Posts: 1,163
Threads: 32
Joined: Aug 2009
quote:
Originally posted by rbonplaza
<snip to save space>
Before agreeing to a doubling of our fees, I would hope some sort of concrete business plan would be presented detailing where the money would be spent and by when. We need something more than promises from an organization that has a difficult time conducting business meetings civily. How about a detailed bid from the contractor: detailed material and labor costs?
R<snip to save space>
Actually there is a very specific plan of attack if the money is approved that (I believe) included material and labor costs. I'm pretty sure they said the road committee chairman drove every mile of the development with our new contractor to put together the plan. Wes went over details briefly using a PowerPoint, with a promise to post the full plan on the website. It hasn't been posted yet. The plan will also be described in the next newsletter, which will include teh all-member ballot regarding increasing the fees.
Seems like Orchidland has evolved into three camps: One group that likes living remotely and doesn't want road improvements that would spur population increase or increased property value (the tax argument),a group that wants road improvements but won't pay more until they see progress on their street (and since there isn't enough collected to properly maintain all roads, this is a death spiral argument), and a group that wants the roads brought up to spec even if it means higher maintenance fees.
One thing I didn't know before is that as co-owners of the Orchidland roads, all owners are potentially liable for any accidents that occur in the development. The Association has a blanket insurance policy that covers paid-up owners, but those who don't pay aren't covered.
Posts: 1,450
Threads: 109
Joined: Mar 2013
The meeting is posted on the website. I just went there. Nothing much else, just that it's a meeting to rescind the fee increase. I'm not sure how it will be rescinded because of a meeting? They say they are going to mail a ballot to all of us. I would think that would be how it was decided. Let's just take a vote and see what happens.
Posts: 1,975
Threads: 47
Joined: Jul 2012
"One thing I didn't know before is that as co-owners of the Orchidland roads, all owners are potentially liable for any accidents that occur in the development. The Association has a blanket insurance policy that covers paid-up owners, but those who don't pay aren't covered."
Now thats a mouth/ear-full of due dilligence. Talk about unknowing uneducated realtors in the area - find one who'll disclose this kind of information.
Also, i'm guessing the county would also be responsible as it collects taxes from us but doesn't provide the services and allowed illegal substandard subdivisions to exist. Well at least thats probably why you'll never be held liable in psuedo-reality.
Posts: 299
Threads: 13
Joined: Jan 2008
Yes, promises without consequences seem meaningless. Glad I don't have to vote on this one or live with the broken promises that might ensue.
Would it be possible to back up promises with contracts? Could you get a contractor to make a contractual promise with real penalties if they can't get all the work done for a fixed price?
Would the board members be willing to put any of their assets on the line if they can't meet their promises?
Posts: 14,137
Threads: 424
Joined: Aug 2012
Here's a fun one: by way of "promises/contracts", would it meet the "requirement" if you simply hired someone to pave the road in front of your house?
Posts: 311
Threads: 15
Joined: Jun 2010
@rainyjim. All of the roads in Orchidland are considered one single, very strangely shaped lot, which is jointly owned by every landowner in Orchidland. So the County would not be responsible at all. The roads are private property, and any dispute arising on private property would be dealt with as such. Any taxes you pay goes to maintenance of the county or state roads you use. And the County is reluctant to take this issue on because there are 700 miles of "privately owned, publicly accessible" roads in Puna. It would require a half billion dollars to fix ALL the roads. So who gets first? If they fix even one mile of the 700, Pandora's Box is suddenly open...
Posts: 1,975
Threads: 47
Joined: Jul 2012
hi. i know. i own property in OLE. i guess you missed my "psuedo-reality" at the end of the post.
I'm just pointing out that these problems are interconnected - further complicating them.
and clearly wherever the mayor / council's friends/family live get paved first...funny you even asked
Posts: 14,137
Threads: 424
Joined: Aug 2012
Better question: suppose a "private" subdivision collects enough money to pave all its roads. Property value increases, followed by higher taxes.
Given that County didn't pay for the road improvements (nor are they likely to pay for maintenance), how exactly did they become entitled to the additional tax revenue?
Posts: 1,163
Threads: 32
Joined: Aug 2009
quote:
Originally posted by kalakoa
Better question: suppose a "private" subdivision collects enough money to pave all its roads. Property value increases, followed by higher taxes.
Given that County didn't pay for the road improvements (nor are they likely to pay for maintenance), how exactly did they become entitled to the additional tax revenue?
The same way (like it or not...) they're entitled to additional revenue when you pay to add an extension to your house
Posts: 14,137
Threads: 424
Joined: Aug 2012
Higher taxation due to value which I add to my own home is essentially self-inflicted.
Higher taxation because other people decided the roads should be paved?
In reverse: forced to pay higher road fees because "some people" complained to DoH?
I say: refuse to bail County out of the hole they created with these "private/public" roads. Fire up a big lawsuit and decide once and for all: subdivision roads are public and everyone's taxes go up to pave them, or the roads are private and County can butt out.
Until then, pavement keeps getting more expensive, and the liability issue isn't going away....
