|
Post by observer on Jan 18, 2016 11:24:18 GMT -5
I think pest control means that the Danish people did not "separate" their Jews from others and all Danes wore a star of David so the Germans could not tell Jews from Christians. It may have been a urban legend, but very few Danes were ever in a concentration camp and their properties were not confiscated.
I think pest control may be saying that not only is the office issuing green ribbons, but many ribbons are appearing all over like the Danes did with the star of david to make people not separate those who voted and those who did not so that this community is not separated over a personal vote.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 19, 2016 6:05:48 GMT -5
observer posted: Thanks observer. I looked this up because I slept during all history classes and am truly ignorant about historical events. Indeed this was, as you suggested, an urban legend but it was born of some elements of truth and is a fascinating read. There is an excellent discussion at this website: Yellow RibbonHere is an excerpt from the article: Applying to modern day S-bag, one should then go get a green ribbon and tie it to your golf cart so you cannot be identified as a possible non-consenter and pressured by the door knockers that you MUST sign the green consent.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 19, 2016 6:45:00 GMT -5
Admin made a mistake and I am correcting it here:
Admin posted:
Admin correction:
(Editor: This is actually wrong and I caught my own error. The 1986 Amendment did not pass an amendatory provision and the 1989 Amendment was presented and recorded "as if" the 1986 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 1989 Amendment "as if" it had passed.
So...this is an example of the legal doctrine of "in ab initio":
Latin, From the beginning; from the first act; from the inception. An agreement is said to be "void ab initio" if it has at no time had any legal validity.
The 1989 Amendment has no legal authority because it was "void ab initio", due to the failure of the 1986 amendment to pass the ballot!
Remember, the judge's decision did not consider these issues of fact. The Judge did not "hear" the failed 1986 Ballot results. This was a very narrow decision which was based on unknown factors not evidenced in a written Opinion. These 1986 and 1989 Amendments will probably expose the deeds of S-bag leaders at some point in the future if revitalization should be approved. A legal hassle with HUD will not be cheap!
Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and the above is for informational and entertainment purposes. If you need legal advice about your property rights, you should consult a MRTA-experienced attorney.
|
|
saddlebagger viewer
Guest
|
Post by saddlebagger viewer on Jan 19, 2016 10:14:58 GMT -5
Voting or not voting for Revitalization is an owner's right. Giving out green ribbons to only those who turn in their Revitalization ballot creates a visual separation. You would think that our management company and/or the Board would be sensitive to this issue especially in the light of the HUD and the Florida Commission on Human Relations on-going and current investigation of SLohA for violations of both civil and human rights.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 19, 2016 14:49:34 GMT -5
Voting or not voting for Revitalization is an owner's right. Giving out green ribbons to only those who turn in their Revitalization ballot creates a visual separation. You would think that our management company and/or the Board would be sensitive to this issue especially in the light of the HUD and the Florida Commission on Human Relations on-going and current investigation of SLohA for violations of both civil and human rights. I don't think that the board is very sensitive to anything but its near-term agenda and using silly cheerleading tactics to drum up "spirit" for revitalization and green ribbons to identify Consenters (or more likely, NON-consenters). These kinds of activities are an affront to the Owners here who have been given NO information about the Green Consent Form OR the absence of Rules in the revite package--or ANY identification of documents in the Revite package! That is because it is not written in the statutes that they have to do these things. An ethical board would do these things if they were fulfilling their fudiciary duties of Care and Loyalty to the owners they represent. It is not appropriate, responsible or ethical to present the single most important piece of SLohA business for owners to vote on with chanting, hot dogs, green ribbons and drumbeats to the total exclusion of information which would enable an INFORMED choice. I do believe that any owner who desired to revoke consent (after the fact if Revitalization is approved), would be on very solid ground. Indeed, any Owner who wanted to revoke Consent prior to the package being sent to the DEO can do so at any time with a Letter to the Board--certified--and signed by all owners on the parcel title. How would you expect a body of leaders who acted in such an irresponsible manner to be sensitive to inquiries by HUD and FL Commission on Human Relations? They probably don't have a CLUE why anyone would complain to these agencies.
|
|
|
Post by Dick Tracy on Jan 19, 2016 16:02:20 GMT -5
When has The Board of Directors or Stanbaugh, ever been "Sensitive To Any Issue" concerning Owner/Residents in SLR?
