An ID that shows you are the person listed as the "member in good standing"
They will have the database sheets there to check you.
You also need to know your contract number.
CRE Are you ready for this?
- Thread starter hotcoffee
- Start date
An ID that shows you are the person listed as the "member in good standing"
They will have the database sheets there to check you.
You also need to know your contract number.
CREResident
New Member
Information About Fees Paid by Members
Despite questions about the covenants, past voting, etc..... the number of members who pay little or nothing because they have original CRC contracts is minimal. I agree everyone should pay a fair share but the amount that could be collected will not solve CRE's problems.
A bigger issue is the people who do NOT pay......and are supposed to. 87 people pay $0 or $35 because of the original CRC contract clause.... BUT 1,066 people are delinquent on their accounts. That's One-Fifth of CRE.
I seriously doubt that those people who are delinquent are doing so out of protest, etc.... about the covenants.... if so, more people would show up at meetings. They just don't want to pay or maybe they just own a lot and figure, so what if a lien is on the property... when they sell the lot, CRE can just take it out of the sale..... some people.
As Reported by CRE..............
There are 87 members on original contracts who combined pay $210.00 annually. 81 pay $0 and 6 pay $35.00. The amount we would collect if they paid full M&O fees is $18,321.
As of February 28, 2009, the total amount outstanding for M&O Fees current year is $201,811.36. The total amount outstanding for M&O Fees prior years is $130,534.07. The total amount outstanding for Road Fees current year is $189,617.39 and $119,520.81 for prior year Road Fees. The total number of delinquent accounts is 1066. We are taking every legal step to collect on these accounts.
Despite questions about the covenants, past voting, etc..... the number of members who pay little or nothing because they have original CRC contracts is minimal. I agree everyone should pay a fair share but the amount that could be collected will not solve CRE's problems.
A bigger issue is the people who do NOT pay......and are supposed to. 87 people pay $0 or $35 because of the original CRC contract clause.... BUT 1,066 people are delinquent on their accounts. That's One-Fifth of CRE.
I seriously doubt that those people who are delinquent are doing so out of protest, etc.... about the covenants.... if so, more people would show up at meetings. They just don't want to pay or maybe they just own a lot and figure, so what if a lien is on the property... when they sell the lot, CRE can just take it out of the sale..... some people.
As Reported by CRE..............
There are 87 members on original contracts who combined pay $210.00 annually. 81 pay $0 and 6 pay $35.00. The amount we would collect if they paid full M&O fees is $18,321.
As of February 28, 2009, the total amount outstanding for M&O Fees current year is $201,811.36. The total amount outstanding for M&O Fees prior years is $130,534.07. The total amount outstanding for Road Fees current year is $189,617.39 and $119,520.81 for prior year Road Fees. The total number of delinquent accounts is 1066. We are taking every legal step to collect on these accounts.
Last edited:
The good news is that the Board's attorney made them put a "no increase" option on the ballot.
The bad news is that the Board's attorney made several very misleading if not outright false assertions that the matter of whether the M&O fee is a covenant vote or a majority of members voting vote was litigated in the early 90's in favor of the latter. IT WAS NOT!! I called her on it, but she and the Board are going to stand their ground.
Ed Harvey even stood up and invited a lawsuit to settle the matter. I guess that's what it will take.
I'm game.
The bad news is that the Board's attorney made several very misleading if not outright false assertions that the matter of whether the M&O fee is a covenant vote or a majority of members voting vote was litigated in the early 90's in favor of the latter. IT WAS NOT!! I called her on it, but she and the Board are going to stand their ground.
Ed Harvey even stood up and invited a lawsuit to settle the matter. I guess that's what it will take.
I'm game.
Highlander
ONE NATION UNDER GOD
WOW, people actually pay extra to live in CRE? I just thought it was kinda funny. Sorry.
somdforever
Member
...and why are the motions not on the proxy ballots? After all, that is what a ballot is; a written instrument that allows someone the opportunity to VOTE for something. It is not an instrument to show attendance! A proxy used in the latter sense is totally useless. It doesn't add anything to the process.
somdforever
Member
Why are you and the others insisting on a "no increase" motion on the ballot. Do you all not understand that the BOD, WITHOUT ANY MOTION, and without members approvals can increase the fees inline with the CPI. You can make the "no increase" motion till you are blue in the face. Unless and until the CCRs and By-laws are changed by the majority of HOA members, your motion means absolutely nothing.
