Another attempt is going to be made to lower the 75% vote now required to amend Bay Colony's Declaration. It certainly would be easier to get 60% to agree than to get 75%. On the other hand, if 75% of us agree on a change it is definitely more likely that the proposed change is truly necessary and desired by a significant majority of owners. Excellent examples of this ability to get out a 75% vote are the votes to refinance the Rec Bonds and to dissolve the Rec District.
Boards of Directors come and go. We all bought into Bay Colony with the Declaration we now have in place. Given the past history of some Boards and the relative ease with which any election can be and has been gerrymandered, your blogger is firmly against this proposal.
What's your opinion?
Who will shoot this down?
Has anyone calculated what this futile election will cost us?
(Following added 6/26:)
Any election to change our doc's should be structured so it's bullet proofed against corruption. If not, the results will probably be challenged. An honestly run election will unquestionably fail to get the necessary 75%.
Who will shoot this down?
- Owners now renting their units
- Those who think they might want to rent out in the future
- Those concerned that rental restrictions would impact their ability to sell or sales prices for their unit.
- The apathetic who wouldn't vote if a gun were at their head.
Has anyone calculated what this futile election will cost us?
20 comments:
Charles:
Are you against the 2nd proposal, which you neglected to mention, that BCC should limit the number of rentals we have in the community?
Jack
Since the foreign biuyers are taking over more of our community and they don't give a damn about voting on anything, we're screwed. It means that if another Rec hall burns down, we can't change a damned thing - it has to be rebuilt EXACTLY as the original plans showed - can't even change a door to make it wider for ADA accessibility. The same old stupid saunas go back in and the A/C remains in the walls instead of the ceiling.
PURE CRAP.
We NEED that ability to change what's needed. If people won't vote with 75% needed, they sure as hell won't vote with 60% either.
Do you really WANT to see BCC turned into a rental community? We need to change those Docs to restrict further rentals.
When I bought in here, I sure as hell didn't expect to have half my building as rentals, filthy trash rooms thanx to tenants - and I didn't plan on having prison parolees as my neighbors!
Get a life Char.lie - get on the same page as the rest of us or hang up your hat. Your blog is getting less relevant to the community with every new entry. It hust isn't "with it" much anymore.
You're right - we all bought into BCC under the same Declaration (Documents).
But you sure have a short memory Charles.
When you sued BCC back in the early 2000's over a Special Assessmemt, don't you remember what Judge Skolnick said?
He said MOST condo communities update their Documents every 5 years or so - OUR Declaration was so out of date that it was almost useless - so much was totally out-of-date and not in keeping with current law. He suggested that we get busy and update it.
Because our laws are as outdated as a "buggy-whip", YOU didn't win your lawsuit against BCC - but then. we couldn't totally sink you either - so we both ended up paying our own expenses and it was a total waste of money because YOU objected to something that the rest of BCC wanted.
ARE YOU GOING TO SUE BCC AGAIN IF THE BOARD GOES AHEAD WITH THEIR PLANS TO UPDATE OUR DOCUMENTS???
Oh HO! Charlie - you're a fine one to talk about waste of money (look what YOU cost BCC with YOUR frivolous lawsuit way back when!)
It's ironic - you ask for comments, but when you get comments that don't support YOUR way of thinking, you attempt to shoot down everyone else's logic.
You ask WHO will shoot this proposed Document change down and you put #1 as owners now renting their units. You aren't much in the know: MANY landlords in the past two years are foreign investors who have NEVER seen the property - DON'T even speak English so they NEVER vote when a voting package is mailed to them in S. America or Italy or wherever. They have no idea what it says - whether it's a proxy vote for Reserves or the Election ballot.
#2 MIGHT be a possibility.
#3 is totally ridiculous thinking - NO-ONE will buy in a heavily-rented area (except for investors for more renting), so consequently sales prices are lower than if it's a resident-owner community with pride of ownership (if they go to sell, they'll get less just because of that). Why do you think investors LOVE BCC? Our prices are down the toilet.
#4 - no need in insult people by calling us residents apathetic. Just because we haven't supported some of YOUR ideas, we're apathetic??? Don't go there, Charlie. Play nice. You're not ALWAYS right - and many times you aren't on the same wave-length as what most others in BCC think or want.
As to "calculated cost" - I would guess no more than the mailing out of the Proxy ballots for the November Budget meeting.
So, action to prevent a corrupt Board of Directors from imposing special assessments at will is "frivolous'?
Nineteen out of 640 owners show up for a BOD meeting and I'm "insulting"
all owners for labeling them apathetic?
How about some rational comments for a change?
I'd like to hear arguments as to why landlords would necessarily vote against limiting the number of future landlords. We are very close percentage-wise to becoming a rental community. If, as mentioned earlier, that depresses prices, wouldn't it be in the interest of landlords who already got in to vote in favor of a limit to see their investment value increase and, to be able to raise rents? Jack
An interesting question about how existing BCC landlords would vote. Probably depends on how the limitation is stated.
Would existing landlords be grandfathered in and allowed to rent their units regardless of rental percentages or would they be unable to rent until the percentage fell? If they lost a tenant might they be stuck with an unrentable apartment?
