Roads Are Easements Not Planned Communities Or HOAs

[Patricia]

Tomk, ah yes. But I do. Just not the way in which you demand/want.

Question: What do you think about an association (associationS plural) and their attorneys, who suddenly feel an almost 28 year old law is relevant and applicable to them?

[TomK]

I've never demanded anyone to answer a question how I want. I ask questions because I'd like to know the answers, and my questions are always related to a claim made by whoever I'm asking. When they avoid answering those questions (e.g., you), I usually know they are bullshitting and/or perhaps seeking attention.

As to your question, I've never made any claims relating to that subject and don't know enough about it to start answering it. It's like me asking you if Bracknell, in the UK, needs more roundabouts. I wouldn't expect you to answer that, but I had hoped you would answer questions related to your posts.

[Obie]

"28 year old law is relevant"

You should really learn how to research things.

§421J-1.5 Interpretation. This chapter and any association document subject thereto shall be liberally construed to facilitate the operation of the planned community association. [L 2008, c 70, pt of §2]

It was really passed in 2008 and at that time the boards didn't rely on attorneys as much to help run the association.

The statute was written to apply to associations that were in existence before 1997, the legislature made 1997 the effective date to simplify things, but it wasn't enacted until 2008.

The association now has competent attorneys who understand 421J and why it's mandatory.

I'm done here. You are repeating yourself yet again and again.

[MyManao]

I've never demanded anyone to answer a question how I want.

You demand all the time.. endlessly. It's your schtick.. your tell.. how we know it is you. By your 'demands'

You really should 'study' yourself. You know, observe, collect data, make up some silly hypothesis as to why and wherefore and all that.. and publish da buggah! We're all very interested in how you 'see' yourself..

[Patricia]

   

"You should really learn how to research things."

Hmm, Obie. You should maybe follow your own advice? 

Even the resolution HPPOA used to shove through 421J says 1997 (though that wasn't where I took my info from the first time around).

And yes, in 1997, all the way to the present, HPPOA, has gone through LOTS of lawyers (a list longer than your arm).

[Obie]

Patricia
§421J-1 Scope. This chapter shall apply to all planned community associations existing as of June 16, 1997 and all planned community associations created thereafter. [L 1997, c 132, pt of §1]
Revision Note
"June 16, 1997" substituted for "the effective date of this chapter".

Note the June 16,1997 date was substituted .


§421J-1.5 Interpretation. This chapter and any association document subject thereto shall be liberally construed to facilitate the operation of the planned community association. [L 2008, c 70, pt of §2]


Identify the act and the year when the pertinent language was adopted.
The bracketed source note at the end of a statute indicates the enabling/amending acts and *each compilation where the statute may be found.
L_ _ _ _ = year law enacted

[L 2008, c 70, pt of §2]

2008 is the year that it was really enacted. I know it's a shock to you that I have proven you are wrong and I also know you will never admit it.

[Patricia]

2008 is the year that it was really enacted. I know it's a shock to you

Not a shock at all, Obie. Thanks for the clarification. But you may want to pass that on to the HPPOA Board and their troop of "good" lawyers. (I wonder if that invalidates their Resolution?)

Still, 421J is not a new law. Something which some on the HPPOA board would like HPP Owners to believe. Subtract 2008 from 2025 and what do you get. Wow...

After SEVENTEEN years, 421J is still fundamentally the same, and HPPOA has had a truck-load of lawyers in all of that time. So some on the HPPOA board and their "good" attorneys trying to feed us the, "We have to be compliant," line is a joke.

Adopting a SEVENTEEN year old law has nothing to do with compliance. It's about control. Control of A LOT of money and being able to do "so much more."

   

[Obie]

(I wonder if that invalidates their Resolution?)

Do I have to explain this to you ?

Revision Note
"June 16, 1997" substituted for "the effective date of this chapter".

2008 is the real effective date.

[Patricia]

Obie, yeah I understand that 2008 is the actual date the statute was adopted and YES I understand that the bill substitutes 1997 (for 2008) to include planned communities that existed 11 years before the statute was adopted.

However, the Resolution to which I am referring (please note in an earlier comment) is a Resolution that the HPPOA board (and I would imagine their "good" attorneys) put together. I suggest you read what THAT Resolution states:

" Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 421J enacted in 1997..."

[Obie]

" (I wonder if that invalidates their Resolution?)"

No !

End of discussion.