chris
Full Member
Posts: 175
|
Post by chris on Jan 10, 2018 12:09:14 GMT -7
This thread is being started to encourage others to post their thoughts below. Can you cite examples of "GLA Nightmares", things that need to be addressed / changed with the formation of a new Glastonbury Landowners Association? The GLA, as it has existed, is broken beyond repair. Here is an example from California: In a fit of insanity, a California homeowners association has passed a rule that mandates homeowners keep their garage doors open during the day. The issue arose because one homeowner apparently had a family living in their garage which is against the rules. Some owners are simply ignoring the rules and others are opting to pay the $200 fine up front to keep their stuff behind a closed door. What is disturbing is that some homeowners are following the rule, making their homes vulnerable to theft while they are at work. Comment: This shows how horrible it is to live in a HOA-controlled neighborhood. This shows just how absurdly arbitrary and capricious the demands of HOAs can be. They could have just as well ruled that all garage doors must be kept shut, during certain hours. AVOID buying inside of a HOA. They are petty dictatorships! |
|
|
|
Post by AB on Jan 17, 2018 20:36:53 GMT -7
When we have members of the GLA board trying to be a city court, a county court, state court and federal court and then on top of that enforcing minor subdivision covenants when they are not landowners in those minor subdivisions and therefore have no standing, it is time to remove these incumbents: Leo Keeler, Kevin Newby and Mark Seaver who advocated such practices. We moved to the country to have a country life. We don't want these board members micromanaging, trespassing, and spying on people for their twisted agenda of control.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2018 10:22:22 GMT -7
WOW AB, are you ever in the dark!! Obviously you do not attend Board meetings or Committee meetings!! Which I happen to attend and you couldn’t be more mistaken if you tried!
Kevin, Dennis and Mark have REPEATLY STATED that GLA has NO jurisdiction or enforcement over subdivisions unless it pertains to the COVENANTS OF GLA. They have repeatly said that “landowners” in a subdivision must deal with their specific subdivision covenants, if they have any, and is NOT GLA’S responsibility.
Kevin Newby even wrote it in the NEW PROJECT REVIEW POLICY!!!! Dennis and Mark have repeatly cautioned others that certain issues exceed GLA authority!!! Where in heavens name are you getting this idea from, it certainly not from reality of actions taken! I know of one landowner that wanted another dwelling on his property that his subdivision didn’t allow and tried to blame Kevin and GLA. You see I was on the Project Review Committee at one time...were you?
There used to be a myriad of violations by Project Review Committees and Board decisions in the past and these 3 incumbents, Dennis, Kevin and Mark are trying to stop favortism and selective adherence! So, your information is totally wrong on so many levels.
During the Project Review process there have been projects that have violated subdivision covenants but NOT GLA covenants.
You and others, who don’t attend meetings, seem to be upset to be finally made to adhere to our governing documents that we all have a contract to follow! Maybe it would seem, when your asked to start obeying the rules, to be tyrannical rule?
Remember one thing, it was the developers of this Corporation and Community that MADE the rules. And I’m quite sure they wanted them followed or they wouldn’t have put them in our governing documents.
May I suggest you start educating yourself as a landowner on your Association’s governance by “actually” attending meetings and not listening to others who don’t attend also?? Or listen to those who have a bias or agenda??
Say hello at the next meeting, if you attend,
Sally
|
|
|
|
Post by leokeeler on Jan 24, 2018 11:21:30 GMT -7
Alaska is known as the best place to go if you do not want to live under regulations - lots of unregulated land, but none totally unregulated. Some lands in Montana have minimual (only County regulations).
In this forum there is a post of someone saying they came here "TO BE RULED" by the developer.
Others like AB seem to want to live the Alaska life style.
I moved here partially because there were covenants to protect the scenic values and quite living, and avoid having a pig farm or chicken ranch developed within feet of my windows. Covenants allowed me to stop the chicken ranch (rooster crowing constantly) but I did that on my own because the GLA Board did not fulfill their duties.
Several people asked me to run for the Board due to my knowledge of land laws, legal practices and ability to communicate - even when communicating unpopular requirements.
The GLA covenants are very unusual due to developer control held when the lands were first occupied, and developer control of the 1997 amendments.
Inconsistent, of lack of Boards following/applying/enforcing the covenants has divided the community and created conflicts between landowners.
Amending the existing covenants would be a great challenge, so would developing a new management process.
Even if new process are developed, all the original parcels that have been subdivided would be constrained/controlled by the 1997 covenants. That is due to all "minor subdivision" covenants stating the 1997 Covenants apply to each 4-5 acre track of the original 20 acre parcel and people purchasing those 4-5 acre tracks having the right to enforce the 1997 covenants themselves.
This union of the 1997 Covenants and "Minor Subdivision Covenants" creates unique legal situations that have yet to be tested in court.
I feel it is beneficial for the GLA Board (at least the Project Review Committee) to be aware of (not attempt to enforce) minor subdivision requirements.
Leo
|
|