We need some more detail on this proposal.
Is it possible that, once the required percentage for documents change is made, efforts will be made to eliminate our doc's stipulation that special assessments can ONLY be made for genuine emergencies?
Would we be looking forward to frequent, Board imposed assessments to improve the boozing conditions?
Charlie:
The only items that I can think of that are fair game for special assessments are those things we don't collect reserves for--the road, roofs, and the seawall--and damage cause by storms or some other Act of God. I may have left something off the list, but it would be total insanity to push a special assessment for anything less.
Yup, the last time the BOD tried to force us to pay an "emergency" special assessment, it resulted in a law suit.
The only special assessments should be for actual emergencies which can not wait for a BOD meeting and a budget modification.
I am strongly against any attempt to change the special assessment restrictions existing in our Doc's. The past attempts by former and present Board members to impose an illegal assessment certainly show what would happen if the "emergency" qualification were lifted.
Another matter that would incline some owners to vote against lowering required vote percentage to change BCC Doc's is the dockage fees.
Some owners are all for increasing the dockage fees. While this would provide very little addition to BCC income, it might have a disastrous effect on unit sales.
Probably the most important BCC amenity is the availability of inexpensive dockage. Many short-sighted owners would like to increase the fees to an unrealistic level. Do we want this?
Speaking of the Board and the agenda.
I received the agenda by e-mail.
What did it say NOTHING!
I have NO IDEA what will be discussed.
Very smoke AND mirrors type of agenda.
I guess it is a secret unless you go sit through the BS. Notice that only the same ol, same ol click goes.
I wouldn't be caught dead at one again.
JIM BOY said: the landlords are from other countries and would not vote and do not even know about our docs. BY NOT VOTING AT ALL..............WILL INDEED SHOOT DOWN THE VOTE...
I have to agree with Charles on that one....
How do you get 75%a if the landlords do not bother to vote....................subtract 128 votes right there...for your needed 75%.
Anonymous Two - forget the 128 votes - we're now up to 158 renters! Two more and we have 25% of our community as rentals. (Why so many? Our stupid Documents - that SHOULD HAVE BEEN UPDATED AND CHANGED years AGO - DON'T HAVE A TOP BUMBER TO CAP OFF THE RENTALS)
If we needed 75% to vote on ANYTHING - changing bathrooms to ADA accessible, for instance - we'd have to have EVERY SINGLE NON-RENTER unit to vote.
We've just about lost control of our own community. Thank gawd the Rec District is over with - I doubt if we'd get it through now.
Who is this Jack? He seems like another Obama..........smooth talker but another
tyrant in sheep's clothing. Is he the one
on the board..........watch out ..........
He wants to take over and rule.
Hey last Anonymous - looks like you have the same vendetta-mentality that Charlie has against Saundra. Guess you don't get - or read - the Informer newsletter?
You'll see that Jack (yes - he IS on the Board) is probably (so far) the BEST Treasurer that BCC has had in years. He seems to be honestly trying to SAVE BCC money and get our money's worth for what's being spent.
Between him and our newest (better) President, Phil - I feel we're in damned good hands for a change. The only sour note is our inept Manager - she's paid way too much for what we get in return.
And no, I haven't fallen off any turnip trucks lately. I've lived in here for years and seen it all and heard it all. I have two good eyes and ears and unlike a lot of "sheeple" in here ....I THINK.
Maybe you should do a bit of soul-searching and thinking too, before you make subtle and veiled comments. That's known as either slander or libel and simply isn't nice. Reflects badly back on you (is that why you've signed in as "Anonymous"?)
Things seem to be going fairly smoothly right now - this doesn't please you? Are you one of those people who aren't happy unless you're stirring the shit? Is this how you get your jollies? Shame on you!
Gee - this reminds me of a woman who said her eyesight was going and she didn't remember names too good. When she was greeted by someone she didn't recognize or remember (and who obviously knew HER), she would brightly say, "Well Hi There!" She giggled and say "there are a LOT of people named 'There' ... "
Well, it sure seems like we have a LOT of people named "Anonymous" here in BCC. Guess it's safer that way. You don't want your car keyed or painted by "anonymous" night-time stalkers.
It's a sad reflection on today's world where your neighbor is actually your enemy - just because he or she doesn't think you should have an opinion that differs from someone who thinks they know it all.
But, it makes for giggle-time reading. Obviously Jimboy is an "anonymous" name too, but what the hell - at least he has some imagination.
Ya know - it's fun to try to figure out just who these "anonymous" people really are - and I think I'm getting real good at my guesses. Much fun!
For the record...........JimBoy is not a male! She does not seem to support her buddie, Charles anymore, but the new board. That is a change and no vendettas like usual.
Dear Joel - er - JOYOUS.
Joel isn't a male.
Maybe a "girlie-man"???
ROFLMAO.
We have a question.
Last Sunday, we saw a moving truck up in building 4. How come this truck was let in on a Sunday?
We were told Security got special permission to let them in because it was one of the realtor roshele's sales.
Who gave her permission to break the rules?
Post a Comment