|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 6, 2016 9:25:41 GMT -5
PhoneVite this morning: Revite packages are available to be picked up at the office and mailed.
Owners have 60 days to decide whether to consent to having restrictions on their lot. This is an important decision which affects your property rights. If you are confused, consult an HOA attorney who is knowledgeable about MRTA.
NOTE that there are NO Rules & Regulations that are being revitalized.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 6, 2016 19:57:32 GMT -5
Here is the GREEN CONSENT SHEET 
TWO Lawyers have stated that SIGNING MEANS CONSENT to being re-encumbered with Covenants even if you vote NO.
The form is worded to close doors to future cH allenges by describing what Consent means. Read Paragraphs 3 (1,2 & 3) and 4 (1,2,3 & 4) where the UNDERSIGNED acknowledges and agrees... As a matter of fact, Owners CANNOT reasonably agree to these because they do not know what FS720.403 thru 407 says! The ballot does not provide the text of the statute so owners have no idea what they are acknowledging and agreeing to.
It also asks owners to attest to the truthfulness of Bylaws and Articles despite the evidence and serious questions that these documents have been recorded without due process by past boards.
Importantly, it also asks owners to agree that the provisions of the Declaration are the SAME as the amendment provisions of the "other governing documents". Obviously, the Amendments DIFFER from the original Declaration with respect to the amendment provisions. An Owner's agreement to this is likely intended to try to discourage future cH allenges to the Amendments included in the package. Agreeing with this is more important to SLohA than the Florida gift of an amendatory provision, which has a more favorable voting threshold of 66%. Yes, you can amend the amendatory provision later but you still have to get 75%--which is very, very difficult. Here is the applicable statute:
720.405(c) Contain the same respective amendment provisions as the previous governing documents or, if there were no amendment provisions in the previous governing document, amendment provisions that require approval of not less than two-thirds of the affected parcel owners;
SLohA insists that there was an amendment provision in the Declaration and therefore, it is not necessary to accept the Florida Amendment provision which provides 66% vote, rather than 75% in the so-called valid Amendment that was never passed on the ballot.
The ballot says its purpose is to "express approval or disapproval of the revitalization..." according to 720.405. Be advised that 720.405 says nothing about "approval or disapproval"--the statute only addresses APPROVAL. "NO and "DISAPPROVAL" voting is not part of the Statute and is meaningless. The only thing that counts is affirmative "Yes" votes, the "No" option should not even be on the ballot because it confuses owners.
If you do not want Covenants restricting your property, tear the green sheet up and dispose of it. If you vote No and then sign, you have consented.
If you want Covenants, every single owner of record must sign the Consent form. If husband and wife own the parcel jointly, BOTH must sign. If the parcel is owned by several related or unrelated parties--ALL must sign.
Consent Sheets are due back by March 2, 2016.
Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and the above is offered for information and entertainment purposes. If you need legal advice about your property rights, consult an HOA attorney who is familiar with MRTA.
|
|
|
|
Post by pestcontrol on Jan 7, 2016 6:47:37 GMT -5
Warning to all Homesteaded property owners:
The GREEN form is a CONSENT form. It gives away your property rights to hold your property free and clear from other people imposing Rules and Regulations on your privately owned property above and beyond the requirements of Polk County.
To keep your property rights DO NOT SIGN AND RETURN THE GREEN FORM.
Under Florida's Homestead Act SLohA cannot seize your property with their Covenants, Rules and Regulations.
Several Homesteaders have already met and sought several attorneys' input. A class action suit will be followed. If you as a Homesteader wish to be part of this suit OR just sit back and reap the rewards you MUST NOT turn in the GREEN form.
After all, we have been under only Polk County rules for the past several years and they have served us well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alaska HEMI R/T Jm Admin. on Jan 7, 2016 15:31:34 GMT -5
I wonder why there are no RULES in the Revitalization papers? There was a section on RULES last year, the BOD and management surely must have known not to include them is this package but i cant recall the BOD ever informing the members that the RULES where not a part of this revitalization this year.
How does that work? Will the Man/BOD just make up their own RULES as they go and hope that everyone just knuckles under due to ignorance?
I am going to predict that this revitalization package is as (if not more) flawed than last years which never went the distance and wasted thousands of our dollars. I guess we will have to wait and see but i am NOT submitting my green sheet, i can not sign on a flawed package and would suggest most don't either.
Better luck next year Man/Bod, maybe on the 3rd attempt you'll get it right....OR NOT!
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 7, 2016 16:00:39 GMT -5
STOP THE PRESSES! It turns out that SLohA has identified the April 14, 1989 Amendment as the "(current Covenants)"! Or as the attorneys tried to sell: "the replacement Covenants".
