12-31-2016, 06:10 AM
@Mermaid: You and a lot of well-meaning people have made some valuable contributions to HPP in the past, but a bylaws revision is like putting a bandaid on a serious gunshot wound. I guess trying to work a broken system is all you know how to do, but it's time to get radical and force the whole mess into receivership. The board used our money to inject lawyers into the arbitration process and thwart it. Some of those well-meaning and honorable people spent a lot of money on that arbitration. (I know because I donated some money to them to help out.) I told some of them at the outset that their money would be better spent on a lawsuit to force receivership, but that's not where it went.
I was being sarcastic when I said the AG was too busy prosecuting Kenoi. They and the politicians either don't care or are mortified at the prospective of opening the can of worms they know the whole Puna subdivision situation to be.
I'm no lawyer, but I think it would take receivership as a first step to abolish the hui. If enough people made the case in front of a judge that it is a failed enterprise by presenting the history of poor stewardship going all the way back to (and beyond) the 1990's receivership, a drastic reconfiguration or abolition could happen. They do it all the time with corporations, profit and nonprofit.
As for the bond, I was told by several former board members who pushed for the bond that the bondholders could "seek recovery" of their money in the event of default by whatever means they saw fit. It is unclear if receivership would in and of itself constitute default on the bond as long as the payments were being made. I got mixed answers when I asked these folks that last question. In any case, I realistically think we are on the hook for the money on both a collective and individual basis. I believe the original amount of the loan per lot was about $1800, but that would be somewhat less today due to it having been paid down. I would gladly pay the full amount to be rid of this mess and reset it to zero.
I was being sarcastic when I said the AG was too busy prosecuting Kenoi. They and the politicians either don't care or are mortified at the prospective of opening the can of worms they know the whole Puna subdivision situation to be.
I'm no lawyer, but I think it would take receivership as a first step to abolish the hui. If enough people made the case in front of a judge that it is a failed enterprise by presenting the history of poor stewardship going all the way back to (and beyond) the 1990's receivership, a drastic reconfiguration or abolition could happen. They do it all the time with corporations, profit and nonprofit.
As for the bond, I was told by several former board members who pushed for the bond that the bondholders could "seek recovery" of their money in the event of default by whatever means they saw fit. It is unclear if receivership would in and of itself constitute default on the bond as long as the payments were being made. I got mixed answers when I asked these folks that last question. In any case, I realistically think we are on the hook for the money on both a collective and individual basis. I believe the original amount of the loan per lot was about $1800, but that would be somewhat less today due to it having been paid down. I would gladly pay the full amount to be rid of this mess and reset it to zero.