HA meeting last night?

[2bad4u]

Please referr back to "just a fact" for further discussion on this matter.

[2bad4u]

quote:

---

Originally posted by kalakoa

There is no access for the disabled.No disability parking.

If the "private subdivisions" are truly private, then the community center is not a public accomodation per se and thus exempt from ADA requirements.

Alternately, one could argue that if the building lacks a certificate of occupancy, it is still a "work in progress" which simply hasn't had its ADA hardware installed yet.

---

[kalakoa]

Are u aware that building permits expired (15/16) years ago?

In other words, there's a strong possibility that the original permits were pulled before December 21 1996, thereby making the building eligible for amnesty as defined in section 25-4-1.

Alternately, it could be argued that the building is structurally sound simply because it's remained standing the entire time.

Downtown Pahoa is "open to the public" despite actual ongoing violations of code, zoning, health, and ADA compliance. Maybe start there?

[justthefacts]

the permit is expired and was for a residential building. needs to be made current for a "Community Center" building . no possibility of amnesty on that. simply put rules and regulations apply here. and it could affect the insurance policy , liability issues at stake .

[Kapohocat]

This is from a friend who asked me to post here as she doesnt have much internet.

A night of little sleep, tossing and turning, It is with heavy heart I tell you, HACA has not called a date for the SECOND DEMAND for a special membership meeting. Even after the Attorney General warned HACA not to contact members calling for a meeting, as it is viewed as intimidation, they have AGAIN done so. The Attorney General has repeatedly asked for a current data base of members, as required by law. HACA to date, has not complied. How can a quorum be established if your data base is incorrect? Well, over 30 members showed up at the July membership meeting 2013 and was denied a vote by the President Diana Miller. That is illegal. Every membership meeting since has been determined a regular council meeting by the treasurer Philip Tait and secretary John Lehnert. Now, how can you determine that with out a CURRENT DATA BASE? If you can't or will not do your job, RESIGN! In January 2014, the council meeting minutes reflect "Follow up of motions made in 2013: Revised version of bylaws needs to be printed and copies made." Now, by-law changes require 2/3 membership vote. When did that happen? IT DIDN'T! The Board of Directors just voted for $5,000.00 to retain a lawyer. For what? To take on the Attorney General? While Bob Jacobson bellowed on about "Any one slandering his treasurer is going to get it"! Not only did I vote no, I openly oppose the $8,000 of insurance including D&O insurance. Patrice and Larry voted no as well. While the treasurer states in the latest news letter "One question that comes up from time to time is why the Board spends 20% of the annual budget on Directors and Officers Liability insurance. This is an unfortunate necessity in our litigious society in the event that someone brings a lawsuit against HACA, our insurance carrier vigorously defends the lawsuit, and pays out any legal costs or judgments against us. If we did not have this coverage, Board members would face the loss of their personal assets in the event of a decision against us." Well, yes if you are doing something ILLEGAL! The Board members personally are indemnified by law. Again, unless you are doing something illegal. So, put this into prospective. It is not 20% of the budget. It's 20% of all assets. HACA is spending EVERY cent made this year from dues payments for the good of the few board members. Where is the justice? Where are the community programs? When will you stand up and say NO MORE! I am grateful to have so much support from my community. Over 40 members are willing to do something about it. By law HACA has 30 days in which to call this special membership meeting. I will keep you informed so you can VOTE!

Sincerely,
Leslie Whited
Area 4 Representative.

[Peter Epperson]

I've asked this before and no one was willing or able to answer me. I'll try again:
What, exactly, are the two lawsuits involving HACA and or HARC? Who are the plaintiffs? What are the complaints?

[Delta9r]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter Epperson

I've asked this before and no one was willing or able to answer me. I'll try again:
What, exactly, are the two lawsuits involving HACA and or HARC? Who are the plaintiffs? What are the complaints?

---

---

Go to the Hawaii State Judiciary's Ho'ohiki website, click the "Enter" button and type the query "Hawaiian Acres" into the "Search Option #2" field and then look at the results relevant to "HAWAIIAN ACRES ROAD CORP."

"Life is labor, and all that is good in life comes from that labor..."

[Lee M-S]

Delta9r, thanks for posting that.

To save others some time, that search reveals 2 suits against the road corp.
One in 2012 by Cynthia MacDonald, the other in 2014 by Peter MacDonald and Cynthia MacDonald against both HACA and HARC.

Unfortunately, the website only lists the complaint as "OT-NON-VEH TORT" I would like to know what the actual issue is.

Several other cases also come up in the "Hawaiian Acres" search, but they appear to all be foreclosure cases by banks against property owners, not involving HACA or HARC

><(((*> ~~~~ ><(("> ~~~~ ><'> ~~~~ >(>

[missydog1]

Lee M-S,
You said you want to know the actual issue. Take the case # you got online to the courthouse and request to view the file. The Complaint and Reply will both be in the file, in full, plus any motions. You can take photos for copies or pay a per page charge that requires coming back.

Yes it requires going into Hilo, but the courthouse is quiet and it's easy enough to navigate the process, and it will get you facts rather than interpretations.

[Lee M-S]

Thanks, Kathy
A friend did just that and sent me the link.

The lawsuit is about 1) the way Road 1 is graded and maintained drains water onto the plaintiffs' property, and 2) the board(s) have been obnoxious and harassing and stuff.

Read this public record yourself at
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1CwxnK...sp=sharing

><(((*> ~~~~ ><(("> ~~~~ ><'> ~~~~ >(>