If that is the case, the Covenants will not expire until April 14, 2019! So why is S-bag attempting to revitalize documents that are not yet dead?
Oh Shucks! I almost forgot that SLohA already tried to PRESERVE the Amendments/"current covenants" and failed. Why? Because Amendments are not Covenants and cannot be PRESERVED! They CAN be revitalized under the TRUE Covenants. Maybe SLohA needs a crash course on the words that are properly used to describe certain documents and actions rather than making stuff up and causing more confusion.
SLohA is attempting to revitalize the 3 Declarations of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for the 3 S-bag units. You can call the Amendments anything you like, but they are NOT the "Covenants". As the documents self identify, these are Amendments to the Covenants and seek to modify the REAL Covenants of 1972, 1974 and 1976.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 7, 2016 17:59:06 GMT -5
Wondering why there are NO RULES & REGULATIONS in the Revite package? Me, too!
It is permissible to omit restrictions from revitalization:
720.404 Eligible residential communities; requirements for revival of declaration.—Parcel owners in a community are eligible to seek approval from the Department of Economic
(3) The revived declaration may not contain covenants that are more restrictive on the parcel owners than the covenants contained in the previous declaration, except that the declaration may:
(a) Have an effective term of longer duration than the term of the previous declaration;
(b) Omit restrictions contained in the previous declaration;
SLohA went a step further and omitted ALL the Rules and Regulations. They did this without a word to Members. No discussion. A new era of Open Communication between board and members took a big step backwards. I imagine that many people will be upset that SLohA, if revitalized, will have NO RULES. SLohA cannot "self-revitalize" these rules; each and every rule which SLohA wants back must be put on the ballot and voted on. Revitalization acts like a Reset Button and the revitalized documents are all that exist on Day 1.
If the Revite package is approved by DEO, the Rules are dead and gone...forever. SLohA must adopt new ones.
Why the 6-member Organizing Committee, comprised of 4 Directors, unilaterally decided that this was in the best interest of SLohA, I do not know. But, I agree that revitalizing the "Rulebook" was NOT in the best interest of SLohA and here is why.
The Rules were adopted (or at least some of them were) to substitute for the absence of permissions for mobile, manufactured and modular homes in the superior document ie the REAL Covenants. In the hierarchy of documents, the Covenants are the TOP and rules/regs are the BOTTOM. Rules must be based on a covenanted restriction. Because only camping facilities were allowed and mobile homes specifically forbidden, the rules became the "workaround" and everyone "believed". It was an illusion. But, belief and acceptance did not make them legally enforceable.
Most of the problematic rules have concerned use of property which was limited to camping facilities. The rule on "porches" got SLohA sued big time--and SLohA lost. But perhaps it learned a lesson. SLohA should now know and understand that ALL RULES must have the Athority of the underlying Covenants. There is no architectural authority in the Covenants...so there can be no enforceable rules relating to the use of property insofar as architectural preferences. Only Polk County has that authority.
SLohA also has problematic rules restricting age of residents without authority of the Covenants. Most people who have read the 1986 Minutes know that the Over 55+ Amendment never passed the ballot. (Editor: This is actually wrong and I caught my own error. The 1986 Amendment did not pass an amendatory provision and the 1989 was presented and recorded "as if" the amendatory provision was passed and legal. The 1989 Amendment DID pass the "over 55" restriction with the supposed 75%--but since it was based on a failed covenant amendment, the 1989 Amendment is invalid, null and void.) SLohA still recorded the Amendment "as if" it had passed. Since the Amendment is invalid--so it the Rule.) These rules present future provision with problems for SLohA that it does not need. No Covenanted Authority--No Rule! We can make rules and pretend but, if a member objects, SLohA is going to lose. We just wasted 2 years and $150K of owners' money learning that basic principle of law.
There are many rules that are not enforceable because the Covenants never delegated authority to SLohA compel behaviors. Additionally, many of these rules are Very Poorly Written and will not survive legal scrutiny.
An interesting exercise would be to go through the rules, one by one, and RELATE EACH ONE TO AN AUTHORITY SPELLED OUT IN THE COVENANTS. Add to that there is no enforcement vehicle, such as fining, in the Covenants, and you might agree that the Rulebook was a problem waiting to happen.
IMO, it is Good Riddance to the Rules. But, I still wished the Board would have explained all this to Members...
|
|
GTO
Addict
Life is Tough ! It's even tougher when you're stupid ! Jhn Wayne J ohn Wayne
Posts: 198
|
Post by GTO on Jan 8, 2016 0:49:07 GMT -5
Let us not forget at the last Board Meeting a motion was made and passed, to get a REAL HOA ATTORNEY'S Second Opinion on The Current Revite Package.