Calidreamer
New Member
Wait a second...so what your saying is that the BOD is going to put out a ballot with an option for "No Increase" but even if we use the ballot to vote it doesn't matter because the BOD can do whatever they want and raise fees anyway??? Please tell meI have misunderstood!
hotcoffee
New Member
The "amount" of the M&O is addressed in the Bylaws. A change of the Bylaws requires only a majority of the vote by members in good standing.
The question of the M&O is addressed in the covenants. Some time ago we discussed having an M&O for each lot to increase the income. That would require a vote of the entire membership [not just members in good standing] and the vote would need a super majority to pass.
Exnodak maintains [in his legal gobblety goop] that the original covenant change [which addresses not only the M&O but the amount of the Roads Fee] was never ratified by a vote of the super majority required.
Now that no increase has been added... we have to consider that we will not have the 1099 members who have not paid their dues in the vote. That leaves us roughly 2000 people to educate on the need to hold steady until the economy turns or until we can force a covenant vote next year. The problem is, I wonder how many of the other families will choose not to pay their dues next year... if the economy stays the way it is.... putting food on the table is more important than paying to keep a worthless lien off your property in these hard times.... but only those who can afford to pay their dues can vote or be on the board....
The question of the M&O is addressed in the covenants. Some time ago we discussed having an M&O for each lot to increase the income. That would require a vote of the entire membership [not just members in good standing] and the vote would need a super majority to pass.
Exnodak maintains [in his legal gobblety goop] that the original covenant change [which addresses not only the M&O but the amount of the Roads Fee] was never ratified by a vote of the super majority required.
Now that no increase has been added... we have to consider that we will not have the 1099 members who have not paid their dues in the vote. That leaves us roughly 2000 people to educate on the need to hold steady until the economy turns or until we can force a covenant vote next year. The problem is, I wonder how many of the other families will choose not to pay their dues next year... if the economy stays the way it is.... putting food on the table is more important than paying to keep a worthless lien off your property in these hard times.... but only those who can afford to pay their dues can vote or be on the board....
Last edited:
CREResident
New Member
I don't understand your logic.
The bylaws simply state that the board will recommend the amount of M&O fees for membeship approval.
The covenants, which are legally questionable in my opinion, set the date fees must be paid and address the possibility of a lien if fees are not paid, and states that such fees can be changed by a "majority vote of the owners". Quite simply, an owner is an owner, whether or not the owner is a "member in good standing".
Therfore, to change the M&O fees requires a majority of all owners, not just members in good standing, and not just members who choose to vote. The absence of a vote does not eliminate the count of that owner when figuring the majority.
I don't know the actual numbers... but if there are 4000 owners, no matter what, 2001 votes to increase must be received. And if only 1500 owners return a ballot/vote, even if all vote for an increase.... there can be NO increase because 2001 votes are needed.
The board further messes up the ballot for having more than 1 option.... Again, to change the M&O fee, a majority of ALL owners must vote for that increase.... that's impossible when there's more than 1 option.
Except that whatever vote the board receives will be creatively misinterpreted to increase the fees. This is just like the messed up 1988 vote that established the covenants themselves which are not legally established.... despite being recorded.
As an owner, it is possible to win a lawsuit that the bylaws are the only legal document.... The covenants are not..... and CRE owes me a refund because I've overpaid my fees, the amount of which should never have been increased.
Does this make any sense to anyone.... or shall we let this board and others interpret our legal documents however they see fit to do??????
The bylaws simply state that the board will recommend the amount of M&O fees for membeship approval.
The covenants, which are legally questionable in my opinion, set the date fees must be paid and address the possibility of a lien if fees are not paid, and states that such fees can be changed by a "majority vote of the owners". Quite simply, an owner is an owner, whether or not the owner is a "member in good standing".
