CRE Are you ready for this?

[stsssn]

I recorded the vote tally while I was at the meeting. I did not officially count only recorded what was stated. I was interested in the total number of votes to get an idea of how many people are even slightly engaged with the community.

The most votes for any issue was Open space lots. It received 358 total. 283 for 75 against.

The CPI passed by 30 votes. 184 to 154. total votes 338.

The $82 increase lost by only 23. 185 to 162. Total votes 347.

It is very interesting what it say about the community. I think if the wording of the ballot was different the $82 would have passed.

so, 358 owners are engaged with the community. That is about 9%.

43% payed their fees on time, based on 57% delinquency rate. That is about 1720.

21% of the people that payed voted.

I am not sure what this says. Anyone else with a perspective?

 

[stsssn]

I also want to point out that Dan Hammer received 20 write in votes. I think that says allot about how the community felt about his work on the board. He pulled his name off of the ballot and decided not to run again.

I don't blame him.

It is a loss to the board and community. I am sure he will still be perticipating in committees. At least I hope so.

I would recommend cooling the rhetoric.

Everyone has a view that should be respected. I feel for the volunteers on the board. They are putting themselves out their for scrutiny. I have only seen the BOD accept the criticism and give thought to it. That does not mean your argument will sway them. They believe in the decisions they are making.

The answer, if you really have a problem and do not want to be on the board is to get 100 members on your side and force issues to the 358 members who care by a ballot issue. What you may find is allot of people will talk a big game but they are not in good standing nor ever intend to be.

That is fine if that is how they want to effect change. Everyone has a right to make whatever decision they want.

I want the STD and increase in fees. Because I pay and vote I have a 91% chance of getting it. I want my road paved and am willing to wait until all the other roads are complete if that is the way roads needs to do it. A $1000 a year increase in STD will get me there that much faster.

Opinions?

 

[woogie]

WOW! With a "delinquency" rate of 57% (based on
POACRE's own statistics) that means that the "implosion"
of CRE has already begun! Insolvency and bankruptcy are
not that far away! You all should be so proud! And to think
that the same people have been re-"elected"! I wonder what
the REAL vote count was?

POACRE won't be able to survive on 43% (+/-) of their desired
income, especially at the rate that money is being squandered
on frivilous litigation, bloated salaries and pork-barrel projects.
Not to mention inaccurate (or whatever) book-keeping practices.

Maybe it's time for a "TEA Party" in POACRE?? Too late! it's over!

 

[thatguy]

I also want to point out that Dan Hammer received 20 write in votes. I think that says allot about how the community felt about his work on the board. He pulled his name off of the ballot and decided not to run again.

I don't blame him.

It is a loss to the board and community. I am sure he will still be perticipating in committees. At least I hope so.

I would recommend cooling the rhetoric.

Everyone has a view that should be respected. I feel for the volunteers on the board. They are putting themselves out their for scrutiny. I have only seen the BOD accept the criticism and give thought to it. That does not mean your argument will sway them. They believe in the decisions they are making.

The answer, if you really have a problem and do not want to be on the board is to get 100 members on your side and force issues to the 358 members who care by a ballot issue. What you may find is allot of people will talk a big game but they are not in good standing nor ever intend to be.

That is fine if that is how they want to effect change. Everyone has a right to make whatever decision they want.

I want the STD and increase in fees. Because I pay and vote I have a 91% chance of getting it. I want my road paved and am willing to wait until all the other roads are complete if that is the way roads needs to do it. A $1000 a year increase in STD will get me there that much faster.

Opinions?

my opinon is that if the BOD actually made an effort to communicate with the membership more people would vote.
In this election we had a ballot show up in the newsletter (something that is commonly thrown out) with no indication it was inside. Additionally, the BoD put numerous initiatives on the ballot that were not presented at the march meeting accoding to the rules. These should not have been allowed to be voted on at all.

as for raising the STD, i say you should take the fact that some many people dont pay to mean that most of those cant. I can, but i refuse to be TAXED anything more, including an illegal STD (all you have to do is read the covanents and you will see the BoD i strickly prohibited to influence legislation).
An extra grand in taxes will also surely bring more buyers to the area

 

[exnodak]

I recorded the vote tally while I was at the meeting. I did not officially count only recorded what was stated. I was interested in the total number of votes to get an idea of how many people are even slightly engaged with the community.

