CRE Single Lot/Homeowners Owners, It's Time To Speak Up!

[residentofcre]

Actually I don't care if the road is paved or not. I just want A ROAD to my piece of property. Their is no road at all. It stops at the first house even though looking at the map it goes all the way back. We did NOT purchase the property from a realtor. We purchased if from CRE.

Of course CRE "claims" my road to my home is paved it is not. "part" of my road is paved, it stops at the beginning of my cul-de-sac. Which by the way all my neighbors feel the cul-de-sac is a parking lot for the numerous cars & trailers they own. Which makes it very difficult to even get out of my driveway.

My road stops at the beginning ao fa cul-de-sac as well.

I would be happy to make a visit to your address and take pictures. I would take the matter to the Board [which would probably require a study by the Roads Committee]. My email address is directortice@yahoo.com

 

[ladyhawk]

Actually I don't care if the road is paved or not. I just want A ROAD to my piece of property. Their is no road at all. It stops at the first house even though looking at the map it goes all the way back. We did NOT purchase the property from a realtor. We purchased if from CRE.

Of course CRE "claims" my road to my home is paved it is not. "part" of my road is paved, it stops at the beginning of my cul-de-sac. Which by the way all my neighbors feel the cul-de-sac is a parking lot for the numerous cars & trailers they own. Which makes it very difficult to even get out of my driveway.

If there is a claim, you should be able to take it to the roads committee which consists of more than one or two people and present your argument there. They should be able to make a recommendation to the board. If you are dealing with one or two individuals, this may be the reason it hasn't been done or you've gotten no where with it.

When I was on the Board some years ago, we seemed to find that this was the case most of the time. What would be better is to have are the names of those people that told you they couldn't or wouldn't pave it so we could ask the question as to why they determined that or what reasoning they have. If nothing else, they would be aware that the Board knows who they are and maybe this practice would stop.

It's amazing to me why we have a road in here that dead ends to a cul de sac and stop in the first place!

June

 

[ladyhawk]

The last BOD went over this with the lawyer. According to the Association Lawyer and one of the authors of the original documents, one M&O per membership is to be paid and one Road fee per lot is to be paid. ....

My issue here would be with the Opinion that was made if that was truly what her opinion was.

First and foremost,

If Mr. Trump (multiple property owner) who pays large sums of money in taxes (M&O fees) each year votes (as a member of the US) in any given election, he is only allowed one vote!

We are only doing what our US Government does, so if its legal for them to do it, how is it illegal for us? This just floors me.

June

 

[residentofcre]

My issue here would be with the Opinion that was made if that was truly what her opinion was.

First and foremost,

If Mr. Trump (multiple property owner) who pays large sums of money in taxes (M&O fees) each year votes (as a member of the US) in any given election, he is only allowed one vote!

We are only doing what our US Government does, so if its legal for them to do it, how is it illegal for us? This just floors me.

June

The Federal Government is not a Corporation. Need I remind you that Chesapeake Ranch Estates is a Business [Non profit or not-for-profit but still a business] and totally different.

If Mr. Trump were to come in a purchase 51% shares of stock then he would own the majority of stock in the corporation. The way our covenants are written now... he would still only have one vote but if the M&O portion of the Covenants were worded just a tad bit different, he could control CRE.

You should not compare CRE with a government. In my opinion, this is where we are getting in trouble fiscally as well. We may tend to spend as if we are a government as well.

POACRE is not a government and if the membership wanted to allow Mr. Trump and extra vote if he pays extra M&O's in order to bring in extra funds for the association without putting all the financial stress on the single lot owner, then all they would have to do is garner a majority of a vote [as long as 50+1 of the members vote].

It's pretty difficult to do but if it means a long term savings for the majority of the property owners while producing more funds for the Association... it might just be possible.....

 

[ladyhawk]

The Federal Government is not a Corporation. Need I remind you that Chesapeake Ranch Estates is a Business [Non profit or not-for-profit but still a business] and totally different.

If Mr. Trump were to come in a purchase 51% shares of stock then he would own the majority of stock in the corporation. The way our covenants are written now... he would still only have one vote but if the M&O portion of the Covenants were worded just a tad bit different, he could control CRE.

You should not compare CRE with a government. In my opinion, this is where we are getting in trouble fiscally as well. We may tend to spend as if we are a government as well.

POACRE is not a government and if the membership wanted to allow Mr. Trump and extra vote if he pays extra M&O's in order to bring in extra funds for the association without putting all the financial stress on the single lot owner, then all they would have to do is garner a majority of a vote [as long as 50+1 of the members vote].

It's pretty difficult to do but if it means a long term savings for the majority of the property owners while producing more funds for the Association... it might just be possible.....

I don't compare our money with the governent.. If I did that, I wouldn't be in here.

As far as I'm concerned we are not what you think is a corporation, maybe on paper. We don't sell shares of stock. Our membership is based on real property. You can't physically touch a share. You can touch the paper that says you own a share.

With real property you can touch it and you can touch the paper that says you own it! We are an association and I think maybe there is some confusion which has allowed someone who owns a lot of properties to manipulate the board.

But if I'm wrong than prove to me.
Where does it say that a member is not responsible for any fee.
Show me.

I will be doing further research on Association vs Corporation.

June

 

[ladyhawk]

PS

To those of you who read these things, I AM NOT an attorney. I am what you would call a "wanna be". But you are welcome to join in the research to help my case!

Thanks,
June

 

[REBEL]

So what is the deal with all these LARGE houses being built next to small ranch style homes? Makes them look like trailers.

Intersections with out stop signs?

Roads that are half paved and half gravel?

yards with 3 to 5 pit bulls?

Drive ways with 6 plus cars or 3,4 or more cars without tags or out dated out of state tags?

I want to buy a New or Newer house and I like some of the ones in CRE, but at this point if I find one outside of CRE then that is where I will buy. Y'all really need to fix the HOA or do away with it (or maybe start over) but do something.

 

[FlyuntiedFC]

I have looked at the changes in the budget over the past couple of months.... if the Board would take the time to go over it without being led by Finance or the GM... I think we can get to where we need to be....

So now the plan is to cut the Finance Committee and the GM out of the process altogether? Isn't the BOD supposed to listen to advice of these people not to ignore them as seems to have been the case by several members of the board. They are trying but it seems to this member that no matter what they suggest someone wants to tell them to go away. Is there a reason why no one really wants to listen to them?

 

[residentofcre]

I have looked at the changes in the budget over the past couple of months.... if the Board would take the time to go over it without being led by Finance or the GM... I think we can get to where we need to be....

So now the plan is to cut the Finance Committee and the GM out of the process altogether? Isn't the BOD supposed to listen to advice of these people not to ignore them as seems to have been the case by several members of the board. They are trying but it seems to this member that no matter what they suggest someone wants to tell them to go away. Is there a reason why no one really wants to listen to them?

The Board got the advice of the Finance Committee and the GM. The Finance Committee did an excellent job. Now it is time for the Board to do what it is elected to do. No one told the Finance Committee to go away. We appreciate all the work they have done more than they could possibly know.

It was my understanding the Finance was working on the list of common ownership lots. There are, apparently, a number of lots that are not listed as open space on the State database. That is a huge task.

 

[ladyhawk]

I have looked at the changes in the budget over the past couple of months.... if the Board would take the time to go over it without being led by Finance or the GM... I think we can get to where we need to be....

So now the plan is to cut the Finance Committee and the GM out of the process altogether? Isn't the BOD supposed to listen to advice of these people not to ignore them as seems to have been the case by several members of the board. They are trying but it seems to this member that no matter what they suggest someone wants to tell them to go away. Is there a reason why no one really wants to listen to them?

You must pretty upset that we didn't sit and watch the powerpoint presentation you did! Why don't you come out and say you are either one of the finance people or possibly the spouse or maybe the GM, as those were the five people in the room?

Its pretty clear to me you seem upset that we have issue with a budget that has a lot of discrepencies in it. I would think any member would have issue with it as well. We aren't ignoring anyone on our finance committee that I am aware of. I have come to believe that maybe they aren't getting the information that they need to present a proper budget and thats not their fault nor is it the Boards fault. As a Board member, I don't work for the staff, I don't work for the committees. I work for the membership and will continue to do so with the decisions I MAKE!

June
Secretary

 

[ladyhawk]

Oh and in response to the post you made in another forum.. Just so you don't miss it...

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyuntiedFC
Did anyone go to the operations forum today? I heard from a friend that the GM gave a talk about operations today. I also heard that there were only four people who showed up to hear him. On top of that I heard that there were two board members outside but never went in to hear what the GM had to say. Is there any truth to this? And if so what is their reasoning for avoiding the session?

First of all key words, "THERE WERE ONLY FOUR PEOPLE". It may help you to know that those four people were two married couples, two finance people and their spouses. The GM was showing some powerpoint presentation I wasn't interested in seeing.

The other board member was our Treasurer and we came expecting to see new faces and possibly even answer some member questions. Where were you? At least the treasurer and I discussed some items that were pertinent to an upcoming meeting that we are working on! We may not have been in the meeting but at least we were there!

I just think its funny you are this concerned about a meeting you didn't attend yet you judge us based on comments you heard from someone else..

Hmmm....


YES, IT IS TRUE!

 

[exnodak]

Marie,

The question you need to ask the POACRE Board members is: Can any of them point to a place in the covenants or the bylaws that gives the Board the authority to NOT collect an M&O fee and a Road fee from each and every lot.

They may come back with: "A legal opinion from our attorney...." which is a cop out. Lawyers opinions carry absolutely no weight unless they are in writing and publishable. In fact, if the legal opinion affects the membership, it should be published. Too many Boards seem to think that legal opinions always have some attorney client privelege, and that is not always the case. Of course most lawyers would argue that point.

The covenants and bylaws are clear. No one is exempt no matter how many properties they own. Fees are assessed per lot, and membership is not tied to fees in the covenants, only in the bylaws for the purposes of establishing the threshold for membership, not the voting power of the member.

So, the question is begged: Why are some multiple property owners not paying both fees on every property? If the answer is; "That it isn't fair", that is also a cop out. Fairness has nothing to do with it. The Board is bound to obey the covenants and bylaws without regard to fairness, and the Board has no authority to arbitrarily define fairness.

Then, you might also ask them: "What is their authority over the private residences and where does that authority come from?"

 

[FlyuntiedFC]

Oh and in response to the post you made in another forum.. Just so you don't miss it...

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyuntiedFC
Did anyone go to the operations forum today? I heard from a friend that the GM gave a talk about operations today. I also heard that there were only four people who showed up to hear him. On top of that I heard that there were two board members outside but never went in to hear what the GM had to say. Is there any truth to this? And if so what is their reasoning for avoiding the session?

First of all key words, "THERE WERE ONLY FOUR PEOPLE". It may help you to know that those four people were two married couples, two finance people and their spouses. The GM was showing some powerpoint presentation I wasn't interested in seeing.

The other board member was our Treasurer and we came expecting to see new faces and possibly even answer some member questions. Where were you? At least the treasurer and I discussed some items that were pertinent to an upcoming meeting that we are working on! We may not have been in the meeting but at least we were there!

I just think its funny you are this concerned about a meeting you didn't attend yet you judge us based on comments you heard from someone else..

Hmmm....


YES, IT IS TRUE!

I have one simple question - Why are you whacking me in TWO forums? I resent that fact that you are using my words pertaining to one subject and using them for another tirade against me in a different forum. I am a member, whether you like it or not. What I say in one forum is meant only for that one forum. This is why some of us choose to remain anonymous. If I have something to say in this forum I'll say it and speak my mind.

 

[ladyhawk]

I have one simple question - Why are you whacking me in TWO forums? I resent that fact that you are using my words pertaining to one subject and using them for another tirade against me in a different forum. I am a member, whether you like it or not. What I say in one forum is meant only for that one forum. This is why some of us choose to remain anonymous. If I have something to say in this forum I'll say it and speak my mind.

I'm not "whacking" you... But then I guess from your point of view... Okay putting myself in your shoes, yes I guess I am.

You can resent what I do all you want. I have as much right to defend myself against you as you have to attack and slam us. I try to be civil when I'm in here. But when I see that someone has posted two different versions of something, well lets just say I feel the rest of the public has a right to see it...

I think most people try to remain anonymous to stir the pot. Stirring the pot just incites more rumor, inuendo and anger which by the way is unnecessary. Those of us that know who each other are have had some very nice, friendly and interesting conversations. It would be nice if you could just join the conversation without worrying about what someone else thinks.

I felt your intention was to stir the pot when you made the comment about myself and another board member "ignoring" the finance committee and GM. We haven't been ignoring them, but that seemed to be your take on the situation and thats your entitlement just as this is mine...

June

 

[residentofcre]

Marie,

The question you need to ask the POACRE Board members is: Can any of them point to a place in the covenants or the bylaws that gives the Board the authority to NOT collect an M&O fee and a Road fee from each and every lot.

They may come back with: "A legal opinion from our attorney...." which is a cop out. Lawyers opinions carry absolutely no weight unless they are in writing and publishable. In fact, if the legal opinion affects the membership, it should be published. Too many Boards seem to think that legal opinions always have some attorney client privelege, and that is not always the case. Of course most lawyers would argue that point.

The covenants and bylaws are clear. No one is exempt no matter how many properties they own. Fees are assessed per lot, and membership is not tied to fees in the covenants, only in the bylaws for the purposes of establishing the threshold for membership, not the voting power of the member.

So, the question is begged: Why are some multiple property owners not paying both fees on every property? If the answer is; "That it isn't fair", that is also a cop out. Fairness has nothing to do with it. The Board is bound to obey the covenants and bylaws without regard to fairness, and the Board has no authority to arbitrarily define fairness.

Then, you might also ask them: "What is their authority over the private residences and where does that authority come from?"

Of course there is not notation that calls for the non-payment of dues.

I think the question here is, if the Association were to bill an M&O fee for each and every lot and it was challenged, would it hold up in court?

The reason multiple property owners don't pay both fees on every property is the wording differs between the two fees in the covenants [see the covenants at www.poacre.org ] and the 900 members of the Association in 1989 did not want to give control of the corporation they had just saved from bankruptcy to developers.

