03-12-2018, 08:13 PM
I was joking about the quit claim, but Kalakoa's point is valid. The county doesn't show my name or your name or anyone else's as owners of the road lot. County shows it to be owned by a company that was dissolved decades ago. To be accurate and fair, the county should be listing all 2400 property owners as road lot owners, updated each time a property changes hands. Cumbersome, yes. But they don't care that they screwed us with the sweetheart deal for the developers, why should we care if they screwed themselves in the process?
You said "No legal way to divorce myself from OCLA", I simply pointed out the law that says you can. The '92 judgment did not give OLCA the right to base membership on mandatory fees, thus making membership mandatory. This violates the statutes.
Is OLCA's primary purpose to maintain the roads? The Charter of Incorporation doesn't even mention the roads in the list of purposes, so...is this fraud against the state?
Our bylaws, in many more ways than stated here, are in conflict with state laws, our Charter of incorporation, and the '92 judgment (another can of worms). This makes collections extremely risky and it's all a product of the county violating its own laws with the sweetheart deal 59 years ago.
I got my Group W newsletter yesterday. I was happy to see that they are skeptical of Joy's bill, and are discussing the county's responsibility/liability. Quite different from previous boards, so good for them.
You said "No legal way to divorce myself from OCLA", I simply pointed out the law that says you can. The '92 judgment did not give OLCA the right to base membership on mandatory fees, thus making membership mandatory. This violates the statutes.
Is OLCA's primary purpose to maintain the roads? The Charter of Incorporation doesn't even mention the roads in the list of purposes, so...is this fraud against the state?
Our bylaws, in many more ways than stated here, are in conflict with state laws, our Charter of incorporation, and the '92 judgment (another can of worms). This makes collections extremely risky and it's all a product of the county violating its own laws with the sweetheart deal 59 years ago.
I got my Group W newsletter yesterday. I was happy to see that they are skeptical of Joy's bill, and are discussing the county's responsibility/liability. Quite different from previous boards, so good for them.