For all those who accused me of Campaigning

[dgates80]

One vote (and fee) per contract

Face it we have a few in here that buy up properties, and the "one vote per lot", gives them more votes during elections, covenant and bylaw changes... This would ultimately turn CRE into a rental community instead of the REAL HomeOwners community that it once was. (I don't feel like we are ever going to get back there..)

Isn't this essentially what we have now, one vote per "contract" and every lot (or possibly "improved lot") being a seperate "contract"? Are their contracts that cover multiple homes? If so, this is a foul in my opinion.

As I see it, regardless of whomever is actually living there, an M&O fee (and STD tax liability as well) is (or ought to be) due and payable by the contract owner / signitory irrespective of what said owner is doing with the property -- it's their business if they are renting it out.

The responsibility to pay the M&O fee goes to the property owner. If the property owner passes on this expense to the tenent, well, that's their perogitive to do so (or not). After all, it's the propety owner (contract) that freely elected to become a landlord and rent their property, and arguably this is not within CRE HOA's scope of operation or concern -- as long as the HOA fees ARE PAID. In other words, it's not CRE's business if it's an owner occupied residence or a rental property except for the CRE amenity access issue. In fact, I would say that it's the property owner's responsibility to even apply for and obtain the CRE stickers on behalf of the tenents, and in turn, reclaim the vehicle stickers once the rental is terminated! It's THEIR tenents, make them do the work, after all, they are getting renumerated in the form of recieving rental income on their property!

There ought not to be any relief to the property owner by CRE should the property owner voluntarily choose to not pass this cost on to their tenents. IMHO this basic principle should apply regardless if the contract owner is a person or a corporation.

As for voting rights, one vote per contract owner, again, without regard to the nature of the owner -- person, corporation, whatever. Yes, this gives multiple property owners more votes, but this is only approprite since they in turn own more of CRE!

 

[Midnightrider]

Isn't this essentially what we have now, one vote per "contract" and every lot (or possibly "improved lot") being a seperate "contract"? Are their contracts that cover multiple homes? If so, this is a foul in my opinion.

As I see it, regardless of whomever is actually living there, an M&O fee (and STD tax liability as well) is (or ought to be) due and payable by the contract owner / signitory irrespective of what said owner is doing with the property -- it's their business if they are renting it out.

The responsibility to pay the M&O fee goes to the property owner. If the property owner passes on this expense to the tenent, well, that's their perogitive to do so (or not). After all, it's the propety owner (contract) that freely elected to become a landlord and rent their property, and arguably this is not within CRE HOA's scope of operation or concern -- as long as the HOA fees ARE PAID. In other words, it's not CRE's business if it's an owner occupied residence or a rental property except for the CRE amenity access issue. In fact, I would say that it's the property owner's responsibility to even apply for and obtain the CRE stickers on behalf of the tenents, and in turn, reclaim the vehicle stickers once the rental is terminated! It's THEIR tenents, make them do the work, after all, they are getting renumerated in the form of recieving rental income on their property!

There ought not to be any relief to the property owner by CRE should the property owner voluntarily choose to not pass this cost on to their tenents. IMHO this basic principle should apply regardless if the contract owner is a person or a corporation.

As for voting rights, one vote per contract owner, again, without regard to the nature of the owner -- person, corporation, whatever. Yes, this gives multiple property owners more votes, but this is only approprite since they in turn own more of CRE!

thats all fine and good if you want the multiple proerty owners to have a bigger say than you do.
When the multiple lot owners are forced to pay multiple fees, you can bet they will begin to vote. According to Becky, some of them have up to 39 lots. If only a few of them show up to a meeting they could do what ever they want, and we the single lot homeowners would be able to do nothing with our measly little 1 vote each.

 

[Midnightrider]

thats all fine and good if you want the multiple proerty owners to have a bigger say than you do.
When the multiple lot owners are forced to pay multiple fees, you can bet they will begin to vote. According to Becky, some of them have up to 39 lots. If only a few of them show up to a meeting they could do what ever they want, and we the single lot homeowners would be able to do nothing with our measly little 1 vote each.

