When are the votes getting counted for Orchidland?

[unknownjulie]

Ha Ha. I have said before that Hawaii reminds me in many many ways of NM. I think this may be why my kids adjusted here with no problems. Now, Texas is a completely different type of set-up. I never could really understand how they did anything there.

[terracore]

I voted no on both of them, and then I sent them an email identifying myself and explaining my reasons.

I am one of those people who have always paid the road fees.

I have two side-by-side lots. One will never be developed so long as I own it. If I could afford the lot on the other side, I would have three lots (and it also would never be developed). So three lots @ $300 each = $900/year for road maintenance, even though the three lots collectively have one dwelling with two adults and usually only one car gets used per day.

The neighbors down the way have a bunch of dwellings on one lot. I don't know how many families live there but the traffic is constant. I don't know if they pay their road fees or not, but it hardly seems fair that I could pay $900 for little traffic while they pay $300 for lots of traffic.

I voted NO because it was the only way that I could afford to remain one of the members who pay the road fees.

If they want "yes" votes, they have to take things like this into consideration.

[KeaauRich]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unknownjulie

I belong in one in NM and most everyone pays their dues, and the roads are regularly maintained. It's too bad, if the vote in Orchidland turned out this way.

---

I suspect one significant difference is the owners of the NM properties probably live there, or live nearby (relatively speaking). Many mainland investor-owners of Orchidland lots don't feel the responsibility to pay for road maintenance on properties they never visit. Couple the high rate of non-payers with the low fee, and the result is the mess we're in now.

Edited to add:

Terracore, you wrote "The neighbors down the way have a bunch of dwellings on one lot. I don't know how many families live there but the traffic is constant. I don't know if they pay their road fees or not, but it hardly seems fair that I could pay $900 for little traffic while they pay $300 for lots of traffic." By your logic, mainland owners who don't live here shouldn't have to pay any road fees because they don't generate any traffic.

[microage97]

Well I guess worse case is that we have roads like HA. I don't see how receivership will do jack to change the situation.

[unknownjulie]

Not to stay on the tangent, but the property in NM is mostly owned by "out of state investors". Same as here. A few recluse types live out there, but it's mostly vacant. They have been aggressive at making people pay though. They will just foreclose if the person doesn't pay their road fees. (as far as I understand) It is frustrating here because people don't seem to want to work together to get the roads improved. If everyone had been paying the minimum all these years, then an increase wouldnt probably even be necessary. Fern Acres has all paved roads for instance! I have heard a neighbor of mine I OLE boast about "not paying the road fees". And what I told him is "OK then, you are the person that I am carrying by paying mine. Nothing to boast about"...

[unknownjulie]

Bump to move thread up next to the HA road thread, since they are related.

[Guest]

You mean related? For all roads in Puna are bad right?. or that they are neighbors?. I wonder if the folks who have bought recently in that area of OLE and HA in say the last ten years, know how bad of a flood zone that really is?. And if they are told about the roads prior to buying, Sometimes those roads can be impassible. Had friends ruin suspensions and tires or rims on them roads, Also intertubed and boogie boarded down a few. One of the selling points in Puna would be good roads.

[kimo wires]

I wonder whom will be appointed to the receivership? Will they be able to go after the delinquent owners? Will they be able to raise the maintenance fees because no membership vote is needed? And will they just take the money and misappropriate the funds Leaving the Community Roads in shambles.

Example from an attorney regarding receivership:
The problem with receivers is that somebody needs to pay them, and they don't come cheap. Courts appoint whomever they believe will be able to do the job, Generally they'll ask for recommendations from counsel, but what I'm seeing a lot on the bank end is that courts aren't appointing property management firms or people with that type of experience. They're appointing business reorganization firms or people who traditionally serve as receivers for troubled companies. You're paying a higher rate and getting less expertise. They don't know too much about what they're taking over. Everything is done through consultants and independent contractors, and they might even hire a property manager. So you pay market rates, you have increased reporting requirements because it's done through the court, and by the time you're done with all these requirements, you're raising your operating expenses exponentially."

Receivership is a very painful and expensive process,If a client came to me and said, I want a receiver appointed for a board,' I'd say, Why don't you spend the money you'd spend on me to conduct a political campaign to fill the board?' The receiver will do only what the court allows it to do and charge $150-$300 per hour while not necessarily having the best interest of the community at heart. It would be a tremendous burden and expense."

[terracore]

quote:

---

Originally posted by KeaauRich

quote:

---

Originally posted by unknownjulie

I belong in one in NM and most everyone pays their dues, and the roads are regularly maintained. It's too bad, if the vote in Orchidland turned out this way.

---

I suspect one significant difference is the owners of the NM properties probably live there, or live nearby (relatively speaking). Many mainland investor-owners of Orchidland lots don't feel the responsibility to pay for road maintenance on properties they never visit. Couple the high rate of non-payers with the low fee, and the result is the mess we're in now.

Edited to add:

Terracore, you wrote "The neighbors down the way have a bunch of dwellings on one lot. I don't know how many families live there but the traffic is constant. I don't know if they pay their road fees or not, but it hardly seems fair that I could pay $900 for little traffic while they pay $300 for lots of traffic." By your logic, mainland owners who don't live here shouldn't have to pay any road fees because they don't generate any traffic.

---

I disagree. If you own a lot you should pay your road fees regardless of where you live.

However if you own 10 lots and only have one house and one car, should your road fees be $3,000/year? That is one way to guarantee the owner won't pay.

What if you own 10 lots and get them rezoned into one large lot so your road fees are only $300/year, but the rhetorical neighbor across the road also owns 10 lots but hasn't had them rezoned yet so his fees are $3000/year. How are they going to deal with the questions of fractional ownership of the roads when the county can change the number of lots and their sizes?

My point is, its easy to ignore these questions when the road fees are $65/year/lot. It's impossible to ignore them when the road fees are $300/year/lot. And where does it end? Once the $300 threshold is passed, what is next? $500 per lot for those who pay, and zero for those who have never paid? How many dollars have been collected from the deadbeats? (I think the answer is zero).

If they want to raise the road fees, these questions need to be answered first. Otherwise people will vote no either at the ballot or with the checkbook. It looks like this has already happened.

Make the road fees fair and applicable to everybody, or else we'll keep voting no to raise them. This is just COMMON SENSE.

[unknownjulie]

I think I already paid close to 150 this year. The fees aren't 85- as far as I know.