Jim Crow is alive and Well in Calvert County

[OmyGawd]

You deleted the thread where I pointed out that you could have PAID YOUR DUES instead of hiring a lawyer.

You're just a cheap bastard that doesn't want to abide by the rules you agreed to follow when you bought a place in the Ranch Club

boo frickin hoo
grow up

Amen. He keeps losing in court, and simply keeps costing POACRE more money.
It's time to JSTFU.

 

[exnodak]

Amen. He keeps losing in court, and simply keeps costing POACRE more money.
It's time to JSTFU.

This is how I can tell if I'm winning. Most people just read and understand. Morons make a big deal about it and you are very entertaining. That just brings in more people to read and maybe take a position other than just throwing feces at the screen.

So far I count 3 morons responding with stupid taunts and throwing their crap at their computers. That makes 3 morons, 3 skeptics and 600 or so that have read, may or may not understand, but are not looking to tar and feather me.


That is why this will not die.

 

[NorthBeachPerso]

what seems to be missing from the conversation is the fact that thw assocaition already has a roads fee that is separate from the HOA fee. The BOD has a process written in the bylaws that ditates how they go about raising fees. In this case the bod has been denied requests to raise rates (at least this much), they know that they would be denied if they put this to a vote, so instead they are having county commisioners raise our roads fee via taxes.
If that wasnt bad enough this STD used to be solely for the purpose of building roads, now the BOD wants to use it for other things as they see fit. NOBODY got to vote on this, it was decided by the BOD and is in my opinion beyond their authority.

I have no real reason to follow this but I do somewhat. If I remember correctly POACRE BOD submits a capital plan to the Commissioners detailing what the STD funds will be used for. The BOCC also approves that and releases the funding as needed. If there are any non-road uses included don't they send the proposal back for correction before approving it? Again, if I remember correctly, that was the problem with Drum Point's a couple years ago, they had proposed expenditures included not covered by the STD.

It's sort of like when the County or Towns get grants, they have to be used for whatever the grant is for and not diverted to something else.

 

[exnodak]

I have no real reason to follow this but I do somewhat. If I remember correctly POACRE BOD submits a capital plan to the Commissioners detailing what the STD funds will be used for. The BOCC also approves that and releases the funding as needed. If there are any non-road uses included don't they send the proposal back for correction before approving it? Again, if I remember correctly, that was the problem with Drum Point's a couple years ago, they had proposed expenditures included not covered by the STD.

It's sort of like when the County or Towns get grants, they have to be used for whatever the grant is for and not diverted to something else.

If the petition includes non-road funding, the BOCC has the discretion to approve or disapprove.

 

[officeguy]

If the petition includes non-road funding, the BOCC has the discretion to approve or disapprove.

So your gripe is with the county commissioners then.

 

[Dakota]

OH GOD.... Not another CRE post.....you people are pathetic !!!

There is no way in hell I would live there after seeing all the postings over the years. No way!!!

I have an HOA and they really don't bother me, although I did get my feelings hurt last year when they told me my shed didn't match my house. I used a certain type of white outdoor paint that was actually an off white. According to the rules, the shed must match the house. They took my word that I would fix that this year - which I did. I painted the sides seen from the road, white.

We barely pay dues, like $50 a year and that is for the flowers and crap at our entrance and snow removal. We actually have a pretty good amount in holding.

 

[exnodak]

So your gripe is with the county commissioners then.

Yes, it boils down to the BOCC and the way they operate under the STD law. The BOCC on one hand refuses any responsibility for the minimum due process any system of taxation requires. They claim that due process is provided by the HOA bylaws and is not needed in the application of the STD law. Without the HOA bylaws the STD law cannot operate. That is how they incorporate the bylaws into the Local Public law system.

When any rule, law, or standard that is not explicitly part of the law is applied, it must also meet the same standards as if it were explicitly written into the law. T

The bylaws must meet at least minimal equal protection thresholds. The corporate bylaws of POACRE are, discriminatory and frankly immoral. They could never pass any constitutional statutory legal test. But, as a private organization they are legal. But as a part of an STD ordinance they offend the equal protection and due process laws.

So, POACRE is not without blame.