BTW, at the last memebrs meeting there might have been 40 people, about half were couples, so maybe 30 votes could have been cast. Now imagine if that guy who has 39 votes had showed up, he could have overruled all of the other members with his Mass Vote.

 

[dgates80]

One vote per contract

BTW, at the last memebrs meeting there might have been 40 people, about half were couples, so maybe 30 votes could have been cast. Now imagine if that guy who has 39 votes had showed up, he could have overruled all of the other members with his Mass Vote.

Yep, that's true. And I don't have a problem with that, actually, since they are paying for that privilidge.

I would not call that a "mass vote", though: it's just voting his/her shares of CRE based on property owned. Want more votes? Buy more property!

 

[dgates80]

In the bigger world of states versus popular representation, Congress is divided into the Senate, with 2 votes per state, and the House, with representation based on population. Should I, as a single property owner, have the same influence as a multiple property owner?

 

[Midnightrider]

In the bigger world of states versus popular representation, Congress is divided into the Senate, with 2 votes per state, and the House, with representation based on population. Should I, as a single property owner, have the same influence as a multiple property owner?

the issue is, should land lords have more rights than you because they own more properties?

The fact of the matter is, this isn't going to change. If i understadn this correctly, this is a covanent issue, which would take 50%+1 of the members in good standing to change. Considering we didn't even have that many vote in the last election (total) i doubt we could get more than half of the members to vote that way.

covanent change right becky/june?

 

[ladyhawk]

Yes that would be correct. But if you read your covenants I have not found anywhere that shows any member NOT responsible for any fees for the properties they own. Regardless of rentals or unimproved..

Interesting I thought...

 

[Flyonthewall]

the issue is, should land lords have more rights than you because they own more properties?

The fact of the matter is, this isn't going to change. If i understadn this correctly, this is a covanent issue, which would take 50%+1 of the members in good standing to change. Considering we didn't even have that many vote in the last election (total) i doubt we could get more than half of the members to vote that way.

covanent change right becky/june?

What about for Bylaw changes? I believe that only requires a quorum which is 100. We should consider changing this to a percentage of the total homeowners like 20% or 30% if we're going to change the way we assess M&O fees to avoid any one multiple lot owner from taking control of the votes.

 

[dgates80]

Power to the peeple

What about for Bylaw changes? I believe that only requires a quorum which is 100. We should consider changing this to a percentage of the total homeowners like 20% or 30% if we're going to change the way we assess M&O fees to avoid any one multiple lot owner from taking control of the votes.

Huh? This is a socialist concept. If they own the contracts, let 'em vote.

Better yet, talk to them and get them to vote YOUR way on issues. One contract one vote is NOT a bad thing and the only change to bylaws that may be needed is of this is NOT the case, in my opinion.

I DO agree that the quorum threshold is too small, but what's the right number?

It got set to be 100 because it was an achievable number that allowed business to be conducted, but it surely is NOT representitive of all of CRE.

So what, 250? 500? You realize this gives more effective power to the BoD in some sense and less in others, as a member quorum becomes harder to produce.

The real issue is non-participation by 90% of CRE contract holders.

 

[Midnightrider]

Yes that would be correct. But if you read your covenants I have not found anywhere that shows any member NOT responsible for any fees for the properties they own. Regardless of rentals or unimproved..

Interesting I thought...

sounds to me like you are working down that slippery slope with that thinking.
I think that any increase in fees should require the entire membership voting with the 50%+1 in effect.

you guys slid the STD in on us against our vote, you shouldn't now increase fees on multiple lot owners without a FULL vote of the membership.

 

[dgates80]

Is it an increase to require multiple lot owners to pay what they should have been paying all along though? One contract, one vote, one M&O fee? How is that an increase or not fair?

