Association to solve FOR this business.  It is K C's business problem; i.e. what to do about people who abuse your Terms of Service Agreement and steal your service.    K C is trying to solve a known problem of the industry on the backs of retirees trying to make ends meet on Social Security.

BS said he and his wife have been losing money since June 2010, at least $15,000 a month.

THERE it is!  This financial loss is NOT due to a few people who sign onto a neighbors internet service every once in a while.  Most people in here have their own mobile service or use the clubhouse.   The continuing loss is suggestive of a bad business plan and overpurchase of equipment and other service which cannot be sustained by revenue.  Again, this poor business model is NOT the Association's problem. 

"I've had a blessed life," BS said, explaining how he has managed the loss of money.  Charging residents $15 a month would allow the couple to break even.

And then what happens when you and the investors decide that "breaking even" is not enough?  And since when was it a goal of the Association to maintain your "blessed life" by paying money so you could "break even"?  How about the many people in here who will are NOT so financially blessed and will NOT break even at the end of every month because there is not enough money to go around for the things they MUST pay for?

Though, for him, it has nothing to do with the money, BS said.

Do owners have STUPID written on their foreheads?

BS argues that "not everybody uses the pool or boat dock, but everybody pays for it."

Not the same thing and BS is smart enough to know it.  These amenities attached to the deed by covenant and are owned by the corporation.  This internet service is not owned by SLohA and is therefore NOT lawfully attachable to the property through an assessment.

KL, president of S-bag's board, said if the idea passes, they would look for other Internet providers before going to KCNetworks.

Another fairy tale.   In fact--TWO fairy tales.  This is NOT an idea--it is a levy.  And, there ARE no other providers.  That is why K C went into business in the first place.  The other market players refused to expend capital for infrastructure because the subscription base was insufficient to offer a return on investment.

BS said he was just trying to do something helpful, and if homeowners vote against the plan Feb. 14, he is all right with that as long as it is what the majority of residents want.

BS has already stated his motive and purpose.  This is not a majority issue.  Election of and recall of Directors IS a majority issue.  LAWFUL adoption of the budget is a majority issue.  Adoption of lawful Rules & Regs is a majority issue. 

This assessment proposal is prohibited by Covenant and Bylaw and it does not matter what the majority wants.  It is unlawful for 100%.  Period.

I am going to send them an email with my comments about their interview statements.  Call Monday and get Lance's email address.  I also have a bone to pick with Lance in that he failed to mention that seniors could LOSE THEIR HOMES if they got behind in assessment payments because this fee put them "over the top" of their budget.

PS Just sent the email out!

From K C/CHUG's website


Looks to me that Kay c solved the "stealing" problem.  Why then, make the statement in the article:

"you can't steal it if everybody has the right to have it"

Above, he describes the problem internet sharing problem as being "in the past" and involving a "handful of customers" two years ago.  He "purchased sophisticated equipment" to catch abusers. 

Is the statement in the article More BS from BS?

Doesn't sound right:


This is the quote BS gave to the Ledger reporter.  Something about it keeps bothering me and now I know.  Bad as I am with numbers, I did a calculation on my calculator.  From Jun 2010 through Dec 2013 is 54 months.  That is $810,000--at least.

With the "at least" added, the number is probably close to 1 million dollars!

How many individuals have that kind of money laying around to support a "vision" or a hobby?  How many people have the ability to command that kind of credit?  How many people living in a modest community like S-bag have control of that sum of disposable money without a reasonable plan of relief?  Why would anyone fund a financial drain of that enormity over 4+ years?

It gives me pause when I think about monstrous money being spent over such a long period of time without any reasonable plan to recoup except the sudden extortion fee plan (which was supposedly concocted for health reasons).  Even should an assessment be made (which will not sustain a legal cH allenge), the assessment scenario would result in a REDUCTION in revenue as a result of changing the 400+ high-rate retail customers to a low per lot assessment of approximately $5,000/mo thereby increasing the monthly loss from $15,000 to $20,000/mo.  Doesn't make sense and I'm thinkin' like Judge Jew-D who says "If it doesn't make sense to me--IT'S NOT TRUE!"
 