Now that POACRE is almost at build-out that is no longer a problem. Naysayers would say "what of the 500 lots POACRE owns? Would the BOD use those votes?" To that I would answer that we should strip the open space lots of all votes. Then future Boards could not come back and harvest the votes to take control of the Association. Therefore, one way to control the voting power of multiple owners might be to consider the open space, green space, residential space [improved or unimproved] status of the lot and price the fee accordingly.

This would allow the Association a new income source without putting the full weight of the financial burden on the single lot owner.

 

[FlyuntiedFC]

I'm not "whacking" you... But then I guess from your point of view... Okay putting myself in your shoes, yes I guess I am.

You can resent what I do all you want. I have as much right to defend myself against you as you have to attack and slam us. I try to be civil when I'm in here. But when I see that someone has posted two different versions of something, well lets just say I feel the rest of the public has a right to see it...

I think most people try to remain anonymous to stir the pot. Stirring the pot just incites more rumor, inuendo and anger which by the way is unnecessary. Those of us that know who each other are have had some very nice, friendly and interesting conversations. It would be nice if you could just join the conversation without worrying about what someone else thinks.

I felt your intention was to stir the pot when you made the comment about myself and another board member "ignoring" the finance committee and GM. We haven't been ignoring them, but that seemed to be your take on the situation and thats your entitlement just as this is mine...

June

I didn't put two versions in, you chose to drop it in a second forum. That was your choice not mine. In the forum I did post in, there were several questions asked and no answers received. That is your right to not answer. However my intent was answers to those questions, not to attack as you seem to think.
You can do as you please that is your right. You can say what you want that is also your right. However your accusing me of saying that you were ignoring the committee and GM was posted by someone else and I'm just trying to follow up on that. Please reread the original quote that was posted in other forum. If you chose to twist what I am trying to get at then that is also your choice. Spin is in the eye of the spinner.

If you are trying to be civil why are you trying to figure out who I am? You have attacked me by double posting from one forum to the other and questioning why I choose to remain anonymous. I have kids and the way people in this community have treated Becky and her daughter is a very good reason to remain so.

So if all I am trying to do is search out answers and get facts why am I on the end of being accused of spreading rumor and innuendo?

 

[Pete]

They should print this thread and the other 12 and staple them to every real estate listing from CRE.

 

[exnodak]

OK. I've gone back and read the two different sections on fees. Now, one more time: Please point out the difference in the two, and the place where it says that they should not be collected on each and every lot, or at least the part you seem to interpret that they should NOT be collected on each and every lot. I don't see it.

Please don't go on a tangent and tell me what YOU should do, or what other Boards SHOULD have done. What is right, here and now, is what I'm interested in as a dues paying property owner.

These documents are in plain english. It does not take an Attorney's opinion to read them.

 

[exnodak]

Sorry, I wasn't finished.

When has the threat of a lawsuit by someone that doesn't want to pay the fees ever been a stopper for the POACRE Board?

If they want to sue, let them. That would settle the question permanently.

 

[residentofcre]

Sorry, I wasn't finished.

When has the threat of a lawsuit by someone that doesn't want to pay the fees ever been a stopper for the POACRE Board?

If they want to sue, let them. That would settle the question permanently.

I have highlighted the differences in verbage which seems to mean that we need a covenant change [ according to the majority of the committee members and regular attendees of the Board meetings]

MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS FEE: Each lot purchasers or owner shall pay to the Corporation in advance by May 25th of each year an annual maintenance and operations fee (formerly call annual Chesapeake Ranch Club dues) for the operation of the common facilities and to provide security services. If not duly paid, these fees shall constitute a lien against the property enforceable by foreclosure under the Maryland Contract Lien Act; however, such lien shall be subordinate to any prior or subsequent, VA, FMHA, or FHA lien. The annual maintenance and operations fee may be changed by a majority vote of the owners provided that membership contracts of the former Chesapeake Ranch Club, Inc., which specified fixed dues and fees will not be changed without written approval of the individual owner.

ROAD FEE: Each lot purchaser or owner shall pay to the Corporation in advance by July 1st of each year an annual fee for each lot, for the construction, maintenance and repair of all roads in the subdivisions. Said fee shall be $86.40 for the year beginning July 1, 1987. K The fees may be increased yearly thereafter by the same percentage that the price for March increases over the price index for March of the previous year. Prior to the conveyance of title to a lot, the Corporation may add the unpaid road fees to any unpaid purchase price of the lot; in the event of nonpayment after conveyance, such unpaid fees shall constitute a lien against the property enforceable by foreclosure under the Maryland Contract Lien Act; however, such lien shall be subordinate to any prior or subsequent, VA, FMHA, or FHA lien. (“Price Index” means United States Consumer Price Index. All items for the “Metropolitan Washington, D.C. Areas)