 

[Midnightrider]

Is it an increase to require multiple lot owners to pay what they should have been paying all along though? One contract, one vote, one M&O fee? How is that an increase or not fair?

it is an increase for all the people who have more than one lot. And thats a lot of people. As you should know, the lots in CRE are small and many have bought the lots around them so as not to be too close to their neighbors. All of those people will now face an extra charge. How is that not an increase?

its not fair for a small group to make new rules for the whole, especially when the small group may not be affected by the change.

 

[Midnightrider]

Is it an increase to require multiple lot owners to pay what they should have been paying all along though? One contract, one vote, one M&O fee? How is that an increase or not fair?

BTW, the question of what they "should be paying all along" was decided a long time ago, so they have been paying what they "should be".

 

[residentofcre]

BTW, the question of what they "should be paying all along" was decided a long time ago, so they have been paying what they "should be".

Actually... the only reason the one M&O per lot [according to one of the men who wrote the orignial documents] was not included in the original documents was because it would have caused a problem.

A bylaws change would not allow the Association to charge an M&O per lot...

 

[Midnightrider]

Actually... the only reason the one M&O per lot [according to one of the men who wrote the orignial documents] was not included in the original documents was because it would have caused a problem.

A bylaws change would not allow the Association to charge an M&O per lot...

exactly, it would have to be a covenant change. so lets stop wasting our time, it aint gonna happen.

 

[ladyhawk]

it is an increase for all the people who have more than one lot. And thats a lot of people. As you should know, the lots in CRE are small and many have bought the lots around them so as not to be too close to their neighbors. All of those people will now face an extra charge. How is that not an increase?

its not fair for a small group to make new rules for the whole, especially when the small group may not be affected by the change.

Actually those that bought the adjoining lots were required by ballot to merge the two lots into one. Thus the reason they only pay one fee. But if you look at the covenants specifically #21 it says that each lot owner or member shall pay. It does not say they don't have to pay per lot. I guess it's how someone interprets the language. Lot owners who own individual lots should be paying a fee on each lot. Each Membership (member) is entitled to ONE vote according to Article IV Section 2 of our Bylaws. It is specific that someone that owns more than one lot still only gets one vote! So we should have been collecting this fee from each lot.

June

June

 

[ladyhawk]

Huh? This is a socialist concept. If they own the contracts, let 'em vote.

Better yet, talk to them and get them to vote YOUR way on issues. One contract one vote is NOT a bad thing and the only change to bylaws that may be needed is of this is NOT the case, in my opinion.

I DO agree that the quorum threshold is too small, but what's the right number?

It got set to be 100 because it was an achievable number that allowed business to be conducted, but it surely is NOT representitive of all of CRE.

So what, 250? 500? You realize this gives more effective power to the BoD in some sense and less in others, as a member quorum becomes harder to produce.

The real issue is non-participation by 90% of CRE contract holders.

Okay D"

I'm hoping to get more of our members involved using these forums! Maybe I can get some results. Nice to see you in here!

June

 

[ladyhawk]

sounds to me like you are working down that slippery slope with that thinking.
I think that any increase in fees should require the entire membership voting with the 50%+1 in effect.

you guys slid the STD in on us against our vote, you shouldn't now increase fees on multiple lot owners without a FULL vote of the membership.

LOL I'm newly elected and have a history being on the board before! All you should have to do is talk to people that know me and not the inuendo and rumors you hear. I am the way I am because of some of those people.

And the reason I pointed out that I'm newly elected.... I had nothing to do with "you guys slid the STD in on us against our vote"... We are not looking at increasing any fees that I am aware of but I am going after the covenants and rules that have been ignored. I hope you don't own multiple lots because I'm hoping to ensure that those people pay their fair share. Sorry but thats where I stand on the issue to be fair.

June

 

[ladyhawk]

exactly, it would have to be a covenant change. so lets stop wasting our time, it aint gonna happen.

AND IT CAN HAPPEN! All we need is for you to wake and shake your neighbors and bring them to the meeting when we try to make the changes to those! We just have to keep trying harder!
I have been trying every time I'm on the board and I haven't given up and I won't!

June

 

[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. :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: Is there any truth to this? And if so what is their reasoning for avoiding the session? :shrug: