|
Post by BagLady on Jul 19, 2014 23:30:16 GMT -5
There are so many examples of ongoing selective enforcement it is hard to know where to begin. These examples invariably involve Directors past and present. Here is one of the most recent:
TWO eyewitnesses positively identified the presence of Charley Mnc on Owner's property on Sunday morning, July 6th, while the owners were out of town. This trespass occurred about 2 weeks after Charley & Company filed a lawsuit against the Owner "for the good of the community":
Here is the rule that apparently does not apply to Owner/Directors:
SITE USAGE 3-2) Member's sites are their private property and as such sH all not be intruded upon, crossed, or otherwise trespassed upon by other persons, except by members of the Emergency Personnel, Security Staff, and/or Association employees in the performance of their duties, and as provided under 4-1C.
1. Is Charley Mnc a member of Emergency Personnel? 2. Is Charley Mnc a member of Security Staff? 3. Is Charley Mnc an Association employee?
Now check "As provided in 4-1C"
INSPECTIONS 4-1C) Resort manager and his staff sH all act for the Board in conducting regular periodic inspections to insure compliance with the "Covenants and Restrictions" and the "Regulations." Uncorrected violations sH all be reported to the Board of Directors.
4. Is Charley Mnc the Resort manager? 5. Is Charley Mnc on the Manager's staff?
Charley Mnc is none of the persons authorized to access owners' properties. Charley Mnc had no legitimate business trespassing on another owner's property--especially when the Owners had fled their new home just 2 days earlier to avoid harassment by Charley & Company. There was no prior invitation or permission to be present on the property. Charley Mnc trespassed on property which was subject to a lawsuit that had been filed 2 weeks earlier on the Owners by ..Charley Mnc and the Gang of 9.
What was Charley Mnc doing on the property? The Police Sheriff was summoned that evening to perform an inspection of an irregularity noted on the property. No member of Management or Board--No One--bothered to appear, feign interest, wrote an Incident Report or even followed up the Sheriff's visit with a question.
Did Charley Mnc get a Violations Letter?
|
|
|
Post by Dick Tracy on Jul 19, 2014 23:59:06 GMT -5
Like I keep stating, the BODs & Management are above the common folks. They are "The Privilege Ones". And Yes, they also know what is best for you.
|
|
|
Post by Dick Tracy on Jul 20, 2014 0:20:28 GMT -5
Remember this Violation by the Manager, with BOD, in hiding?
The Cat-Nip Glory Hole A Cat Shelter in SLR ! "O-Yes We Do".. The front office's decorative foundation blocks were removed, so several stray/feral cats, could take shelter in the crawl space. Which was right under the "BOD's Noses", and they never said a word about this major pet rule violation.
|
|
|
Post by observer on Jul 20, 2014 7:27:36 GMT -5
Mister Tracy, Doesn't that comprise "an unregistered club"
|
|
Make a Call to Animal Control
Guest
|
Post by Make a Call to Animal Control on Jul 20, 2014 7:47:37 GMT -5
Remember this Violation by the Manager, with BOD, in hiding?
The Cat-Nip Glory Hole A Cat Shelter in SLR ! "O-Yes We Do".. The front office's decorative foundation blocks were removed, so several stray/feral cats, could take shelter in the crawl space. Which was right under the "BOD's Noses", and they never said a word about this major pet rule violation. Per county regulation : Cats are allowed to roam free in Polk County as long as they have been vaccinated-spayed/neutered and have a implanted identification chip. You may trap cats and call PCSD-Animal Control for pick up, it is the owner of the cat's responsibility to retrieve any feline taken to the Shelter before they are gassed and taken to the Landfill less than a mile away.
