Posts: 1,406
Threads: 25
Joined: Jun 2013
Greggor Ilagan and snorkle were on the same stage at the last HPP membership meeting, in front of a huge crowd.
Greggor leaned towards the snork and said, “Do you know that with one little wave of my hand I can make every person in this crowd go wild with joy? This joy will not be a momentary display, but will go deep into their hearts and they’ll forever speak of this day and rejoice!”
snorkle replied, “I seriously doubt that ~ with one little wave of your hand? Show me!”
So Ilagan backhanded him and knocked him off the stage.
Posts: 173
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2014
I see that the GM has placed boulders in front of a proposed driveway on Paradise.
This owner has stamped plans from the county and the Association can't do anything about it.
Even though they modified the bylaws to state this can't be done it has no standing with the county and will not hold up if brought to court. The requirement for the location of a driveway is a CC&R not a bylaw, bylaws are the laws that RUN the Association and has nothing do to with civil construction.
Now that the Association has placed boulders in the R/W (for what ever reason) they can't stop owners from doing the same. Therefore, the whole encroachment restriction plan goes out the window. If the Association can place things in the R/W anyone else can.
Where is the road traffic safety committee?
Posts: 1,265
Threads: 10
Joined: Sep 2014
The Bylaws driveway enforcement measures supersede the County. We are a private subdivision and the County agreed they have no jurisdiction. The County was called and they stated that all the owner has to do is call in a change of his address to the cross road. Easy peasy.
An RTSC member has spoken to the GM. The GM does not want to change the position of the rocks to ensure that no progress will be done on the owner's driveway.
Rocks placed by owners on HPPOA easements CAN be enforced. The easements belong to HPPOA, not individual owners.
Posts: 1,955
Threads: 100
Joined: Aug 2005
The driveway restriction is a toss up if it goes to court. Because the association can NOT create a deed restriction after the fact.
Posts: 173
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2014
quote:
Originally posted by mermaid53
The Bylaws driveway enforcement measures supersede the County. We are a private subdivision and the County agreed they have no jurisdiction. The County was called and they stated that all the owner has to do is call in a change of his address to the cross road. Easy peasy.
An RTSC member has spoken to the GM. The GM does not want to change the position of the rocks to ensure that no progress will be done on the owner's driveway.
Rocks placed by owners on HPPOA easements CAN be enforced. The easements belong to HPPOA, not individual owners.
Not so fast.
The roads and R/W in increment 1 are owned by each land owner not the association. These rocks fall in increment 1.
I thought the reason for the encroachment policy was for safety, if a vehicle hits rocks placed by the association would cause a liability and for that fact the mailboxes also fall under things placed in the R/W by the association.
Posts: 14,115
Threads: 424
Joined: Aug 2012
We are a private subdivision and the County agreed they have no jurisdiction.
This, right here, is one of those things that just Needs To Stop.
County will assert jurisdiciton wherever and whenever it suits their goals. Example: if the public is allowed to drive on something, then County is allowed to enforce traffic rules there. Blocking a road is "encroachment" which requires a permit.
If there is really no jurisdiction over private subdivisions, County doesn't need to bother sending any building inspectors, right? Except that they do.
Posts: 175
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2014
Shockwaverider and Mermaid brought to our attention that 2 board members have not been participating even though they signed an oath. This makes them negligent to their district and to the whole of HPPOA. We all understand emergencies happen and sometimes other things are a higher priority and should need a pre arranged excuse. Members have received written reprimands for far less than these board members actions. It they are going to reprimand a member, they need to be consistent and follow procedures. It is essential to document(a written reprimand for example) and create a file on actions/inaction's properly for a reprimand or dismissal. They can not make excuses for some and not others.
Posts: 218
Threads: 10
Joined: Dec 2005
From mermaid:
The Bylaws driveway enforcement measures supersede the County. We are a private subdivision and the County agreed they have no jurisdiction. The County was called and they stated that all the owner has to do is call in a change of his address to the cross road. Easy peasy.
First and foremost, no subdivision bylaws can "supersede" County laws. Only State and Federal laws can do so.
When did the County agree that it has no jurisdiction? As part of the call mentioned above about the owner changing his/her address? The person on the official end of that call said what would be easiest from his/her point of view. Who was that person? What authority did s/he have to give such assurances? Was this pursued to get a formal agreement in writing? When it suits the County to do so, "the secretary will disavow all knowledge" of what was said and pursue its agenda. Remember what was going to happen to some of HPP's roads when the lava threatened to cross Rte. 130, no matter that HPP is a "private subdivision".