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Jan 30, 2016 13:18:53 GMT -5
Flyer inserted in Jan 2016 S-bag Express: A cute, clever flyer bringing a new level of hilarity to this serious matter--thanks for the giggle. Especially reference to the Doctors... hahahahaha!
|
|
|
Post by pestcontrol on Jan 30, 2016 21:01:19 GMT -5
I just came back from the Post Office. I read the latest post on voting for Revitalization. The one that puts fear in your heart. And the only thing that kept going through my mind was a song from South Pacific..." You've got be taught to fear and hate, you've got to be taught from year to year, it's got to be drummed in your little ear, you've got to be carefully taught...."
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Jan 31, 2016 7:25:07 GMT -5
I just came back from the Post Office. I read the latest post on voting for Revitalization. The one that puts fear in your heart. And the only thing that kept going through my mind was a song from South Pacific..." You've got be taught to fear and hate, you've got to be taught from year to year, it's got to be drummed in your little ear, you've got to be carefully taught...." South Pacific was a beautiful and thought-provoking musical set in a time of changing values and diversification. South Pacific presented a story that questioned core American values, with an emphasis on issues of race and power and was essentially a protest against racism. It's about people of different cultures coming together and attempting to find a common language. The song "Carefully Taught" is at the heart of the show. I think another song from the show is appropriate given the divide which appears to broaden daily between the "old white men" in S-bag and the others: I'm gonna wash that man right outa my hair, I'm gonna wash that man right outa my hair, I'm gonna wash that man right outa my hair, And send him on his way. If a man don't understand you, If you fly on separate beams, Waste no time, make a change, Ride that man right off your range. Rub him out of the roll call And drum him out of your dreams. Oho! If you laugh at different comics, If you root for different teams, Waste no time, weep no more, Show him what the door is for. Rub him out of the roll call And drum him out of your dreams She went to wash that man right outa my hair, She went to wash that man right outa my hair, She went to wash that man right outa my hair, These old white men have been carefully taught to hate and fear--it is too late for their attitudes to change. I'm washin' em outta my hair!
|
|
|
Post by jimherbst on Jan 31, 2016 8:08:34 GMT -5
Pestcontol's and Admin's comments both resonated with me. Last night, I got to thinking about all those "S-bag, A Little Bit Of Paradise" bumper stickers. Suddenly, I realized there may be a very sinister subtext to that slogan. Look around, folks. How many people of color are living in S-bag? Considering the diverse racial and ethnic makeup of the surrounding area, could that slogan be a dog whistle for "white folks oasis"? Think about all those other comments surrounding the revitalization issue. I see plenty of dog whistles there, too. In all that expressed fear of "school busses and poor people invading S-bag", if the over-55 were eliminated, there lies a very ugly racist undertone.