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Jul 20, 2014 8:36:11 GMT -5
The first post about feral cats was made on July 10, 2013; there is an active board on this topic at this Board >>> Management Company/Manager Reports>>CAT-tastrophe!I was told that an owner captured the cats over a period of time and removed them from the property. This is what Polk County Animal Control requires; they refused to "become involved" in a homeowner association squabble. The cats have to be caged ON your property and then they will come and take them away. They will assume that because the cats are on your property, they are fair game. Feral cats on Association common property--fuddedaboutit. But, more importantly, returning to the Topic of Selective Enforcement; here is the rule that MANBOD violated for MONTHS until an individual owner took control! MANBOD: Note: Our SLR' Pet Rules !!! BOD & Manager and Others It May Concern, What part of these Pet Rules Do You Not Understand? That is A Question !!! If you "Do Understand The Pet Rules", then Take Some Action!!! That is Doing Your Duties As Elected BOD Members. NOTE: If this "Common Property has Expired Covenants" then these PET RULES may not Apply.
|
|
Anonymous Environmentalist
Guest
|
Post by Anonymous Environmentalist on Jul 20, 2014 12:07:10 GMT -5
This "selective enforcement" is just the beginning; the harassment will get worse towards owners in here as time goes by. If people in here want to be kicked around then keep being complacent and ignorant of what is going on around you and what is being done to you and your neighbors.
This stump situation is all about how much money they can pocket from charging $95 to each owner they think they can screw with. If you know your stump DOES NOT NEED PAINT, but got a letter, ask yourself if this is just another "error". NO, it is NO mistake they are screwing with owners in here to get more of your hard earned money from harassment lawsuits that they themselves provoke. The others that get these letters that are still up north may ignore them and suffer the consequence of getting a $95 invoice; and some will pay it thinking their stump might have needed it--even when it did not. These are vulnerable, yet complacent owners that will do whatever the manager asks--and everyone on this forum knows that's harassment of seniors!
These are the types that will cause manger to go laughing all the way to the bank WITH YOUR MONEY!! And it won't stop at the stumps as unfortunately, there's more harassment and more lawsuits to come from this pus-headed, shit-oozing waste product.
|
|
Anonymous Environmentalist
Guest
|
Post by Anonymous Environmentalist on Jul 20, 2014 12:20:30 GMT -5
Like I keep stating, the BODs & Management are above the common folks. They are "The Privilege Ones". And Yes, they also know what is best for you.
They are just like everyone else in here--no better--just because they are on the board does not give them any special privileges--they have abused the privileges, rights and what should be an honor to serve on a board of directors. They have gone overboard in flexing their flaccid muscles at this community's seniors and should be horsewhipped for the outrages they have caused.
And they do NOT know what's best for anyone in here except for themselves and their wallets and have obviously stopped at nothing--broken rules, laws and statutes--to get it. These board members and manager make me physically ill enough to want to vomit when I see them. They are all as crooked as the day is long--and you can take that to the bank!
|
|
|
Post by Dick Tracy on Jul 20, 2014 13:13:52 GMT -5
These stray cats also had mats on the front porch rocking chairs, so they could have a comfortable cat-nap. Plus their food and water was placed under the porch bulletin-board. I almost forgot, someone built them a 2 story bright blue cat-house, complete with play toys. All BOD approved, because they did not say a damn thing. And this went on for several months. Try this set-up at your residence and see what action is taken. They would have been calling #911...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2014 7:51:40 GMT -5
This "selective enforcement" is just the beginning; the harassment will get worse towards owners in here as time goes by. If people in here want to be kicked around then keep being complacent and ignorant of what is going on around you and what is being done to you and your neighbors. This stump situation is all about how much money they can pocket from charging $95 to each owner they think they can screw with. If you know your stump DOES NOT NEED PAINT, but got a letter, ask yourself if this is just another "error". NO, it is NO mistake they are screwing with owners in here to get more of your hard earned money from harassment lawsuits that they themselves provoke. The others that get these letters that are still up north may ignore them and suffer the consequence of getting a $95 invoice; and some will pay it thinking their stump might have needed it--even when it did not. These are vulnerable, yet complacent owners that will do whatever the manager asks--and everyone on this forum knows that's harassment of seniors! These are the types that will cause manger to go laughing all the way to the bank WITH YOUR MONEY!! And it won't stop at the stumps as unfortunately, there's more harassment and more lawsuits to come from this pus-headed, shit-oozing waste product. I wonder why Bth P. has SLR tables and chairs in her truck and backed in when she never backs in? The second picture shows Bth P's Truck empty a little over an hour later.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 21, 2014 9:45:33 GMT -5
Dick Tracy wrote: The BIG KAHUNA of BOD Violations! The Covenant against commercial activity on SLR property!