Third and most important, if, as hppwatchdog has stated, this property is in Increment 1, the Association does not own the rights of way. It does have responsibility for maintaining them, as a result of collecting road maintenance fees, but cannot dictate what is or is not to be done along the sides of the roads.
And where is the Road Traffic Safety Committee? It has demanded that residents remove flowers from the sides of the roads, but is turning a blind eye to large rocks? By doing so, it is courting a serious liability problem (and it smacks of hypocrisy to me).
Posts: 299
Threads: 13
Joined: Jan 2008
Why wasn't the new General Manager at this meeting? I realize it may not actually be part of his job description but all the managers I have known who were responsible to elected boards made sure to attend all meetings the boards were at as well as any community interface meetings so they could get the perspectives of the people the board was supposed to be representing. It is a great way to find out how well the board represents its constituents and also to see what they are trying to ignore. Successful managers often times try to assist in shaping the conversations so the take away message I get is that the new manager is lacking in leadership skills unless there was some dire emergency that kept him from attending.
Also, I have a few questions about the process of the meeting:
Why was the owner input put at the very end of the agenda, after the 1 1/2 hour guest politicians' presentations, after all the committee reports, after old business, and after new business? Every board I have served on or meetings I have attended seem to try to get the member concerns and input early on. I suggest that at the next General Membership meeting that someone will make a motion to let the membership speak first.
Also, why was the concept of completely changing the road maintenance and construction process from paving new roads to tar and feathering everything, even existing asphalt roads left till the very end of the meeting without sufficient notice or information to the taxpayers of this multi-million dollar per year corporation based largely on annual road tax bills? Does anyone actually think they will get away with making major policy changes overnight without any real member discussion or input?
Look, when one of the past boards wanted to disallow new driveway access and egress to the main collector roads (Maku'u, Paradise, Kaloli, and maybe Shower) They put it out to a full membership vote.
So whay does this board think it can (apparently) change long range planning from "we want to pave all the roads"to "we want to replace all future paving from asphalt to tar and feather"? So what are we paying such high road taxes for? And is there a mechanism (vote?) to cap road fees, or like education make them performance based? I know that in the past year my short dead end street was not adequately maintained. It was never correctly graded with fill materials added and why should I be paying $275 or hard earned money for marginal service at best? My short road did not receive anywhere near the $11,000 in road fees paid by the 40 property owners and is there a procedural way to make our road fees all last year performance based? I know there was some sort of court decision that allows private subdivisions to collect rtaod fees but from where I stand it looks like most of the money is being spent on something (anything) besides roadway maintenance. The current prez did a manager report for the guy who didn't bother to show (THE GM) up and said they had done 16 miles of something. Was that grading? Was that for all of last year? I certainly didn't see any new asphalt roadways constructed. Did I miss something? Where did roughly 2 million dollars of road fees collected last year go? Please share if you have any clear perspectives or insider info. Aloha.
Posts: 1,265
Threads: 10
Joined: Sep 2014
Janet, a committee can only recommend safety issues to the GM and mgmt. Watchdog knows this all too well so I don't understand his pokes at RTSC. RTSC is powerless after it's made it's recommendations and RTSC in past times felt they were spinning their wheels to thoughts of disbanding over it. It's up to the board and GM after recommendations are made to put it to action. You must've missed my earlier post in this thread where RTSC had asked for the rocks to be moved further back in the easement. The GM called the county before taking action.
steve1, I agree w/all that you said but remember, the chip seal wasn't even on the agenda. It took a concerned member who's been attending board mtgs and hearing the fugitive dust committee's reports and discussions to understand where the board is at w/this. An email letter was sent to board members presenting the stance to involve the membership in this decision. Since no response occurred from the board, it was brought up under owner input. The FDC chair's husband did make a report at the Feb General Membership mtg but they weren't that far along yet in proposing the board go this route w/chip seal.
When the board is wanting to deviate from asphalt to chip seal as a form of improving our roads and w/a hefty price tag, the membership needs to vote on it. The majority board feels differently.
A motion was on the floor and the preliminary vote of the membership showed they wanted the board to make a presentation at the following membership mtg including all costs. After clarifying the verbage in the motion to include all costs, a final tally of quorum was done and just before the final vote was to happen, the FDC and her supporters got up and left the room helping lose the quorum.
Per RR's, the motion is still on the floor and should be picked up where we left off at the following membership mtg. So all is frozen until then. The board should not be moving forward until the motion is carried out at the next meeting. It's unethical to leave a meeting when you know the quorum is that close that if you left, it would stop all action. Fortunately we have rules in place that ensures the motion didn't die, only delayed it. It was recently proposed that the board go ahead and make a presentation to the membership in Oct instead of waiting for the membership to vote for it. It'd save everyone time.
|
