02-15-2018, 05:46 PM
In reading the testimony what jumped out at me was the amount that came from HA, mostly in support, and the numbers they quoted on the current compliance rate, approximately 10%. This would suggest that approximately 90% of the property owners in HA are perfectly happy with the way things are right now. Where else can you find this kind of unity? HPP and Orchidland certainly don't have it. Why should the 10% be empowered to enforce something on the 90% that they don't want? Perhaps the past and current conditions were instrumental in the decisions to live there for those 90%. This is just an observation, probably not a popular one. Perhaps there should be an opt-out clause, but instead there is this:
(f) A court-approved entity, even though not approved by a majority of the lot owners within a subdivision, may continue to collect and assess fees for a subdivision and be otherwise, responsible for the maintenance, repair, and operation of the subdivision roads.
So the majority of the property owners get this whether they want it or not. Majority vote means nothing.
Even more worrisome is that the "assessments shall be determined by an association, corporation, or other entity"
This is a wide open money pit. There is no limit to the reasons that these entities can come up with to raise fees, and apparently no limit to how much or how often those raises can be.
I have had strong concerns about the voting procedures in OLCA (probably the same in others) that you can't vote on the fees that are MANDATORY against you unless you pay them. Call it taxation w/o representation, call it poll tax, whatever. It's wrong. I understand that legally it's not "taxation w/o representation" because OLCA is not a government entity. I'm wondering, if the government gets involved with this, especially if it becomes a SID, does it become tax w/o rep? Or will everyone get to vote on what the fees are?
(f) A court-approved entity, even though not approved by a majority of the lot owners within a subdivision, may continue to collect and assess fees for a subdivision and be otherwise, responsible for the maintenance, repair, and operation of the subdivision roads.
So the majority of the property owners get this whether they want it or not. Majority vote means nothing.
Even more worrisome is that the "assessments shall be determined by an association, corporation, or other entity"
This is a wide open money pit. There is no limit to the reasons that these entities can come up with to raise fees, and apparently no limit to how much or how often those raises can be.
I have had strong concerns about the voting procedures in OLCA (probably the same in others) that you can't vote on the fees that are MANDATORY against you unless you pay them. Call it taxation w/o representation, call it poll tax, whatever. It's wrong. I understand that legally it's not "taxation w/o representation" because OLCA is not a government entity. I'm wondering, if the government gets involved with this, especially if it becomes a SID, does it become tax w/o rep? Or will everyone get to vote on what the fees are?