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Jan 31, 2016 9:44:39 GMT -5
Pestcontol's and Admin's comments both resonated with me. Last night, I got to thinking about all those "S-bag, A Little Bit Of Paradise" bumper stickers. Suddenly, I realized there may be a very sinister subtext to that slogan. Look around, folks. How many people of color are living in S-bag? Considering the diverse racial and ethnic makeup of the surrounding area, could that slogan be a dog whistle for "white folks oasis"? Think about all those other comments surrounding the revitalization issue. I see plenty of dog whistles there, too. In all that expressed fear of "school busses and poor people invading S-bag", if the over-55 were eliminated, there lies a very ugly racist undertone. 25% of Polk County is black. The other 75% is Caucasian and NON-Black/Non-Caucasian. I believe your observation is on point and that was demonstrated to me "up close" last Dec 2014. Earlier that year, I was contacted by a black woman (I didn't know she was black until I met her many months later) who was looking to buy in S-bag. She was looking at homes and lots and I was the only owner she was able to contact because the CHUG Classified "For Sale" website did not respond to her requests for listings. My listing had my phone number in the home description and she called me. After several months of chatting and exchanging info about other listings here in the park, she visited S-bag to inspect a lot she was interested in on Beaverkill--the one dubbed the Sand Hill Pile lot. It was a bank-owned lot. Her due diligence included contacts with the Listing Agent, M. e. l. and Toneesha. She contacted me after talking with these contacts. She was "shocked" at the absence of information, support or encouragement offered by these women. M. e. l. hung up on her when she asked for information about covenants. Toneesha told her that the "bank would never accept her proposed offer for the lot"--among other things. The Listing agent knew very little about S-bag and nothing about the lot she was listing for the bank. She contacted Lorenzo through me because the pavement on the Beaverkill lot differed from that shown on plat map. He was able to inform her because he was the one who removed the old driveway and filled in a partial new one. Despite the obstacles to learn about the lot, she liked the lot and paid for a lot survey and planned her inspection trip. I told her to "be my guest" at the office when she arrived at the gate--which she did. Her report to me of her experiences while inspecting was shocking and made me very angry. She said she felt "stared at" as she slowly made her way through the park. There were THREE (3) cars parked at the lot she was inspecting--one in the driveway and two at the front on the road. The survey stakes had been pulled out of the ground and tossed aside. Shortly after she returned to New Jersey, I discovered that the lot had been sold within 2 months of her departure for a selling price $1000 lower than her offer. She stated that she was quite disappointed and that she did not feel comfortable or welcome in S-bag and would look elsewhere. To this day, she and I are in friendly contact and I hope to visit with her on her next trip to Florida. The dog whistle is alive and well in S-bag.
|
|
|
Post by Dick Tracy on Feb 1, 2016 1:41:49 GMT -5
Back in 2013 we had a Revite Mtg. with SLohA's Attorneys in attendance, I asked the question why are we building this action on a foundation made from a deck of cards? I stated there is not any Case Law that supports what you are attempting to do, at the present. Of course it fell on deaf ears, some time later SLohA's legal counsel stated, what was filed in Bartow, back in 2013, may have been a mistake.
We have wasted a awful lot of money on this Law Firms Advice and Actions. Wasted SLR's Owner's money back in 2013, they got it wrong in 2014 and again in 2015/2016, these lawyers, board members, and the revite committee do not have a clue about what they are attempting to pass. This attempt will also fail, why you ask, because SLohA does not have any "Experts in HOA Law". Dancing around in a circle, holding hands, singing "Ring Around The Rosie with Green Ribbons" hanging off their back-side, will not cut it.
This next statement is a matter of record; at the April 1986 Board Mtg. the Vote taken on changing the Covenants "Failed To Pass".
At the Oct. Board Meeting in 1986, the April Board Minutes were Approve as Written, the Vote Failed To Pass! But keeping with tradition this wise Board of Directors in Nov. of 1986 went to Bartow, to File on Record, as if "The Vote in April had Passed. All of this is public information.....
Now last year we had a Polk County Judge "Rule in Favor" on the 1986 Action taken by SLR's Board of Directors. This County Judge did not give a written opinion on his decision. WHY? So now we are about to Vote and give Consent on this 3rd. attempt to Wake-Up The Dead... Do Our Leaders in SLR not realize that this effort is all built on a cardboard foundation? Don't they understand that someone is going to cH allenge the Polk County's Lower Court Decision. This Lower Courts Ruling would be Over-Turned in a Higher Court.
So why do we keep doing the same things over and over again? This is Insane Behavior! Plus a waste of SLohA's Funds. The Lawyers could care less, they keep getting paid and paid and paid, with many billable hours to SLohA.
It is like I stated back in 2013, why not do this Revitalization, using The Truth as The Foundation!
This Revitalization Process is Way Above SLR's Present Leader's Pay Scale!
We Need "HOA Experts in This Field," To Help Us Attempt To Get It Done Correctly and, Clean Up This Mess Once And For All....... "The Truth Will Set Us Free, In More Ways Then One"! I Am Sick of The Lies 16RC
|
|
|
Post by Dick Tracy on Feb 2, 2016 13:27:11 GMT -5
Just a observation on the Revitalization Explanation Letter from the Revite Committee dated Jan.6,2016.