"Question"?
Not that it matters, what was his "Written Opinion"?
GTO'S Written Opinion is "Some" of Our SLohA Leaders:
are "Fools" !
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 8, 2016 9:14:10 GMT -5
GTO posted:
Owners have been invited by Blkbrn to write to the board with any questions or information they seek. If refused, make an Official Records Request. Owners have the right to read this record of their business that they paid for.
We are still awaiting the Board to post the Minutes from the "Privileged" Special meeting with attorney on Nov 25. These Minutes were approved in the Dec board meeting along with the Board meeting minutes of Nov 18 (which have been posted). I have requested these from the office but have not received the Minutes.
I am told that the third request to the Management Company to demonstrate liability insurance coverage of the towers on our common property has been ignored by Toneesha. Toneesha's previous response was that "the umbrella policy covers it". However, a studied reading of the policy which the umbrella covers for excess loss does not appear to cover this risk and, in fact specifically excludes outdoor equipment such as towers, antennas, dishes (etc except with a Special Rider which was not attached or cited). The third request simply asks that, in light of the written exclusion, that focused attention be given to point out the provision in the underlying policy that covers SLohA's liability for a failure of Bb stab's equipment on our property that results in injury or death.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dick Tracy on Jan 9, 2016 0:22:25 GMT -5
I can not believe it !
Our Leaders of SLohA keep making the same "sales pitch with many flaws"
and are expecting different results. "That is A Example of Insanity.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Let's Do It RIGHT With "New Leaders",
Along With "Smart Seasoned" HOA Attorneys ?
"What A Waste of Our Money" !
16RC
|
|
|
|
Post by tinman on Jan 9, 2016 13:20:01 GMT -5
NEW LEADERS ARE COMMING!!!!!
Let's HOPE THEY ARE THE ONES WE NEED TO REPRESENT US!
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 9, 2016 16:45:08 GMT -5
 DISCUSSION: **The ORIGINAL Articles of Incorporation filed Nov 10, 1972 by S-bag Lake Resorts Inc. The document in the revite package is retyped and is not a certified copy ***The Certificate of REVISED Bylaws is dated 8/22/08 and attests to and reference the revision of Rules & Regulations---not Bylaws. This was not listed on the document package but was included in the package. Also included UNDER the 2008 Certificate of Revision to the Bylaws was a supposed amendment to VII of the Bylaws “Amendments” that was notarized on August 24, 2005—3 years before the Certificate. This was the amendment that supposedly records the owners having approved an AMENDMENT provision of the BYLAWS changing the language from “… two-thirds of the entire membership” to “ two-thirds of all valid votes cast”. I do not believe that this is a true filing; no such change was ever put on a ballot and subjected to a vote of the entire membership.
Unit I is the lots on both sides of SBT from entry gate to Beaverkill, all of Beaverkill, Silversides south of the Trail, Grayhackle, Royal Coachmen & Stone Fly (322 parcels includes common property parcels)
Unit II is the lots on Queen of Waters, Red Quill, Night Owl, both sides of SBT east of Beaverkill, SBTNorth, SBTSouth, Wdrf Way, Gngr Quill, Blue Quill, Pink Lady & Parson Tom (327 parcels inc common parcels)
Unit III is Silversides north of SBT, Silver Doctor, Grey Fox and Catskill (149 parcels incl common parcels)
The cover sheet for the documents was very poorly done. I have no idea why the Organizing Committee did not identify the Documents-by name-in the package cover sheet. Or why the OC insists that a 1989 Amendment is the "current covenant" (in fact, it is the most current Amendment to the Covenants). The Covenants are the DECLARATIONS of Covenants and Restrictions for each of the 3 units in the 70's recorded by the Developer, S-bag Lake Resorts Inc.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 11, 2016 16:45:03 GMT -5
I requested today the records to clarify some errors, omissions and discrepancies in the Revite package:
|
|
|
|
Post by Dick Tracy on Jan 12, 2016 4:02:56 GMT -5
Admin.
If you are confused, how do you think the other Owners in the community feel?
I am dumb founded to say the least.....
