|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 14, 2013 1:07:23 GMT -5
Cross-posted from AnonNews
August 21, 2013
Well that explains why Internet Towers were installed on Community Property, because the Covenants are expired since 2007.
Am I seeing this right ?
__________________________________________________________________________________
It is not known WHO knew WHAT about expired covenants on the common property and WHEN so at this point, a "cause & effect" statement cannot be made.
There was an attempt made in 2011 to find out why towers were sprouting up all over our common property and why SLohA was paying partial expenses for tower foundations, providing employee labor and possibly other SLohA resources for that activity.
An Official Records Request was submitted--an EXTENSIVE request--asking for any records, contracts, agreements, emails, paper correspondence, BOD meetings, financial records with expenses related to tower construction /maintenance, insurance policy changes and costs associated therewith, employee resources used, SLohA equipment used etc.
The Request was soon returned with a very short statement to the effect that "there are no records".
If indeed, it was discovered that the Covenants on common property had expired and there was no encumbrance prohibiting business on common property... and owners were not informed by BOD and permitted a resident to build a business on common property, it would be a violation of trust of demonic proportions. I cannot imagine such a thing.
_________________________________________
Maybe an Attorney could request as to why there are no records ?
______________________________________________________________
Any and all information and Accounting MUST be made available to the Community .
________________________________________________________________
August 22, 2013
Yes, perhaps an attorney can find this out; could this be something Fxxx O'xxxx can look into?
__________________________________________________________________
Or could the reason be that board/manager said they have no records is because KX Nxx is a private business and that they do not have those records because those are the records of a private business? After all, Kx Nxx had published the claim that his business was 100% funded by Sxxxx's personal capital and not SLR's--which would be a lie if in fact SLR resources were used.
It does make sense that they knew the CC & R's were expired especially when SLohA voted down the internet on the ballot, but then turned right around and started putting up towers anyway.
_______________________________________________________________________
Well, I don't know if this has anything to do with the above comments, but Pxxx Bxxxxx told me approx. a year ago that the board signed a 3-year, $300,000 contract with Bxx Sxxxx for KX Nxx services in SLR.
______________________________________________________________________
Attorneys have no standing to request anything from an HOA. Only an owner can do that.
Or, an owner can pay an attorney a retainer to represent their interest and act as their representative. The records request could then be made by the attorney on behalf of the owner.
The price tag of a records request would then skyrocket meteorically from its current ridiculous fee (recently vastly curtailed by recent changes to FS720) to incorporate a typical $500 retainer fee. (As a result of recent changes to FS720, a current record should not trigger a fee at all. And, there are limits on charges for more historical records. Supposedly, all our records were digitized so they should be easily available and consume limited personnel time.)
Since owners have the right to see their records and Florida has now put the kabosh on monkey business of charging excessive fees for "time and copies", an interested owner should simply make a written request per SOP.
If you don't know what SOP is, you can make a records request for that and..Guess What..you will be denied! This actually happened! MAN/BOD said NO-- that SOP's were "for the Board only".
You can't make this stuff up!
_______________________________________________________________
Internet Intrigue
What is the $300K contract for and was it ever brought up at a BOD meeting? Why did Bxxxxx tell you this? If there is objection to it, the contract would be revokable under FS720 by vote of owners:
FS720.309 Agreements entered into by the association
(a) Any contract entered into by the board may be canceled by a majority of the voting interests present at the next regular or special meeting of the association, whichever occurs first. Any member may make a motion to cancel such contract, but if no motion is made or if such motion fails to obtain the required vote, the contract sH all be deemed ratified for the term expressed therein.
It would seem by the language that owners have only one chance to vote on the contract. It also looks like it can be motioned and voted on at a regular meeting and does not require a quorum of owners for a valid vote; only a majority of those present. That is a very low threshhold and frankly, I would get a legal opinion on that before going forward because of the "1 shot language". The person making the motion should first get a copy of the $300K contract via an Official Records request, write a letter to the Board for an explanation, get a legal opinion and assess member support for revocation of the contract.