Regarding the "theft" of internet service, I had a very interesting conversation with a representative of Bright House Ntwerk recently. While it is theoretically possible to steal KCNetwork's internet signal, it would require a level of technical expertise, as well as an investment in equipment, that is far too sophisticated to be available to anyone but a diehard geek. In fact, given the cost of the necessary equipment alone, it would be hard to justify the effort.
Although the Bright House spokesman could not identify the specific technology KCNetwork is using based upon my description, he agreed it is more advanced (and, thus, more difficult to pirate) than "WiFi". To steal a WiFi signal, all you need is to find out the password.
But, let's say for the sake of argument that KCNetwork is suffering losses as a result if signal theft. We all know that KCNetwork's customer base includes residents of Nalcrest and other communities and subdivisions in the Lake Wales area. How will KCnetwork's proposal stop internet theft in those communities outside of S-bag?
This is a classic example of a "reductio ad absurdum" argument.

Before we all start unloading on Lance, please beware of the fact that his article may have been truncated by his editor. This is a common practice in the newspaper business. The editor must pare the article to fit the amount of column space allowed by the senior editor. I agree that the article missed some very important points. But it may be more appropriate to direct our disappointment to the editor-in-chief of the Ledger's news department.

Yes, Herby, this was recognized in my email to him and I did not load on Lance; however, there are others that were justifiably angry at the fluffiness of the article which failed to mention a critically-important fact--foreclosure for inability to pay.   I reiterated to Lance my disappointment with this critical omission underscoring the concern and urgency of the issue.  I believe he missed the boat with either not understanding this fact or failing to make his editor understand it.  Ledger could easily have deleted one idiotic statement by BS i.e. "This is not about the money"... and included this information if space was a consideration.  At this point, I assign responsibility for a flawed article on Lance. 

I recognize that his was a weekend filler piece and documentation of facts certainly did not rise to the level of scrutiny as say "Lakeland police chief caught canoodling with (fill it in with names from A-Z)".  I asked Lance to consider a followup after the vote and possibly a more comprehensive piece in the future as this unfolds.

BTW, we were mentioned on another influential website which is the largest homeowner advocacy N e t w o r k in Florida on their News Page Residents at Lake Wales Retirement Community ...:

Here's the promo:

This is right on the money--residents are waiting for a spark--and that spark would be a passage of the "internet budget" and the subsequent implementation by the Board.

I just sent the following Letter-To-The-Editor off to the Ledger this morning:

Sirs,
Last week, an article appeared in the Ledger’s News Chief regarding the controversy over a proposal to add a special levy to the dues of residents of the S-bag Lake retirement community for internet service. Currently, about half of S-bag subscribes to an internet service owned by a resident of our community. Subscription is voluntary and costs between $40 and $50 per month for those months the service is used. Thus, for us “snowbirds”, the average annual cost is around $200 to $250.
According to the owner of this service, however, he is losing money. Therefore, he has proposed that all residents of S-bag be assessed an annual fee of $180 for his internet service whether they use it or not. This has stirred great controversy because many S-bag residents use other internet services, such as Verizon, which they can carry to other parts of the country. Still others like our “super seniors” do not have computers.
I was first made aware of this issue when my neighbor, George, asked me to sign a petition opposing the proposal. Being someone who believes in seeking consensus rather than confrontation, I declined to sign the petition. Instead I sent a letter to our Board of Director’s suggesting a compromise solution. Two weeks later, my naivete received a startling jolt when, at an open meeting, it became clear that the Board of Directors had no interest in seeking a compromise.
To be clear, I am a current subscriber to this internet service and, if this proposal is approved, I would actually make out financially. But, then I would have to look my friend George in the face.
George, or “Popeye” as he’s affectionately known around here, is a pretty remarkable guy. He was a career Navy deep sea diver. In fact, he graduated from Navy diving school with Currl Brashear, the first African-American Navy diver, whose story was the subject of the movie “Men Of Honor” starring Cuba Gooding and Robber Di Niro. George also is a Vietnam Veteran. He served his country honorably and he suffers from neurological problems directly attributable to his military duty (his diving missions resulted in cases of “the bends” on several occasions). Now in their 80’s, George and his wife, Kathy get by on a meager military pension and Social Security – much of which is eaten up paying for George’s medical treatment that is not fully covered by his TRICARE insurance.
There is great irony in the fact that a man who fought for our freedom may now find his freedom of choice denied to him. Perhaps $15 a month may not sound like much to most of us but to people like George and Kathy it can mean having to forgo a night out at a family restaurant or a movie.
I can’t be anyone's conscience but my own but, when I think of what I owe George for his service to our country, I cannot rationalize making his life a little harder just to save myself sixty bucks a year. That’s why I will be voting against this proposal in next month’s annual S-bag election.

James E. Herbst