We would ask you to do the following: Request 1-5
(quote) 5. Once ALL of the Owner(s) have signed the GREEN Consent form, PLEASE RETURN THE GREEN CONSENT FORM to the SLohA office in the provided self-addresses envelope, preferably by, Feb. 24th.
The forms will then be tallied by the Organizational Committee and the results published, at the Wed. March 2, 2016 Special Meeting.(end quote) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now as I understand it, the Attorneys advising SLohA will be present at this SPECIAL MEETING being held on, March 2, 2016 at the Club House.
I ask, what is wrong with this SLohA Scheduled SPECIAL MEETING? One would think you would have had the insight to have a Revitalization SPECIAL MEETING with the SLohA Attorneys present at the beginning of this Revite Process.
Questions needed to be asked to ALL PARTIES INVOLVED IN THE REVITALIZATION PROCEDURE IN THE BEGINNING, (say Dec. 2015) NOT ON THE LAST DAY OF THE PROCESS !
"I GUESS That Would Require Some Common Sense From OUR SLohA LEADERS"....
Which They Are Very Much Lacking At The Present Time !
16RC
|
|
|
Post by pestcontrol on Feb 19, 2016 11:54:58 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.
I am re - posting what I posted on January 6, 2016. WHY? Because the Revitalization committee knew this truth all along, but disguised it as a VOTE not a CONSENT until this week's Board meeting when Chrls Schlz finally made it public that it is a CONSENT form and it didn't matter how you voted they just needed your signature. TRUST YOUR BOARD? ??
|
|
|
Post by pestcontrol on Feb 22, 2016 12:18:04 GMT -5
Several of us met with a real estate/contract lawyer over the week-end. If you submitted your vote/Consent form to SLohA you CAN request it back. By law because it is a contract you have up until March 2nd at the time of counting the votes to get it back. Next, if you wish you may resubmit your vote as "NO " or "YES" simply by photo copying the back of the form, cross out the words "two-sided", add your property description from the front of the form (under no. 1), sign it and date it.
You have now voted legally on Revitalization, but not lost your property rights.
What is still wrong with the Green Form is that the legal right to reincumber your property is on the front with no place for signatures. The Vote is on the backside. TWO DIFFERENT AND SEPARATE ACTIONS.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 22, 2016 13:20:09 GMT -5
pestcontrol posted:
This is why I requested the so-called "State approval" of the green Consent form which the board claimed to have. Even though Mr. O'N eel (Attny), Esq, has not read or commented upon this 2nd Consent Form, it represents both internal and external flaws in presentation and form that were also present on Consent #1. One of those flaws was remedied on Consent #2.
Regarding the form content, I never heard of any State agency who would review and approve a form involving private contractual parties. It simply makes no sense for Florida's taxpayers to spend administrative funds to review and approve private contracts between SLohA and 787 owners.
The Board has been demanded 3 times in writing to produce this "state review and approval" of the Consent form but not only has it refused to do so, it has refused to even comment on its refusal to do so. There is, at this point, no doubt in my mind that such an "approval" does not exist. This lie further embeds the board in its morass of lies surrounding conduct of this revitalization and I believe provides fertile fields for a successful cH allenge.
Insofar as the removal of a NO vote, when you choose if and how to proceed, I urge you to get your OWN legal counsel who you are paying to represent YOUR interests!
And, if the board tries to "Reassure" you that they "will have the attorneys there on March 2, 2016 to answer any questions"--remember who these attorneys work for and who is ordering payment of their fees! SLohA attorneys DO NOT represent SLohA Members...they represent Corporate interests as specifically defined, desired and required by the Board of Directors-Management Company! What they DO have is a limited fiduciary responsibility to the owners, but that is restricted to not telling out and out lies. There is plenty of deceptive and self-dealing behavior possible before an "out and out lie". Noone inhabits this immoral/unethical territory as comfortably as a lawyer.
|
|