___________________________________________________________________________
I do not remember seeing anything in SLR's budget about KX Nxx and any $$$$. That is something that most would not question. Pxxx is not the one, go talk to DB. He is on the inside. Any request for mandatory $$$ for Internet Service was Voted down...
__________________________________________________________
October 9, 2013
Does anyone have Info on the Internet Tower at the tennis courts, being moved next to the Chug Annex Room. I believe the current location is only temporary. It would be placed on a concrete foundation, with guide wires and would need the use of a Crane Rental. Or maybe our maintenance crew would try using the J.D.& front loader.
I still get confused about who pays for what and who owns the antenna and or base. Who owns the equipment inside the Chug Rm. And does KX pay rent for the common outside space used for his antenna locations, and rent for the inside space. I think we are talking about a For Profit Business using our common ground, surely KX would have to pay a fee of some amount.
It has really never been explained fully to me and others. I guess that is a question for a BOD Meeting. Any Info Thanks...
____________________________________________
A very comprehensive request for all records concerning KX presence on SLR common grounds was made when all these structures started pockmarking our common areas a couple years ago. It was submitted after expenses were noted for various materials attributable to construction of tower foundations etc. These expenses were discovered as a result of an earlier official records request for the financial check record.
In an attempt to get the contract or agreement underlying the expenditure of SLR funds for a private business entity, associated maintenance, insurance and liability concerns, an official records request was submitted. It was almost immediately returned with the handwritten notation that no records were available. Finger flip response.
Someone could do this again to see if that information remains unavailable to owners.
_________________________________________________________
|
|
|
|
Post by Juneau Who on Jul 23, 2014 7:37:11 GMT -5
On 07-23-2014 @ 07:58 I observed KCN employee in a dark green Dodge Dakota p/u gain access to SLR via a hand held bar code gate pass.
This employee of KCN looks to be under 25 years of age and isn't an owner in SLR.
Email sent to appropriate parties stating this information is true and correct and I am willing to be sworn and deposed as to the accuracy of this witnessed information.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dick Tracy on Jul 23, 2014 12:59:02 GMT -5
If Bb's S. Internet Business is located inside peasee Nerd on Rt. 60, as our BODs have stated several times. Why in the hell do his employees report to his residents on Gray Hackle every day and sometimes several times a day? This is all crap, anyone with a brain can see the KCN business in run out of B. Sxxxxx private home. That is the house on Gray Hackle with the tall tower that has 14 plus commercial antennas attached to said tower. I would have to think the BODs Lawyers would have to agree also..
|
|
|
|
Post by J Herbst on Jul 25, 2014 9:06:01 GMT -5
I want to comment upon the claim of this internet provider that his business location is outside of the park. Having been in municipal government for 32+ years, I have some experience with this type of claim and how the courts have treated it. Virtually all municipalities have ordinances prohibiting business operations in residential neighborhoods(except for certain home-based businesses like bookkeeping services). Some businesses try to get around this by establishing a P.O. box as the business location. The courts have consistently sided with the zoning boards, indicating that it is where the primary business activity is located that determines its address.
On the other hand, I differ with some of my fellow Saddlebaggers regarding commercial activity in the park. S-bag's legal status is that of a Planned Unit Development (PUD). PUD's were initially created back in the 1950's as a way to Fos ter more vibrant communities. Typically, a PUD includes a mix of single-family, multi-famnily and "neighborhood business" within its boundaries. However, the type of permitted businesses and where they can be located within the PUD is set forth in a formal development plan that must be submitted to, and approved, by the local plan commission., Any subsequent alteration to that development plan must go through an elaborate process that is much the same as a request to the municipality to change the zoning on a property.