Therfore, to change the M&O fees requires a majority of all owners, not just members in good standing, and not just members who choose to vote. The absence of a vote does not eliminate the count of that owner when figuring the majority.
I don't know the actual numbers... but if there are 4000 owners, no matter what, 2001 votes to increase must be received. And if only 1500 owners return a ballot/vote, even if all vote for an increase.... there can be NO increase because 2001 votes are needed.
The board further messes up the ballot for having more than 1 option.... Again, to change the M&O fee, a majority of ALL owners must vote for that increase.... that's impossible when there's more than 1 option.
Except that whatever vote the board receives will be creatively misinterpreted to increase the fees. This is just like the messed up 1988 vote that established the covenants themselves which are not legally established.... despite being recorded.
As an owner, it is possible to win a lawsuit that the bylaws are the only legal document.... The covenants are not..... and CRE owes me a refund because I've overpaid my fees, the amount of which should never have been increased.
Does this make any sense to anyone.... or shall we let this board and others interpret our legal documents however they see fit to do??????
YOU HAVE IT EXACTLY RIGHT!!!
THANK YOU FOR READING AND UNDERSTANDING. NOW I ONLY HAVE 4189 TO GO.
woogie
Active Member
Just as I predicted...It doesn't matter WHAT the members want or
WHAT is LEGAL the BOARD and their cronies WILL DO WHAT THEY
WANT!
As I predicted...NO matter HOW the ballot is constructed, the Board
will manipulate the vote to come out as THEY want it!
As I predicted...The Board WILL move forward with their agenda with no
regard for the membership or the good of the community.
The ONLY WAY to effect change is to VOTE OUT ALL OF THE
INCUMBENTS and START OVER!
I'm betting that they are laughing themselves silly in PF (as if you don't
think they didn't know 30 minutes after the meeting broke up).
WHAT is LEGAL the BOARD and their cronies WILL DO WHAT THEY
WANT!
As I predicted...NO matter HOW the ballot is constructed, the Board
will manipulate the vote to come out as THEY want it!
As I predicted...The Board WILL move forward with their agenda with no
regard for the membership or the good of the community.
The ONLY WAY to effect change is to VOTE OUT ALL OF THE
INCUMBENTS and START OVER!
I'm betting that they are laughing themselves silly in PF (as if you don't
think they didn't know 30 minutes after the meeting broke up).
Calidreamer
New Member
4188...I get it too. Basically the board will do what they want and I'm screwed. I wish I had never bought a house in this place. I think what I want to do is just not pay my dues either. Let them put a lein on my house. Whatever. When I file bankruptcy and forclose if they think they can get their money then, fine. Until then they can just do without my contribution.
The Board just doesn't "get it". If they try to push this through and it goes to court, they will not only lose the case, but they will lose:
1) the entire covenant issue.
2) the special taxing district
3) the SHUR funding
In effect, they are gambling with total annihilation. But, maybe that's what they want.
1) the entire covenant issue.
2) the special taxing district
3) the SHUR funding
In effect, they are gambling with total annihilation. But, maybe that's what they want.
Calidreamer
New Member
I'm wondering if maybe not being a "private" community(and I use that term loosely) would be such a bad idea.
Well, what happens then?
Will the Beaches dry up and blow away?
Will the trees all die?
Will the Lake become toxic?
Will the garbage pile up on POACRE owned lots any more than it does now?
Just what would happen if it all went away and we lived without the acrimony?
Lets see... based on the post immediately above, low turnout at prior meetings, etc., only the 10 people who regularly post on these threads care. Not surprising.
Gee... I don't suppose it could be the typical nut-job faction present in every HOA, could it? Naw. No way. These are people who want to be leaders in the community!
Ever onward!
I lived in CRE for about a year. I offered to get some businesses to offset the cost of producing; printing and mailing their newsletter in return for ad space in the newsletter. They told me "They couldn't afford to do the newsletter". Well, Duh Beavis.. it wouldn't have cost them anything if they had allowed some businesses to advertise and pay the costs associated.
