Roads Are Easements Not Planned Communities Or HOAs

[HiloJulie]

I see this as making a whole lot of trouble over essentially nothing. A win on this battle would be a perfect example of a pyrrhic victory.  A stated "no more than 5% shall be used for other causes"  that's spent on mailboxes for residents is worthy of a lawsuit?
No, not really.

How much is already being spent on lawsuits? Is this "acceptable" because it's an "operating expense" rather than a "fixed capital expenditure"? How much longer will residents be held captive by the circus parade?

This is a good question for those bringing the lawsuits.  If they lose, do they plan on reimbursing HPP residents for the money spent on defending the lawsuits?

These lawsuits are directly the result of the way each of these “substandard” subdivisions operate. I live in Hawaiian Acres. How many “renegade boards” has the Acres been through over the years?

Same question with HPP, Ainaloa, Orchidland… every damn one of them.

This is what happens when every time there is an election for Board of Directors, less than 5% to 10% of the eligible voters actually vote. How many times has the Board of Directors of HPPOA and its predecessor(s) been elected with more than 500 votes? Out of 8,000 possible votes. That’s 6.25% of the eligible voters. Even if you discount the 8,000 possible votes in half, 500 votes mean 12.5% of the eligible voters voted. To then be given the legal authority to “be in charge” as a duly elected Board of Directors. Similar percentages exist in all the other subdivisions.

HPP’s own bylaws state that a quorum of membership is:

• Section 12. Quorum of the Membership. A majority of the members in good standing or 30 members in good standing, whichever is less.
  

So, 30 votes out of a possible 8,000 votes (hell, discount it to 1,000 votes) all it takes is 30 voters to be duly elected.

Further, I’d say a majority of those who run for these Boards know that they will be elected – most are almost always unopposed – by the slimmest minority of the eligible voting residents/lot owners – which is why they run in the first place – which begs the question as to their real competency.

But it then just becomes a recipe for and a forgone conclusion that these endless lawsuits, disputes, threats etc., will and clearly do happen as a simple minority elects the Board and then the majority - or even a smaller minority that elected the Board in the first place - becomes unglued at the decisions being or not being made.

I can pretty much guarantee that ALL of these lawsuits end when a MAJORITY of eligible voters in any of these subdivisions start electing their respective Boards of Directors with over 50% of the eligible voters actually voting. (And participating)

But what puzzles me even more about this current lawsuit is this clause from HPPOA bylaws:

• ARTICLE XV – ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION In the event of disagreement between the board, its committees, employees, volunteers of the Association, or any of the lot owners of the Hawaiian Paradise Park subdivision arising from or relating to the interpretation or implementation of the provisions of these bylaws, the parties shall pursue dispute resolution by arbitration in accordance with the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association and Chapter 658A of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, as amended. Arbitration shall be binding on parties to the controversy. Any judgment and/or award rendered by the Arbitrator may be entered into any court having jurisdiction thereof.
  

In as much as I admit I am not fully versed in the entirety of this lawsuit, but how this lawsuit is even in existence with this clause baffles me.

To add to the “remembering of quotes” collection, Mike Tyson once said, "The closest enemy is usually the one in the mirror". Eddie Vedder also said, "The man they call my enemy, I've seen his eyes. He looks just like me, a mirror".

HiloJulie’s comments indicate that she is a bit of a stickler for contracts and agreements, and that people should be thorough in their understanding of the terms and conditions before signing anything.  I totally agree, and since that is (supposed to be) the main theme of this thread that Patricia posted, it would seem like there is some pretty solid common ground here.  Does anyone disagree?  Anyone?  Anyone?
This is not about the need for mailboxes.  I don’t think anyone is disputing that.  It’s more about proper process, and terms and conditions being followed.

Well, it’s the lawyer in me.

At any event, not only is attention to detail critical, but it’s also understanding one’s own limitations to the knowledge of that detail and when unsure, seeks competent professional help. Even maybe a second opinion of the professional help is warranted.

But when that professional help advises one of their options, laws and legality thereof, and especially if confirmed by second and third advisements, and goes against that advisement, then the ignorance of the options, laws and legalities becomes intentional.

And one more additional comment:

While HPP et al; all have their own legal issues that contribute to each of their respective “substandard” subdivisions being "substandard," so does the County. And in this case, the USPS.

But they always need to be kept separate and distinct from each other, even when one contributes to the other.