Our Leaders are, "Wasting A Lot of Our Money Again" !
|
|
|
|
Post by observer on Jan 12, 2016 12:10:26 GMT -5
They absolutely refuse to do their homework. Just asking your lawyer isn't enough, Board. You must read all of it very carefully, recheck dates etc. and STUDY it with many opinions before you finally grasp revitalization. Maybe, then you won't make so many mistakes. OR You could put S u e T. on your committee and cut your errors out completely. She has been studying it for several years and has contacts all over the place. Make some good decisions for once and get over your unwarranted prejudices. Making sure it is done RIGHT for a change instead of trying to "sell the masses" on inadequate attempts. We saw how that worked last year.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 12, 2016 16:11:46 GMT -5
A moment of reality. A board member would have members believe that they are "being told" not to return the green Consent Forms. This was stated at yesterday's KK.
THAT IS NOT TRUE.
This Forum publishes information which is factual and up-to-date. It does not TELL anyone what to do. In point of fact, this Forum has been deliberately restrained in "guiding" readers. It has three separate threads setting out sound Reasons For, questionable Reasons For and Reasons Against. Readers are urged to educate themselves and make informed consents, if that is what they want to do. They are given tools and invited to participate in asking questions before deciding this important issue. I have received phone calls from several owners asking me various questions and I would never disrespect them by telling what they should do.
Those who do NOT want to consent are advised only that it is UNNECESSARY to return the Green Consent Forms. The forms are represented to be both a Ballot (Yes or NO) and a Consent Form. A knowledgable member will understand that NO votes do not count against revitalization but signing the Consent form will cause re-encumbrance of covenants on your property if you vote No and then sign.
If you vote NO and do not SIGN--the Ballot/Consent Forum will be discarded as invalid. If you vote NO and then sign, you have effectively voted YES to being re-encumbered with Covenants if they are revitalized.
People in S-bag are not stupid herding animals waiting to be "told what to do" and I am offended that the board believes that people are so naive and easily persuaded by parades, tee shirts, stickers, hot dogs and all manner of circus-y stuff. And I am appalled that the board feels they they need to make up lies attributed to the ONLY source of information available to Members about revitalization.
Board: I repeat: this forum is the ONLY source people have to go to understand revitalization and make the best decision for themselves. You have offered NOTHING except tee shirts and hot dogs.
It is regrettable that the board desires to disseminate misleading and erroneous information to Members. The board has not given ANY information about revitalization to Owners. No Meetings--not even any fear-mongering propaganda as it did last year.
One hopes that the board will have a modicum of respect for owners and refrain from polling their agenda "door-to-door" this year, as they did last year. The thought of board + clappers knocking on doors and intimidating and scaring owners into signing these forms is repugnant and disrespectful of Owners' privacy. The fact that the Consent Forms are not "secret" gives rise to this kind of behavior. There is a list and if you do not turn in your Consent Form, will probably hear a knock at the door from an over-eager owner trying to sell revitalization "telling you that you must sign".
In my opinion, there is way too much carnival and circus atmosphere surrounding what is a Very Critical and Decisive moment in S-bag history and the board should spend more time educating people rather than assuming they are stupid and receptive to door-knocking persuasion.
|
|
|
|
Post by pestcontrol on Jan 15, 2016 16:42:13 GMT -5
A moment of reality. A board member would have members believe that they are "being told" not to return the green Consent Forms. This was stated at yesterday's KK. THAT IS NOT TRUE.
This Forum publishes information which is factual and up-to-date. It does not TELL anyone what to do. In point of fact, this Forum has been deliberately restrained in "guiding" readers. It has three separate threads setting out sound Reasons For, questionable Reasons For and Reasons Against. Readers are urged to educate themselves and make informed consents, if that is what they want to do. They are given tools and invited to participate in asking questions before deciding this important issue. I have received phone calls from several owners asking me various questions and I would never disrespect them by telling what they should do.
Those who do NOT want to consent are advised only that it is UNNECESSARY to return the Green Consent Forms. The forms are represented to be both a Ballot (Yes or NO) and a Consent Form. A knowledgable member will understand that NO votes do not count against revitalization but signing the Consent form will cause re-encumbrance of covenants on your property if you vote No and then sign.
If you vote NO and do not SIGN--the Ballot/Consent Forum will be discarded as invalid. If you vote NO and then sign, you have effectively voted YES to being re-encumbered with Covenants if they are revitalized.
People in S-bag are not stupid herding animals waiting to be "told what to do" and I am offended that the board believes that people are so naive and easily persuaded by parades, tee shirts, stickers, hot dogs and all manner of circus-y stuff. And I am appalled that the board feels they they need to make up lies attributed to the ONLY source of information available to Members about revitalization.
Board: I repeat: this forum is the ONLY source people have to go to understand revitalization and make the best decision for themselves. You have offered NOTHING except tee shirts and hot dogs.