The most votes for any issue was Open space lots. It received 358 total. 283 for 75 against.

The CPI passed by 30 votes. 184 to 154. total votes 338.

The $82 increase lost by only 23. 185 to 162. Total votes 347.

It is very interesting what it say about the community. I think if the wording of the ballot was different the $82 would have passed.

so, 358 owners are engaged with the community. That is about 9%.

43% payed their fees on time, based on 57% delinquency rate. That is about 1720.

21% of the people that payed voted.

I am not sure what this says. Anyone else with a perspective?

It means that 91% of the voting population either can't care or don't care which makes POACRE completely irrelevant.

It means that 57% of the voting population of property owners didn't have a right to vote. Which begs the question: How many ballots were tossed on that account?

There are well over 4000 independent property owners that should have a vote. I haven't done the numbers for a while, but my last count was about 4500.

Woogie is right. Its an implosion in progress.

 

[hotcoffee]

stssn... just to clear up one minor issue....

If you voted for the increase in M&O to get your road paved... it's not going to happen.... M&O is for Maintenance & Operations... the Road Fee is for Maintenance of Roads....

Now the STD... that's for paving of Primary and Secondary Roads.... Your road would have fallen under that in the orginal STD but since it probably wasn't .... and has not been added subsequently... that won't help either....

Now as for the SHUR funds... maybe you have a prayer there because your road does join Mesa and Bald Bluff.... but.... it's an expensive road because of the drainage issues it has.... so you'll be paying for quite a while before you get it on the list... unless you join the Roads Committee and buddy up with Harvey and Ladd....

I hope you get it done.... and while they are at it they should pave Bald Bluff... it's nice and flat and has no drainage issues.... it would, however, cause an issue in that Bald Bluff empties onto Red Cloud [as does your road] and Red Cloud is just waaay to expensive to begin paving..... good luck tho...

I on the other hand.... was planning to retire here in a couple of years.... I can't do that now because the dues are going to go up every year and I will be on a fixed income.... So I have to go back to the drawing board....

One more little question.... if the ARC and the VTF... find 90% of the members guilty of some infraction and the board sends them to court... does that make the members Not in good standing ... allowing the 10% to up the fees, the STD... and run the other 90% out of CRE so they can build a more "exclusive" community? At what point does the will of the silent majority take on any importance? Just wondering.... I do hope the new board has a quiet year...

 

[exnodak]

I guess nobody cares that the CPI is negative, meaning that for the last cycle we should be getting a REDUCTION in road fees instead of an increase. Someone moved the negative sign when they did their multiplication.

By all indications, the next 2 years will show negative CPI numbers. So, this begs the question: Did we vote an increase or a decrease in M&O? And by WE, I mean all you MIGS (members in good standing). As of July 1, I joined the M-NIGS (Member-Not in good standing).

 

[hotcoffee]

As of July 1, I joined the M-NIGS (Member-Not in good standing).

How did you do that?

 

[exnodak]

How did you do that?

easy, I didn't pay the fees by July 1. My vote wouldn't have counted, so I didn't vote. Same as 53% of the rest of the members here.

Now, I need to deliver my resignation from the corporation.

 

[OmyGawd]

It is so sad that you are so ignorant of the laws that you have to live and breath in order to own property here.

Maryland Contracts and Lien Act,

Section 14-201 :

....

(a) In general. — In this subtitle the following
words have the meanings indicated unless the context
requires otherwise.

(b) Contract. — (1) "Contract" means a real
covenant running with the land or a contract recorded
among the land records of a county or Baltimore City.

(2) "Contract" includes a declaration or bylaws
recorded under the provisions of the Maryland
Condominium Act.



The covenants AND bylaws are both CONTRACTS with the homeowners. If fraud exists or they are compromised by breach on the part of POACRE, they become null and void just as any other contract. Because the M&O was never a covenant based fee originally, and the covenants are in place by an act of fraud, it is simply a matter of contract in the bylaws which is completely dissolvable simply by notice.

This is what gives any covenants their teeth. However, because our covenants were fraudulently hoisted on us, there is no contract, and therefore no fees or penalties. The evidence of the fraud is clear and the Board has been given notice of it. The Board, if it fails to act on the fraud becomes a party to the fraud.

As to the situation of any legal process I may have ongoing, its none of your business. Ask POACRE.

Prove the fraud. It's that simple.