 

[BernieP]

Assuming what you say is correct about the incorporation of the tax piece is correct the established law in MD is that tax rate/taxation/revenue ordinances/laws may not be taken to referendum.

Having said that, the BOD is the duly elected body which represents POACRE. Setting qualifications to vote is embodied in the CCRs, no differently than voter qualifications for primaries and general elections in the State/Counties/Municipalities are set by various statutes.

The setting of the STD rate is no different than the Commissioners setting the property tax rate. Are there arguments that it may be discriminatory to the poor? Yes. But that's not a test for fairness.

I've said before that you guys down there need to do one of two things, either abolish POACRE and become a non-private, unincorporated part of Calvert County or incorporate as a municipality. Remaining what you are isn't working and likely never will.

When I first read this thread there wasn't a response and at first I thought about commenting, much along your lines. But I kind of agree with a couple of posts that followed yours - another Ranch Club Rant.

I think we agree, all the crap in the OP is just that, crap. CRE is a private community, when isn't no different then buying a home with a HOA attached, you knew when you signed that agreement of sale what the rules were.
With all the bitching and moaning coming out of that community I don't know why they haven't tried becoming an incorporated town and part of Calvert County.
THEN the OP would be on more solid ground for his dissertation.

 

[exnodak]

When I first read this thread there wasn't a response and at first I thought about commenting, much along your lines. But I kind of agree with a couple of posts that followed yours - another Ranch Club Rant.

I think we agree, all the crap in the OP is just that, crap. CRE is a private community, when isn't no different then buying a home with a HOA attached, you knew when you signed that agreement of sale what the rules were.
With all the bitching and moaning coming out of that community I don't know why they haven't tried becoming an incorporated town and part of Calvert County.
THEN the OP would be on more solid ground for his dissertation.

I have long advocated for a municipal government here. The BOCC will have nothing of it.

I would also agree with you otherwise but for this:

After most of us in this HOA purchased our homes, the Board of Commissioners of Calvert County intervened and imposed a special tax on us that is not contemplated in any of the governing documents. Essentially the BOCC arbitrarily changed the rules to create a tax burden through those rules that is not created by those rules.

There is nothing in the governing documents that bestows any power to the Board of Directors to act as a petitioner for the community to create individual tax burdens. There is a vehicle in those documents with a process description of increasing fees based on a member vote, but with the BOCC complicit in creating the STD, those vehicles remain idle and moot.

The BOCC use the HOA's governing documents to provide evidence of satisfying due process and property owner franchise rights to satisfy basic equal protection requirements.

Those governing documents deny certain property owners the right to vote in matters of taxation. The denial of those rights is subjective and arbitrary at the discretion of the POACRE Board of Directors.

 

[BernieP]

This is how I can tell if I'm winning. Most people just read and understand. Morons make a big deal about it and you are very entertaining. That just brings in more people to read and maybe take a position other than just throwing feces at the screen.

So far I count 3 morons responding with stupid taunts and throwing their crap at their computers. That makes 3 morons, 3 skeptics and 600 or so that have read, may or may not understand, but are not looking to tar and feather me.


That is why this will not die.

two bits of advice
1. He who represents himself has a fool for a client
2. A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.

 

[NorthBeachPerso]

I have long advocated for a municipal government here. The BOCC will have nothing of it.

I would also agree with you otherwise but for this:

After most of us in this HOA purchased our homes, the Board of Commissioners of Calvert County intervened and imposed a special tax on us that is not contemplated in any of the governing documents. Essentially the BOCC arbitrarily changed the rules to create a tax burden through those rules that is not created by those rules.

There is nothing in the governing documents that bestows any power to the Board of Directors to act as a petitioner for the community to create individual tax burdens. There is a vehicle in those documents with a process description of increasing fees based on a member vote, but with the BOCC complicit in creating the STD, those vehicles remain idle and moot.

The BOCC use the HOA's governing documents to provide evidence of satisfying due process and property owner franchise rights to satisfy basic equal protection requirements.

Those governing documents deny certain property owners the right to vote in matters of taxation. The denial of those rights is subjective and arbitrary at the discretion of the POACRE Board of Directors.

The Board of County Commissioners has absolutely nothing to do with a sub-division incorporating as a municipality so stop talking nonsense. They can bitch, they can lobby against it but there is absolutely nothing they can do legislatively to stop a municipal incorporation.

The basic process is fairly simple:
A petition for incorporation is created which outlines the boundaries of the proposed municipality.
The petition is circulated.

http://www.elections.state.md.us/forms/documents/petition_for_municipality_incorporation.pdf

The signatures are certified by the County Board of Elections as to legality and standing. There is also a minimum number of impacted persons who have to sign, I think it may be 30% but I could be incorrect.
A vote of those within the boundaries is held at the next General Election.


It was tried a few years ago down there but you guys included too many areas and not just CRE.

 

[exnodak]

1. He who represents himself has a fool for a client Agreed, but I did manage to keep 4 attorneys busy for more than 2 years and got judicial admissions of everything I was looking for. All that for a very small investment. Winning was not the only objective.

2. A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. Agreed. I have spent more than 10 years and thousands of hours on the subject. I doubt any other person has made a similar investment.

 

[officeguy]

The Board of County Commissioners has absolutely nothing to do with a sub-division incorporating as a municipality so stop talking nonsense. They can bitch, they can lobby against it but there is absolutely nothing they can do legislatively to stop a municipal incorporation.

The basic process is fairly simple:
A petition for incorporation is created which outlines the boundaries of the proposed municipality.
The petition is circulated.

http://www.elections.state.md.us/forms/documents/petition_for_municipality_incorporation.pdf

The signatures are certified by the County Board of Elections as to legality and standing. There is also a minimum number of impacted persons who have to sign, I think it may be 30% but I could be incorrect.
A vote of those within the boundaries is held at the next General Election.


It was tried a few years ago down there but you guys included too many areas and not just CRE.

This would be interesting. Many of the properties in CRE are not primary residences. For an incorporation petition, only those eligible to vote would count. In this case, renters would count as voters, absentee owners would not.

So in the end, a small number of owners together with lots of renters could create such a town.

Running those small MD towns is not trivial. Lots of things that need to be taken care of, not many sources of revenue. I suspect a 'Town of Lusby' would be scraping along financially for maybe 10 years until the state has to dissolve it.

Otoh, if they did incorporate a town and got rid of the HOA, it would probably increase the value of all the properties as many who dont want to touch that mess with a 10ft pole would come off the sidelines. The politicking wouldn't stop, but at least it would be constrained to the limits created by state law.

 

[creekman]

Frankly, you CRE property owners need to settle this gun fight among yourselves and stop dragging the rest of the world into it. If I were a County Commissioner I would just let you all soak in your own dysfunctional juice. Sooner or later the roads would be impassable and the houses would deteriate to the point of their actual worth. $0.

 

[NorthBeachPerso]

This would be interesting. Many of the properties in CRE are not primary residences. For an incorporation petition, only those eligible to vote would count. In this case, renters would count as voters, absentee owners would not.

So in the end, a small number of owners together with lots of renters could create such a town.

Running those small MD towns is not trivial. Lots of things that need to be taken care of, not many sources of revenue. I suspect a 'Town of Lusby' would be scraping along financially for maybe 10 years until the state has to dissolve it.

Otoh, if they did incorporate a town and got rid of the HOA, it would probably increase the value of all the properties as many who dont want to touch that mess with a 10ft pole would come off the sidelines. The politicking wouldn't stop, but at least it would be constrained to the limits created by state law.

The main source of revenue for Towns is the property tax along with a piece of the State Income Tax.

One downside would be, while you're getting rid of HOA fees, would be the imposition of a Town property tax. But the County property tax would go down for the Town properties (you may have noticed the Beaches have a Tax Differential, that's the lower County tax).

Upsides would include having and controlling their own Zoning, they could zone a commercial area if they chose. Controlling Code Enforcement, building codes, inspections, etc. Having their own (or contracting with the Sheriff like the Beaches) Police Department. Either option costs around $100K/year/officer. Being eligible for State and County grants, which could go to roads. That gets rid of the roads STD and they wouldn't have to bring them up to County specs.

They would also be able to have a form (there are a couple different formats) of Council/Mayor government. Ideally they would have multi-year terms. That promotes a bit of stability unlike the current new elections every year Board.

As I've said, what they have now isn't working and hasn't since it became a year round development.

 

[exnodak]

The Board of County Commissioners has absolutely nothing to do with a sub-division incorporating as a municipality so stop talking nonsense. They can bitch, they can lobby against it but there is absolutely nothing they can do legislatively to stop a municipal incorporation.

The basic process is fairly simple:
A petition for incorporation is created which outlines the boundaries of the proposed municipality.
The petition is circulated.

http://www.elections.state.md.us/forms/documents/petition_for_municipality_incorporation.pdf

The signatures are certified by the County Board of Elections as to legality and standing. There is also a minimum number of impacted persons who have to sign, I think it may be 30% but I could be incorrect.
A vote of those within the boundaries is held at the next General Election.


It was tried a few years ago down there but you guys included too many areas and not just CRE.

Ahem...
From Article 23A

" (c) Rejection of referendum request. — (1) If the county governing body rejects the referendum request, the county governing body shall provide in writing and make available to the general public within a reasonable time the reasons for rejecting the referendum request."

So, the BOCC can simply say no. Publish their response, and that is the end of that.

 

[NorthBeachPerso]

Ahem...
From Article 23A

" (c) Rejection of referendum request. — (1) If the county governing body rejects the referendum request, the county governing body shall provide in writing and make available to the general public within a reasonable time the reasons for rejecting the referendum request."

So, the BOCC can simply say no. Publish their response, and that is the end of that.

Which Article 23A were you looking at?

http://www.mdmunicipal.org/DocumentCenter/Home/View/264

The County may reject the Referendum for Incorporation but must set up a reconsideration procedure.

 

[dgates80]

....... but are not looking to tar and feather me.

Tar and feather? What a GREAT idea. Yes, we would indeed like to tar and feather you.

 

[exnodak]

Article 23A - Corporations - Municipal

§24.
(a) Between 40 and 60 days after the county governing body receives the proposed charter from the organizing committee, the county governing body may specify, by resolution, the day and hours for a special referendum election on the proposed incorporation for the voters of the area to be incorporated.
(b) The resolution described in subsection (a) of this section shall contain the exact wording of the proposed charter, as submitted by the organizing committee, to be voted on at the time of the referendum.
(c) (1) If the county governing body rejects the referendum request, the county governing body shall provide in writing and make available to the general public within a reasonable time the reasons for rejecting the referendum request.
(2) The county governing body shall establish reasonable procedures by which a reconsideration of a rejection of a referendum request can be undertaken, including an opportunity for a public hearing with sufficient advance public notice.
(3) On completion of the hearing and review process, the county governing body shall by resolution affirm the rejection or grant the referendum request.

Which Article 23A were you looking at?

http://www.mdmunicipal.org/DocumentCenter/Home/View/264

The County may reject the Referendum for Incorporation but must set up a reconsideration procedure.

And they can continue the reconsiderations for eternity. There is nothing to compel them to ever actually schedule the referendum.

 

[NorthBeachPerso]

Article 23A - Corporations - Municipal

§24.
(a) Between 40 and 60 days after the county governing body receives the proposed charter from the organizing committee, the county governing body may specify, by resolution, the day and hours for a special referendum election on the proposed incorporation for the voters of the area to be incorporated.
(b) The resolution described in subsection (a) of this section shall contain the exact wording of the proposed charter, as submitted by the organizing committee, to be voted on at the time of the referendum.
(c) (1) If the county governing body rejects the referendum request, the county governing body shall provide in writing and make available to the general public within a reasonable time the reasons for rejecting the referendum request.
(2) The county governing body shall establish reasonable procedures by which a reconsideration of a rejection of a referendum request can be undertaken, including an opportunity for a public hearing with sufficient advance public notice.
(3) On completion of the hearing and review process, the county governing body shall by resolution affirm the rejection or grant the referendum request.

And they can continue the reconsiderations for eternity. There is nothing to compel them to ever actually schedule the referendum.

They'd reject it about twice, maybe. Then the Attorney General would get involved. It would be held.

But, since you've determined that there's no hope, I have to agree with you. I have no doubt we'll be reading these same threads for the next 20 years.