It is regrettable that the board desires to disseminate misleading and erroneous information to Members. The board has not given ANY information about revitalization to Owners. No Meetings--not even any fear-mongering propaganda as it did last year.
One hopes that the board will have a modicum of respect for owners and refrain from polling their agenda "door-to-door" this year, as they did last year. The thought of board + clappers knocking on doors and intimidating and scaring owners into signing these forms is repugnant and disrespectful of Owners' privacy. The fact that the Consent Forms are not "secret" gives rise to this kind of behavior. There is a list and if you do not turn in your Consent Form, will probably hear a knock at the door from an over-eager owner trying to sell revitalization "telling you that you must sign".
In my opinion, there is way too much carnival and circus atmosphere surrounding what is a Very Critical and Decisive moment in S-bag history and the board should spend more time educating people rather than assuming they are stupid and receptive to door-knocking persuasion.
It is regrettable that I must post under a pseudo name, but after what happened with the burning of the cross on the property of 66 Silversides, I fear for the safety and welfare of my home. This is an open letter to the SLohA Board : Please. Please respect the rights of each and every member of the Association (and uninvolved renters) to have to make a public display of one's stance on Revitalization. It is a violation of individual choice and rights to have revitalization tied to the circus atmosphere of flying green ribbons from golf carts. It divides the community and infuses condemnation and intimidates others and NOT within the boundries of the true philosophy of S-bag. For the Administrative staff to be handing out green ribbons is not only inappropriate, but a violation of one's civil rights. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 15, 2016 20:12:47 GMT -5
pestcontrol posted:
I am in agreement with this. I firsthand saw and heard loud voices shouting and cheering on Wdrf Way from my place on Stone Fly. I heard what sounded like a group chanting or cheering as if at a football game. My first thought was it was teenagers partying. I went by in my golf cart and was annoyed at the childish behaviors I was witnessing by so-called adults.
This was not an innocent party. It was a mobbish display of self-indugence by a Sm all "pressure group" seeking to identify itself and set itself apart and above. This is disguised to appear as benign "enthusiasm" for a cause--presumably revitalization. But, it is not innocent. The little green ribbon is a symbol of an "us/they" divide and separates. The board has been supporting this kind of divisive behavior for a long time in S-bag.
Members of this group trespassed on another persons property and applied a green ribbon to their golf cart without the owner's knowledge or permission. This objectionable act is beyond the realm of high-spirited pranking like toilet-papering trees on H alloween. There is something mildly threatening about the act of disrespecting the privacy and territory of your neighbor.
This is obviously being sponsored by the Management Company who is instructing SLohA employees to hand out green ribbons to be tied to golf carts announcing some kind of "loyalty" or "boostering". It is inappropriate and out of bounds. This demonstration of "group self-identity" does not boost spirits in anyone except the participants. Personally, it makes me queasy.
I have to disagree with pestcontrol on one point: this kind of divisive behavior is and has been within the boundaries of the true philosophy of S-bag for a long, long time. And it is time for a Hero to step up and put a stop to it!
Is there a Hero in S-bag?
|
|
|
|
Post by courious on Jan 17, 2016 19:41:18 GMT -5
Just received a call from my old friend in S-bag. All I can say is: "Viva La Danes". (Circular 1941)
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 18, 2016 8:41:07 GMT -5
Just received a call from my old friend in S-bag. All I can say is: "Viva La Danes". (Circular 1941) OK I'll bite. I googled it and came up with nothing! So do tell: Why is that all you can say after talking with your old S-bag friend? |
|
|
|
Post by courious on Jan 18, 2016 10:43:19 GMT -5
Just received a call from my old friend in S-bag. All I can say is: "Viva La Danes". (Circular 1941) OK I'll bite. I googled it and came up with nothing! So do tell: Why is that all you can say after talking with your old S-bag friend? Apparently with the Board's approval green ribbons are given out to ONLY those who submit their Consent /Vote form for Revitalization. People are to fly the green ribbons on their golf carts. Identifying and separating people into groups. Already some over-eager Revitalizationists have approached those NOT flying the green ribbons insisting that they MUST vote. By visual display S-bag is being split and Civil Rights are being violated. Now we hear that green ribbons were seen on stop signs, posts and non - voting people's golf carts. Similar to Denmark during WWII. The story has it that in December 1941, the Germans who occupied Denmark demanded that Danish Jews wear armbands with the yellow Star of David on it. King Christian X, made a public announcement that there is no difference between Danish Jews and non- Jews. THE DANES DID NOT SEPTEMBER PEOPLE. Almost all of the Danish Jewish community not only survived the war, but came back home to their properties being carefully protected and cared for by their own non-registered Danes countymen. |
|