 

[OmyGawd]

easy, I didn't pay the fees by July 1. My vote wouldn't have counted, so I didn't vote. Same as 53% of the rest of the members here.

Now, I need to deliver my resignation from the corporation.

Good, now we don't have to listen to your rantings because you no longer matter.

 

[thatguy]

Good, now we don't have to listen to your rantings because you no longer matter.

sure you do, just like POACRE should be counting the votes of ALL the members, not just those in good standing. If the result is going to be a higher fee (as in this years election) then everyone affected shoul dbe allowed to vote.

One other thing, there are between 80 and 100 members who pay much lower fees (at a set rate) than the rest of us. If you discount their vote because they would be unaffected by the outcome and really shouldn't be allowed to raise the rates for others, i'll bet the CPI failed, by a long shot.

 

[OmyGawd]

sure you do, just like POACRE should be counting the votes of ALL the members, not just those in good standing. If the result is going to be a higher fee (as in this years election) then everyone affected shoul dbe allowed to vote.

One other thing, there are between 80 and 100 members who pay much lower fees (at a set rate) than the rest of us. If you discount their vote because they would be unaffected by the outcome and really shouldn't be allowed to raise the rates for others, i'll bet the CPI failed, by a long shot.

All votes should count, there is no question about that. They should be affected as well, not just be able to raise our rates without any penalty.

But I don't have to listen to his rantings, because if he decides to "divorce" himself from POACRE he becomes irrelevant because he is no longer part of the community for he has given up his right to vote here. If he chooses to pay his M&O fees then we'll listen (but not necessarily agree).

 

[thatguy]

All votes should count, there is no question about that. They should be affected as well, not just be able to raise our rates without any penalty.

But I don't have to listen to his rantings, because if he decides to "divorce" himself from POACRE he becomes irrelevant because he is no longer part of the community for he has given up his right to vote here. If he chooses to pay his M&O fees then we'll listen (but not necessarily agree).

if all votes should count, then all of the members, not just the ones in good standing should be able to vote..... especially about raising our fees.

i will be interested to see how far exnodak gets in his pursuit of divorcing himself from the HOA. if it works for him, i am next. I dont mind paying my share, but this place has been mismanaged since i have been here, and i would rather have a justly elected governement with some accountablity instead.

 

[exnodak]

Prove the fraud. It's that simple.

I have.

Just go to Information on POACRE- Chesapeake Ranch Estates Community- POACRE Covenant Brief

There has never been any authority given POACRE to be declarant of covenants.

There has never been a lawful vote on the covenants. The POACRE Board fraudulently represented to the members that the Court had made POACRE the declarant. Didn't happen. Never happened. The vote was done under fraudulent information.

Also the vote on covenants in 89 was rigged. Among several other wrongful acts, the POACRE Board counted more than 700 votes held by the receiver as being FOR the covenant change. That is not legal. A receiver only has the power to sell assets. It cannot vote shares,equity, stock, or membership rights held by the corporation's directors (CRC, Inc.) which was still intact (even though they were on trial for fraud themselves) at the time.

MDIF did not vote. They knew better. The POACRE Board counted the votes without any ballot returned from MDIF. All they did was have a conversation with MDIF telling them what they had done. No skin off MDIF's nose. They didn't care.

The agreement on file with the State of the agreement signed by MDIF as reciever, and the POACRE representatives does not mention anywhere the assignment of declarant powers over the covenants. Yes, it can be found in the Kaplan records of the Gottlieb bankruptcy stashed in the State archives.

They lied.

 

[exnodak]

All votes should count, there is no question about that. They should be affected as well, not just be able to raise our rates without any penalty.

But I don't have to listen to his rantings, because if he decides to "divorce" himself from POACRE he becomes irrelevant because he is no longer part of the community for he has given up his right to vote here. If he chooses to pay his M&O fees then we'll listen (but not necessarily agree).

And how does that change anything?

 

[OmyGawd]

I have.

Just go to Information on POACRE- Chesapeake Ranch Estates Community- POACRE Covenant Brief

There has never been any authority given POACRE to be declarant of covenants.

There has never been a lawful vote on the covenants. The POACRE Board fraudulently represented to the members that the Court had made POACRE the declarant. Didn't happen. Never happened. The vote was done under fraudulent information.

