Post by BagLady on Mar 8, 2014 20:25:01 GMT -5
There were many concerns expressed by owners at the 3/6/14 meeting, where a throb of angry residents shellacked the Management Company and chastised the Board. Owners were universally outraged at the Management Company's and Board's callous treatment of owners trying to improve their property and enjoy their retirement dreams in SLR. But, as happens in most emotional situations, the better questions were not asked. Without good questions, you cannot identify the real problem and find effective solutions.
One question that was not asked was:
"What problem is the Board now trying to solve by making an issue out of siting a Polk County permitted manufactured home in SLR, when in all of its past history, it has never forbidden a new home to be sited?"
I think PB addressed that when he said "If we don't follow the rules, we could be sued individually." This reflects my belief that the Board is beginning to appreciate that they are between a legal rock and a hard place. The high frustration level was evident as I listened to the audio recording. Boards of the past have waived Covenants for decades--ie "ignored" them--because they do not serve present day reality. SLR's growth would have been choked if Boards had enforced the Covenants. So, instead of dealing with the underlying problem of irrelevant Covenants, Boards ignored it and kicked the Covenant Can down the road. Instead, they made a bunch of rules. Some rules might have been duly adopted by members but I suspect that most were just written, recorded and distributed. Be that as it may, the Board now has a lowly RULES violation and fears a possible legal "selective enforcement" complaint.
Now ask the board-- "Who would complain if you let these homes be sited?" I don't see people collecting money to pay for a lawyer to complain about a Rules violation for a beautiful new home in SLR! BOD, "you" are going to be sued this year--maybe twice--but nobody is going to S ue you over this lady putting her porch on the front of her home! If you insist on mindless adherence to a Rule, you might find you create the very thing you fear.
The short term solution is easy and virtually 100% lawsuit-proof--be consistent with Boards' behavior in the past and simply continue to waive the Covenants. Forget the mostly bogus rules for the time being and let the homes come in while a solution is found that members actually get to have an input into and vote on. Tell the attorney what your GOAL is and to address finding a way to accomplish that. If all you want is for the attorney to be your expensive personal fire extinguisher and put your fears to rest, you will miss an important opportunity to address a serious and long-standing problem that will come back to haunt again and again. This is not the time for "legal maneuvers" and avoiding the problem.
The ball is in BOD's court. I do not believe for one minute that the REAL reason is that BOD fears lawsuits if does not obey the Rules. I think BOD fears doing what it must eventually do...and that is "declare the covenants irrelevant" and set out a comprehensive plan to overhaul them. Our Declaration is not applicable to the current reality in this community and it is DOA at this point. It does not have an amendatory provision and, even if it did, the voting threshold is unattainably high. This is the Board's ROCK.
SLR needs a PLAN. SLR cannot thrive and SLohA cannot function from a stunned board constantly fearful of being sued at every turn because the covenants are irrelevant and woefully inadequate. HOW are they irrelevant and inadequate? Here are just a few important ways:
1. relates only to recreational vehicles on sites.
2. no restriction to 55+ community.
3. does not give SLohA the option to make future changes.
4. does not give SLohA the authority to foreclose on homes if assessments are not paid.
5. does not control rental activities.
6. S-bag has 3 sets of declarations; SLR is 3 different neighborhoods and cannot lawfully be treated as one single entity
It is important for members to appreciate that, if the Covenants do not Grnt these property use restrictions--SLohA CANNOT legally construct RULES which attempt to workaround the absence of superior law. The rule is "Rules cannot lawfully contradict Covenants; they can only expand or clarify existing Covenants." This is why most of the architectural rules are not enforceable. This is the Board's HARD PLACE.
The Boards of the past have failed SLohA. The jury is out whether this board will step up and "be a hero". SLR is in dire need of a hero now--a board that has courage and vision to solve the systemic problem that, if kicked down the road, will create unnecessary suffering, breed social unrest, cause financial hardship and bedevil this community for the rest of our lives.
Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and the interpretations above are my opinion and offered for informational purposes only. These interpretations should not be relied upon if you are contemplating legal action. Consult an attorney for legal advice.
One question that was not asked was:
"What problem is the Board now trying to solve by making an issue out of siting a Polk County permitted manufactured home in SLR, when in all of its past history, it has never forbidden a new home to be sited?"
I think PB addressed that when he said "If we don't follow the rules, we could be sued individually." This reflects my belief that the Board is beginning to appreciate that they are between a legal rock and a hard place. The high frustration level was evident as I listened to the audio recording. Boards of the past have waived Covenants for decades--ie "ignored" them--because they do not serve present day reality. SLR's growth would have been choked if Boards had enforced the Covenants. So, instead of dealing with the underlying problem of irrelevant Covenants, Boards ignored it and kicked the Covenant Can down the road. Instead, they made a bunch of rules. Some rules might have been duly adopted by members but I suspect that most were just written, recorded and distributed. Be that as it may, the Board now has a lowly RULES violation and fears a possible legal "selective enforcement" complaint.
Now ask the board-- "Who would complain if you let these homes be sited?" I don't see people collecting money to pay for a lawyer to complain about a Rules violation for a beautiful new home in SLR! BOD, "you" are going to be sued this year--maybe twice--but nobody is going to S ue you over this lady putting her porch on the front of her home! If you insist on mindless adherence to a Rule, you might find you create the very thing you fear.
The short term solution is easy and virtually 100% lawsuit-proof--be consistent with Boards' behavior in the past and simply continue to waive the Covenants. Forget the mostly bogus rules for the time being and let the homes come in while a solution is found that members actually get to have an input into and vote on. Tell the attorney what your GOAL is and to address finding a way to accomplish that. If all you want is for the attorney to be your expensive personal fire extinguisher and put your fears to rest, you will miss an important opportunity to address a serious and long-standing problem that will come back to haunt again and again. This is not the time for "legal maneuvers" and avoiding the problem.
The ball is in BOD's court. I do not believe for one minute that the REAL reason is that BOD fears lawsuits if does not obey the Rules. I think BOD fears doing what it must eventually do...and that is "declare the covenants irrelevant" and set out a comprehensive plan to overhaul them. Our Declaration is not applicable to the current reality in this community and it is DOA at this point. It does not have an amendatory provision and, even if it did, the voting threshold is unattainably high. This is the Board's ROCK.
SLR needs a PLAN. SLR cannot thrive and SLohA cannot function from a stunned board constantly fearful of being sued at every turn because the covenants are irrelevant and woefully inadequate. HOW are they irrelevant and inadequate? Here are just a few important ways:
1. relates only to recreational vehicles on sites.
2. no restriction to 55+ community.
3. does not give SLohA the option to make future changes.
4. does not give SLohA the authority to foreclose on homes if assessments are not paid.
5. does not control rental activities.
6. S-bag has 3 sets of declarations; SLR is 3 different neighborhoods and cannot lawfully be treated as one single entity
It is important for members to appreciate that, if the Covenants do not Grnt these property use restrictions--SLohA CANNOT legally construct RULES which attempt to workaround the absence of superior law. The rule is "Rules cannot lawfully contradict Covenants; they can only expand or clarify existing Covenants." This is why most of the architectural rules are not enforceable. This is the Board's HARD PLACE.
The Boards of the past have failed SLohA. The jury is out whether this board will step up and "be a hero". SLR is in dire need of a hero now--a board that has courage and vision to solve the systemic problem that, if kicked down the road, will create unnecessary suffering, breed social unrest, cause financial hardship and bedevil this community for the rest of our lives.
Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and the interpretations above are my opinion and offered for informational purposes only. These interpretations should not be relied upon if you are contemplating legal action. Consult an attorney for legal advice.