I am not opposed to designating certain parts of the common areas of our park for specified business activity, such as a branch bank, a financial services broker like the Edward Jones Company, a barbershop/beauty salon or a Sm all convenience store. I believe it add to the quality of life for our residents, especially for those with limited mobility. Moreover, it could also be a source of revenue to the Association, through the charging of "ground rents" to these businesses. What I absolutely oppose, however, is the proposal by the BOD to make the determination of the type and location of permitted businesses at the sole discretion of the Board. Imagine living in a town where there is no land use plan, no zoning ordinance. Instead, you might wake up one morning to find out that, without giving any notice, the City Council approved a 24-hour car wash on the lot next your home. In fact, I don't believe the Board's proposal would be legal even if it had gained the necessary super-majority vote. As, I mentioned earlier, any amendment to a PUD must be approved by the local planning agency - in this case the Polk County Planning Department. What surprises me is that the Board's legal counsel would have given its imprimatur to such a proposal. We were told last December that all proposed Covenant changes were reviewed by our Association attorney. If that is so, I seriously question our attorney's knowledge of municipal zoning law.
|
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Jul 25, 2014 11:25:16 GMT -5
Some very good points in your post. Re: the PUD. Attorney for Owner agrees that the rights of property owners is not only found in private government documents such as the Covenants, but is also found in the municipal land planning and zoning authority,as platted and represented to parcel owners by the Developer and County. S-bag's PUD has no provision for "public" business or commercial activity. S-bag's PUD provides only for residential use.
Thus, Polk County's Land Planning may be called upon to enforce its land use restrictions in much the same manner as owners are calling upon the Board to enforce its covenants prohibiting commercial activity.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lra on Jul 27, 2014 20:43:38 GMT -5
I want to comment upon the claim of this internet provider that his business location is outside of the park. Having been in municipal government for 32+ years, I have some experience with this type of claim and how the courts have treated it. Virtually all municipalities have ordinances prohibiting business operations in residential neighborhoods(except for certain home-based businesses like bookkeeping services). Some businesses try to get around this by establishing a P.O. box as the business location. The courts have consistently sided with the zoning boards, indicating that it is where the primary business activity is located that determines its address. On the other hand, I differ with some of my fellow Saddlebaggers regarding commercial activity in the park. S-bag's legal status is that of a Planned Unit Development (PUD). PUD's were initially created back in the 1950's as a way to Fos ter more vibrant communities. Typically, a PUD includes a mix of single-family, multi-famnily and "neighborhood business" within its boundaries. However, the type of permitted businesses and where they can be located within the PUD is set forth in a formal development plan that must be submitted to, and approved, by the local plan commission., Any subsequent alteration to that development plan must go through an elaborate process that is much the same as a request to the municipality to change the zoning on a property. I am not opposed to designating certain parts of the common areas of our park for specified business activity, such as a branch bank, a financial services broker like the Edward Jones Company, a barbershop/beauty salon or a Sm all convenience store. I believe it add to the quality of life for our residents, especially for those with limited mobility. Moreover, it could also be a source of revenue to the Association, through the charging of "ground rents" to these businesses. What I absolutely oppose, however, is the proposal by the BOD to make the determination of the type and location of permitted businesses at the sole discretion of the Board. Imagine living in a town where there is no land use plan, no zoning ordinance. Instead, you might wake up one morning to find out that, without giving any notice, the City Council approved a 24-hour car wash on the lot next your home. In fact, I don't believe the Board's proposal would be legal even if it had gained the necessary super-majority vote. As, I mentioned earlier, any amendment to a PUD must be approved by the local planning agency - in this case the Polk County Planning Department. What surprises me is that the Board's legal counsel would have given its imprimatur to such a proposal. We were told last December that all proposed Covenant changes were reviewed by our Association attorney. If that is so, I seriously question our attorney's knowledge of municipal zoning law. |
|
|
|
Post by Alaska HEMI R/T Jm Admin. on Aug 23, 2014 10:27:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Aug 23, 2014 11:26:55 GMT -5
Maybe some readers are unfamiliar with a modern day classic "Tommy Boy" and its relevance to the current S-bag/Kay c situation. Here are a couple excerpts from a dedicated blogger/worshipper of the movie that illustrates Kay c's predicament in trying to SELL S-bag owners his product and some lessons that were learned the hard way:
Be Yourself
At the emotional crux of the movie, Tommy Boy/Internet Bb finally discovers his inner salesman. At a roadside restaurant, he convinces a kindly waitress/MANBOD to cook him a few chicken wings after the kitchen is already closed. This act of insanity, desperation, and exhaustion becomes the turning point for his sales strategy.