Also the vote on covenants in 89 was rigged. Among several other wrongful acts, the POACRE Board counted more than 700 votes held by the receiver as being FOR the covenant change. That is not legal. A receiver only has the power to sell assets. It cannot vote shares,equity, stock, or membership rights held by the corporation's directors (CRC, Inc.) which was still intact (even though they were on trial for fraud themselves) at the time.

MDIF did not vote. They knew better. The POACRE Board counted the votes without any ballot returned from MDIF. All they did was have a conversation with MDIF telling them what they had done. No skin off MDIF's nose. They didn't care.

The agreement on file with the State of the agreement signed by MDIF as reciever, and the POACRE representatives does not mention anywhere the assignment of declarant powers over the covenants. Yes, it can be found in the Kaplan records of the Gottlieb bankruptcy stashed in the State archives.

They lied.

Everything that POACRE has received from the corporate attorney says the opposite. Give me a good reason why I should believe them over you? If they all knew better why has NO ONE but you ever complained and it's taken you over ten years, despite being GM here (interim) before. Did you enforce the "illegal" covenants at that time? If so what does that do to your arguments? Or are just simply supposed to accept that you know more than everyone else does and accept your words as gospel?

 

[exnodak]

Everything that POACRE has received from the corporate attorney says the opposite. Give me a good reason why I should believe them over you? If they all knew better why has NO ONE but you ever complained and it's taken you over ten years, despite being GM here (interim) before. Did you enforce the "illegal" covenants at that time? If so what does that do to your arguments? Or are just simply supposed to accept that you know more than everyone else does and accept your words as gospel?

I don't get paid to defend the lie, the corporate attorney does.

I reported the finding to POACRE Board members and raised the issue in at least one Board meeting and one Member meeting as soon as I was sure of the findings. That was just over one year ago. I was giving the population the opportunity to settle things politically. That didn't happen.

I didn't have all the evidence until last year. It was hidden.

Also, from oral arguments in court during the Dref's case, I understand that the corporate attorney doesn't disagree that the covenants were placed fraudulently. The Attorney's position is that he can defend POACRE. Given the track record of wins/losses of the POACRE legal group, I interpret that to say that the Attorney would be glad to get paid for defending POACRE because he stands to make a considerable windfall.

 

[OmyGawd]

I don't get paid to defend the lie, the corporate attorney does.

I reported the finding to POACRE Board members and raised the issue in at least one Board meeting and one Member meeting as soon as I was sure of the findings. That was just over one year ago. I was giving the population the opportunity to settle things politically. That didn't happen.

I didn't have all the evidence until last year. It was hidden.

Also, from oral arguments in court during the Dref's case, I understand that the corporate attorney doesn't disagree that the covenants were placed fraudulently. The Attorney's position is that he can defend POACRE. Given the track record of wins/losses of the POACRE legal group, I interpret that to say that the Attorney would be glad to get paid for defending POACRE because he stands to make a considerable windfall.

Just because you say you have everything doesn't mean that there aren't things that you don't know that might prove you wrong. I have no idea what that might be and I suspect that only the lawyers do. If you are talking about Cunningham (Drefs case) he is only handling that case and is not the one who is the corporate attorney. But at this point this whole argument is moot until it is decided in court. Since everyone but you is working in the on the notion that the covenants are legal why should the Association just stop everything on your word? And you still didn't answer the other question about enforcing the covenants when your were the interim GM.

 

[exnodak]

Just because you say you have everything doesn't mean that there aren't things that you don't know that might prove you wrong. I have no idea what that might be and I suspect that only the lawyers do. If you are talking about Cunningham (Drefs case) he is only handling that case and is not the one who is the corporate attorney. But at this point this whole argument is moot until it is decided in court. Since everyone but you is working in the on the notion that the covenants are legal why should the Association just stop everything on your word? And you still didn't answer the other question about enforcing the covenants when your were the interim GM.

This is rich indeed.

I have tangible physical printed, signed, and legally recorded evidence which proves my point...legally.

Then the mental giant that you are wants to take a position that because there MIGHT be information held by LAWYERS and not made available to MEMBERS that I MIGHT not have all the information? AND that information that MIGHT exist has never been seen or heard of by YOU, but you still you will NOT believe what EXISTS FOR ALL TO SEE but you instead choose to believe in what MIGHT or MIGHT not be as if it were the last word?

WHAT IDIOPOLIS DO YOU COME FROM????