With the daily early morning activity, i.e. contractor work trucks parking on streets and in common areas, selective access to KCN contractors that compromises our gated and card reader security system, multiple antennas mounted on homes and tall antenna towers and equipment housed and locked up in common areas, BOD has Additionally violated a second and third Covenant:
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 21, 2014 9:48:26 GMT -5
Sure hope that more SLohA common property is NOT being taken off SLohA common property and re-located to Employee's homes, as was the perfectly good chain link pool fencing.
|
|
|
Post by Eye Spy on Jul 21, 2014 10:25:35 GMT -5
Sure hope that more SLohA common property is NOT being taken off SLohA common property and re-located to Employee's homes, as was the perfectly good chain link pool fencing. I would say the tables and chairs in the back of *Bth Pollares truck were taken out of SLR on Friday and returned on Monday.
* Bth Pollares is the secretary who works in the Maintenance Shop under JC the Maint. Foreman.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 21, 2014 11:11:04 GMT -5
Is there reason to believe that they were returned?
I wonder what lie IT would come up with if someone wrote to question the curious loading/transporting of SLohA common property by a non-member in her personal vehicle off SLohA property.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 23, 2014 11:59:52 GMT -5
Here are more examples of selective enforcement of the siting of manufactured homes which vary from the so-called rules-- whether properly-adopted or fabricated by MANBOD. This is being cross-referenced from the Lawsuit #2 Board:
July 22, 2014
Admin said: TEN HOMES ARE OVER THE SLR 24' X 48' MAXIMUM SIZE RULE AND THE MADE-UP SLohA RULE LIMITING LIVING SPACE TO 1200 SQ FT.
MOST THE OF HOMES HAVE PORCHES AND SOME HAVE ADDITIONAL PATIOS, SCREEN ROOMS AND VINYL ROOMS. ALL SQUARE FOOTAGES ARE UNDER ROOF PER POLK COUNTY.
MOST OF THESE PORCHES/ADDITIONS WERE BUILT IN THE LAST 4 YEARS.
26 GRAYHACKLE ST 2/12/2008 1488 UNDER ROOF WITH PORCH 500 (2011) 26 ROYAL COACHMAN ST 3/17/2006 1392 UNDER ROOF WITH PORCH 1000 AND PATIO 1000 (2010) 73 ROYAL COACHMAN ST 5/18/2012 1440 UNDER ROOF WITH PORCH 1000 (2012) 87 ROYAL COACHMAN ST 3/15/2006 1392 UNDER ROOF WITH PORCH 1000 (2009) 29 QUEEN OF WATERS ST 3/15/2007 1440 UNDER ROOF WITH PORCH 1000 (2012) 38 QUEEN OF WATERS 5/4/2011 1392 UNDER ROOF WITH PORCH 1500 AND SCREEN ROOM 1000 (2007, 2009) 36 QUEEN OF WATERS ST 3/9/2007 1440 UNDER ROOF WITH PORCH 500 AND SCREEN ROOM 1500 (2013, 2012) 16 QUEEN OF WATERS ST 12/19/2008 1392 UNDER ROOF PORCH 1000 (2009) 33 Gngr QUILL CIR 12/20/2011 1440 UNDER ROOF (NO PORCH) 2012 50 SILVERSIDES ST 12/3/2008 1248 UNDER ROOF PORCH 500 AND VINYL ROOM 2500 (2012) ___________________________________________________-
Whoops! While double-checking 25SBTN, more homes popped up when I declined to enter a top sq ft limit (my initial parameter was 1200-1500 sq ft) There are at least 14 houses in SLR that received SLohA "permission" and (assumed) Polk County variances.
There may be others that, for various reasons, are not showing up in the searches. Having a basement is, I suspect, a reason since 93 SBT did not show up, but I knew that there was a basement there and pulled up the record manually.
28 ROYAL COACHMAN ST 1512 SQ FT UNDER ROOF WITH TWO PATIOS 500 (1996)
23 BLUE QUILL CIR 2256 SQ FT WOOD FRAME CONSTRUCTION--TWO PORCHES, ONE PATIO, BASEMENT (2001, 2003)
5 PARSON TOM *2280 SQ FT MASONRY CONSTRUCTION-- FOUR PORCHES, BASEMENT (2010) *THE FOOTPRINT ON THIS IS 1152 SQ FT AND IT APPEARS ALL PORCHES ARE OPEN 93 S-bag TR 1768 SQ FT WOOD FRAME CONSTRUCTION, BASEMENT, PATIO OR SLAB (2003) ____________________________________________________- Admin said:
25 SBTN was not captured in the "square footage search". Polk County has this as 24 x 48 with 1152 SQ FT built in 2010. In 2011, a PORCH 1000 was added, but Polk did not include it "Under Roof".
This would have to be verified in the field; Polk's data might not be accurate. ______________________________________________________-
this address was just a rv slab before the new double wide came in, and came in in two halves and nothing was "added". _____________________________________
Admin said:
I don't know what to make of that; Polk County's system is probably unscrutable to the public. Perhaps the deviation was noted by the Property Appraiser on physical inspection/assessment and it was later "added" and now appears to be a two part structure.
Photos would put this baby to bed. I could then add it as #15. ___________________________________________
|
|
|
Post by Dick Tracy on Jul 23, 2014 13:15:31 GMT -5
Most likely, SLR has several more homes in the same boat !!
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Jul 26, 2014 15:40:03 GMT -5
Attachment DeletedCould this be one of them? The offensive front porch that belongs to one of the sitting board members. Did the director get a Violation Letter or a lawsuit? At least it doesn't violate TWO rules!
|
|
|
Post by Dick Tracy on Jul 26, 2014 15:59:47 GMT -5
Is this Porch with in the 1200 sq. ft. of living space, 24' X 48', if so it is legal, according to Our Leaders.
Who really gives a hoot, but the get even Manager and BOD
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Jul 26, 2014 16:51:34 GMT -5
Yes it is according to the Polk County Property Appraiser.
I posted it as a reminder for all to see the violation of the "porch on the front"- if the BOD believes that this is a burning issue and houses need to be torn down and or otherwise destroyed due to the presence of a <gasp> porch on the front, then the director's home is out of compliance and the Owner, along with MANY OWNERS, should be sued. If they don't believe this, why was this an issue to be mediated and why is this a Complaint on the lawsuit? Why not just complain "House is longer than 48'? (Possible Answer: MANY HOMES in SLohA exceed 48'.) Those owners did not get lawsuits filed against them!
And, why does SLohA only complain about the ladies beautiful new home, which is the loveliest in the entire community and, if anything, increases the value of the homes in the neighborhood? (Possible Answer: Covenants expiration)
But, we are in a Fantasyland of rules that BOD would like to enforce for some and not for others. I have not identified a rule prohibiting porches on the front of the home. But, illogically, decks of 24' width can be added to the rear of the home, extending the length of the home by up to 12' and can have a roof over them (ref 4-4G2). This would result in an overall dimension of 60' x 24' with a living area of 1152 sq feet and a permitted roofed deck. But...wait... isn't that what a porch is? A deck with a roof over it? Who made up these idiot rules, anyway?
There is no rule that says the porch cannot be on the front of the house. I have looked everywhere. If anyone finds one, please correct me!
Even if you disagree that Regulation 1-3 was not ever voted on by members, it says the porch can be on any side of the house.
66 SS is being sued because the porch is on the front and not within the SLohA max dimension rule. It is ludicrous to S u e for the porch being on the front OR for the overall dimension being over 24' x 48'. MANY homes in SLR have porches on the front and MANY houses violate the maximum dimension rule. These ladies violated NO rule because there are NO SLohA covenants or rules restricting the use of their property.
|
|
|
Post by observer on Jul 27, 2014 8:48:59 GMT -5
66 Silversides with the porch is 60' the very same as Longes, Thompsons, WoodRooffs etc. Without the porch, it is 24' x 48', 1100 square feet. It looks bigger because it is so high, they had to set it according to M. e. l.'s instructions, that is why it is so high.
|
|