OLCA lawsuit

[kalakoa]

taxation without representation

What to do about the larger problem, in which everyone is "allowed to vote" (example: for the Mayor and Council) but the "elected" officials ignore the "will of the public"?

[ironyak]

Originally posted by randomq
http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#10


"Proxy voting is not permitted in ordinary deliberative assemblies unless federal, state, or other laws applicable to the society require it, or the bylaws of the organization authorize it, since proxy voting is incompatible with the essential characteristics of a deliberative assembly." (emphasis mine)

While state law allows for proxy voting, they do not require it, so any use of proxy voting runs counter to Roberts Rules and the OLCA bylaws, unless amended, regardless of who voted for their use. (IMHO)

Best case scenario: new elections, including a receivership option, with independent third party verification. I doubt any of the parties to the lawsuit would back such a choice as it equally threatens them all, but it seems to be a less expensive route to moving forward. (jmo, ymmv, etc, etc)

[Orchidlandowner]

So no lot Owens should pay and let roads go to help. GOOD IDEA land values would go up for sure.

[My 2 cents]

"the current non-Arthur's group's newsletters have threatened repeatedly that they will be collecting from these non-voters using the judicial system including making them pay a stiff penalty/interest.

So in their mind, there will never be any "non payers". Just non-voters, ground up by their collections process, and then spit out with a lien plus interest. Aloha, and class act all the way. Our country was founded fighting a war against the crown to be freed from taxation without representation. I agree wholeheartedly that there should be a collection process in place, even against people who didn't agree with the vote, but certainly not in a situation where people aren't allowed to vote, and subsequently punished / preyed upon for failure to pay the "poll tax". "

I totally agree with the sentiment here, but don't think for a minute that the Arthurs group would not be aggressively pursuing collections if they were in a position to do so. Nor would either group even entertain the idea of allowing all property owners to vote. And, while this practice is exactly the same as "Taxation Without Representation", the laws of TWR do not apply to us because we are not a government entity. Discrimination laws would be more aptly applied.

"The only case I'm aware of where OLCA tried to collect from somebody, they lost their case and ~$40k in legal fees in the process. These are the types of missteps a receivership could protect us from."

The price tag was more like $70k, but now I'm nit-picking. For the real point we should look at the HPP receivership. Under that receivership, the HPP bylaws were revised to, among other things, include foreclosure. Foreclosure is specifically forbidden in HPP's own class action judgment that went to the State Supreme Court. I haven't been keeping up with their problems, but at some point someone will fight them on this and take them down the same road that we already traveled. Point is, receivership did not protect them from this exposure, receivership caused it.

[randomq]

If only people paid their road dues, instead of looking for any excuse not to. You turn your money over to state lawmakers to be spent in hostess bars. You turn your money over to federal lawmakers to be spent on pork and pointless wars. But god forbid a load of gravel not be dropped to your exact specifications.

Just pay your dues. Do your share. Don't be a cheapskate.

[kalakoa]

If only people paid their road dues

I have no problem paying "road dues" if that money is spent on "the roads", but that's not what we have.

turn your money over to federal lawmakers to be spent on pork and pointless wars

The feds have guns and tanks to back up their claim to your money. Maybe OLCA just needs better hardware?

[Orchidlandowner]

If people would pay their dues they could vote and not worry about interest and penalties. Not to mention what they do to their credit rating when they do not pay their dues.

[kalakoa]

If people would pay their dues they could vote and not worry about interest and penalties.

Because the voting is so effective? Because the "road dues" are actually spent on "road maintenance"?

Seems like most (if not all) subdivisions with "mandatory dues" spend those dues arguing over who will control the money. If the money were actually spent on its stated purpose, as intended, people might be willing to pay their dues.

But that's not what we have.

Maybe OLCA (and HPPOA, for that matter) should get their house in order before complaining that people aren't willing to pay their dues?

[My 2 cents]

Even with their guns and tanks, the Feds can't take your vote away for not paying.

[kalakoa]

Even with their guns and tanks, the Feds can't take your vote away for not paying.

...and just like OLCA, your vote counts for nothing.