Know When Your Beat
At the beginning of the movie Rikki/MANBOD reminds Tommy Boy/Internet Bb of the age-old sales idea ‘never take no for an answer.’ It isn’t long before we see the other side of this idea. Sometimes, we’re beat – simple as that. Not taking no for an answer can, in some situations, make the situation far worse than it needs to be. Know when your beat, and be gracious. Burning bridges doesn’t work, you never know when you’ll get a second chance.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hoola Hoop on Aug 23, 2014 11:35:22 GMT -5
Internet Bab: AHHHHHHHHHHHHH! I KILLED MY VISION! That's why I suck as a business man.
|
|
|
|
Post by observer on Aug 23, 2014 16:41:55 GMT -5
Question: If SLohA owns the towers, who owns all the "stuff" attached to the towers? Who pays any electrical bills on the towers? Who pays for insurance? Who is allowed access to these towers? Can the membership request/demand relocation of any or all towers? Why is SLohA in the business of supplementing one enterprise over another? Surely the people who cut our lawns should be equally supplemented by SLohA and have their lawn maintenance equipment purchased by SLohA and for them to use it rent free. FAIR IS FAIR. |
|
|
|
Post by 5 Star General on Aug 23, 2014 20:10:08 GMT -5
Question: If SLohA owns the towers, who owns all the "stuff" attached to the towers? Who pays any electrical bills on the towers? Who pays for insurance? Who is allowed access to these towers? Can the membership request/demand relocation of any or all towers? Why is SLohA in the business of supplementing one enterprise over another? Surely the people who cut our lawns should be equally supplemented by SLohA and have their lawn maintenance equipment purchased by SLohA and for them to use it rent free. FAIR IS FAIR. ACHTUNG! HALT! YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS PERIOD.
WE CONTROL THE VERTICAL
WE CONTROL THE HORIZONTAL
IF YOU DONT LIKE IT, LEAVE.
GET A LIFE
IF YOU CANT LIVE LIKE THE REST OF US YOU SHOULD ABANDON YOUR PROPERTY & GET OUT.
WE WANT WHAT WE WANT & WE WANT IT AT YOUR EXPENSE.
WE HAVE OUR BROWN SHIRTS WATCHING YOU IF YOU DONT COMPLY WE WILL HARASS & TRY TO INTIMIDATE YOU INTO SUBMISSION UP TO & INCLUDING PROVIDING FALSE INFORMATION TO LAW ENFORCEMENT!
YOU BEST REALIZE HOW WEAK & PATHETIC WE ARE AS A GROUP OF UNCONVINCING LIARS AND TAKE HEED BEFORE WE CRIMINALIZE OURSELVES AND HAVE THE COUNTY AND THE COURT KNOW WHAT WE ARE DOING.
THIS IS YOUR 14 DAY NOTICE AND YOU WILL GET A 2ND NOTICE BUT WE STILL WONT DO ANYTHING.
DO NOT MAKE US REALIZE THAT WE TRY AND USE SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT AND THAT WE AS MANBODKCN DONT HAVE ANY CONTROL.
WE DEMAND INSTANT GRATIFICATION AND WE ARE ABOVE ANY LAWS
IF YOU EXPOSE US WE WILL ACT LIKE VICTIMS AND PRETEND LIKE WE DONT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, SOME OF US MAY EVEN CRY AND FAKE A MENTAL ILLNESS.
DONT MAKE US REALIZE THAT NO BODY FEELS THAT WE MATTER IN THE LEAST LITTLE BIT AND ARE FULL OF SHIT AND CANT POSSIBLY BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY BUT WE STILL HAVE TO FACE OUR COMMUNITY MEMBERS OR SELL OUT AND RUN AWAY LIKE KL & AR. THIS IS YOUR 1ST OF NUMEROUS WARNINGS THAT ARE NOTHING MORE THAN IDLE THREATS IN THE ATTEMPT TO CONTROL YOUR DEFIANCE !
|
|
|
|
Post by courious on Aug 24, 2014 18:22:52 GMT -5
I GET IT!!! I GET IT!!! The vendor monies paid to SLohA in the June Financials were from Kay c Ntwerk for rent on those towers within S-bag. Now we know why it was less than one dollar.
|
|
|
|
Post by SDS on Aug 26, 2014 20:24:59 GMT -5
Question: If SLohA owns the towers, who owns all the "stuff" attached to the towers? Who pays any electrical bills on the towers? Who pays for insurance? Who is allowed access to these towers? Can the membership request/demand relocation of any or all towers? Why is SLohA in the business of supplementing one enterprise over another? Surely the people who cut our lawns should be equally supplemented by SLohA and have their lawn maintenance equipment purchased by SLohA and for them to use it rent free. FAIR IS FAIR. So what will internet boob say next? that he also gave all of his towers outside of slr to us owners too?
Did internet boob give the towers to mange-bod or to SLohA? since mange is a removable item then he must have gave the towers to the board of defectors.
Shouldn't SLohA have voted if we wanted to accept the towers last election, we all know one more item on the ill prepared dual ballot wouldn't have been too much.
I know, he can say he bought some magic internet tower beans, you know, the same place where Jack bought the magic bean stalk beans! BWAWHAHAHAHAAAA!
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 12, 2016 13:19:13 GMT -5
SLohA employees were observed today at Bathhouse #2 in the bucket truck (of unknown ownership) trimming the old oak tree. Soon, our oaks will just get tired of the constant hacking away at their internet-unfriendly limbs and just give up and die! If an Employee gets injured or falls to their death , SLohA will pay for all of that out of pocket, in the absence of insurance coverage. SLohA does not own the bucket truck, according to the vehicle insurance policy.
Is this work being done because KCN subscribers don't seem to be able to hold a KCNetwork signal long enough to Compose and Send email back home? Ever lost an entire email text to signal death before your Draft was autosaved? I hear lots of complaints from KCN users that the signal is unreliable- at best- and stab is pretty much continuously hanging out at "his office/house" trying to get/keep the system working. "Word on the street" is that the system is way overloaded and signals are not being beamed up to Scotty! And that S-bag needs at least two more BIG towers because the existing ones are already over-weighted with dishes and can't safely hold any more equipment.
SURPRISE! The land use modification already gave stab/Brnd permission to raise one of the towers to 100' if needed and, to additionally ruin the beachfront with yet another "proposed" 100' tower. My guess is construction will commence as soon as the snowbirds have returned north. I know I Hayvn't been a very good guesser in the past. Maybe he'll have to start construction now to keep his flock from wandering to a new service!
The *questions will be: Does stab need to get permits for the new construction?? Who will pay for the engineering and construction to raise an existing tower and build a new one at the beach?
*Answer: YES and Owners
|
|
|
|
Post by Dick Tracy on Feb 12, 2016 13:59:17 GMT -5
How can this all happen if, The Lease/Sale Agreement between SLohA and KCNetwork apparently has never been drafted ?
One of The Best Kept Secrets in SLohA !
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NOTE : E-MAIL Requests About Sale/ Lease Agreement Below !
Jm,
I forwarded your email to Toneesha the same evening that you sent it to me.
I'll follow up with her regarding a reply. I know of no additions to tomorrow's agenda.
Tummy Blkbrn
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 17, 2015, at 4:13 PM, James Ath <jauth1@aol.com> wrote:
Tummy,
I have not received a response from Toneesha about KCNet's lease agreement. Do you know if the Sale/Lease Agreement will be added to the Nov. 18th. Board Mtg.?
Thanks,
Jm Ath
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-----Original Message-----
From: Tummy Blkbrn <blackburntomi@yahoo.com>
To: James Ath <jauth1@aol.com>
Sent: Thu, Nov 12, 2015 9:11 pm
Subject: Re: Nov.18th BOD Mtg. Agenda Question...
Jm,
I'm going to forward your email to Toneesha Shrodr. I'd prefer that she answer your questions about all issues relating to KCNet.
Tummy Blkbrn
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 12, 2015, at 3:27 PM, James Ath <jauth1@aol.com> wrote:
Tummy, I see the new Nov. BOD Mtgs. Agenda is posted on Chug. I do not see the Sale/Lease Agreement between KCNet/SLR on the Agenda. It was on the Agenda for last October's Board Meeting, but was pigeon holed, to be taken up at the Nov. Meeting. So I thought...
Has there been yet another delay? If so can you share why?
Thanks For Any Info,
Jm Ath
16 Royal Coachman
jauth1@aol.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I am starting to believe that some of my Certified Records Records Request are falling on death ears.
several of these Certified Records Request, have been followed up, 2, 3, or 4 times, and I still can't
get a straight answer. I now believe the only way to maybe get a straight answer is to meet with our Leaders, in a Face to Face Meeting. The Board ask us to contact them if we have any questions, then what action is taken, the Board forwards the Request to Toneesha S. at Stanbaugh Inc.
"Will someone please tell me, who is Running The Show in SLohA" ?
16RC
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
" The Older I Get, The Less I Listen To What People Say, and The More I Look At What They Do".
by: Andrew Carnegie
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
Post by Dick Tracy on Feb 23, 2016 19:33:28 GMT -5
I am beginning to think that maybe the 2nd Special Communication Tower's Engineer Study and Report, may have been lost in a fire/smoke accident. M. e. l. stated about a year ago, to the Polk County Code Officer, management will have the Tower Architectural Report in about 2 weeks.
A lot of water has flowed under the bridge since that statement by M. e. l.. Why can't resident/owners in SLR get any answers? Is it because KCNetwork ISP's main man is a pro con-artist and has a past history of manipulation?
Google: Southern District of Iowa. In re. : Case No. 98-5541
16RC
|
|
|
|
Post by jimherbst on Feb 23, 2016 23:10:40 GMT -5
I tend to agree with Dick Tracy that, despite assertions from KCNET, SLohA management and Hank Smith of the Polk County Code Enforcement Office, no engineering firm has certified that the towers are structurally sound. It's common sense. How does one ascertain if the footings are adequate without digging them up? That is why the building inspection process is done in St ages. Footings must be inspected before the basement wall is poured. Wiring and plumbing must be inspected before drywall is applied to the studs. And so on, and so on. When an engineer certifies that the structure has met code, he assumes the liability if the structure fails. He could also lose his license. Considering those risks, I can definitely understand Hank Williams claim in his February 5th email that "finding a willing, capable engineer was time consuming".
|
|
|
|
Post by Dick Tracy on Feb 24, 2016 1:49:45 GMT -5
Now here is a thought.... SLohA has several of KCNetwork's Towers in SLohA, that do not have Polk County Permits, we know that for a Fact. SLR is just one community of many, that KCNetwork is providing Internet Service.
Now, how many other Towers does KCNetwork have in Eastern Polk County? Remember, Bb has stated he is providing internet service to about 19 communities with a customer base of over or near 2,500 residents.
Now do you think that these other Towers erected by Mr. B.S., have Polk County Permits?
IMO, I believe the KCNet Towers located on SLR's common property, are just a few of many other KCNet Towers tucked away on private property. And of course KCNetwork is renting space on other large privately owned communication tower structures in the county.
The Tip of The Iceberg Maybe! Time will tell...
16RC
|
|
|
|
Post by jimherbst on Mar 10, 2016 15:59:48 GMT -5
This morning I stopped in the Lake Wales municipal building to follow up on an email inquiry I sent to the City's Finance Department last Friday. In that email, I asked how much the City was receiving from the cellcom companies for the privilege of mounting their transmission antennae on the City's water tower located near the intersection of 1st Street and Crystal Avenue. This is what I learned:
Lake wales has TWO water towers Some cellcom companies rent space on both water towers while other cellcom companies only rent space on one of the City's water towers. As such, monthly rentals range from $2,000 to $5,000 for each cellcom company.
In total, the City of Lake Wales receives $16,000+ per month from AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, Sprint and U.S. Cellular. That comes to an annual revenue to the City of $198,000.
So, my question is: What does SLohA get from KCNET for the use of our four towers?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dick Tracy on Mar 10, 2016 22:01:20 GMT -5
SLohA Owners Get Screwed Over !
Plus Owners Get a 7 1/2% Budget Increase ......
|
|
