To the Residents of Ransom Oaks:
My name is Pete Calinski. I am running for a position on the Ransom Oaks Board of Directors. For the last eleven months I have been doing everything I possibly can to ensure that we all can continue using the Ransom Oaks bike path. I can be far more effective in this battle if I am a member of the board.
From all my encounters with Ransom Oaks residents since this issue arose, I found that there are three discrete groups of residents with three sets of priorities regarding the bike path.
(1) All of the residents would like to retain use of the bike path.
(2) Those that live along the bike path have a larger concern. They have to put up with the actions of golfers that don’t practice good golf etiquette. Things like driving in their yards, damaging their property, swearing, and even urinating in public.
(3) Then there are the properties that are encroached on by the bike path. Those residents, in addition to the previous priorities, are also concerned about liability.
I intend to resolve this bike path issue in a way satisfies the concerns of all.
Some residents have expressed concern that the Golf Course has had to put up with the residents. Well, if we loose access to the bike path, the golf course won’t have to put up with us anymore but the residents in (2) and (3) above will still have to put up with the golfers.
I need your vote. To vote for me, either,
(1) On the proxy you received in the mail, fill in "Pete Calinski" next to the phrase “(insert name)" and then get the proxy to me (preferred) or mail it in. Each card mailed in costs the ROCC $1.00 and I can ensure none gets lost.
(2) Attend the meeting on January 11 at the Greenwoods Recreation Facility and cast your vote. Proof of residence will be required.
(3) If you sent in your proxy or lost it or it DID NOT have either Gene Zambarda or Pete Calinski in the (insert name) field, do as in (2) above and ask to retract the proxy at that time.
Thank you so much,
Pete
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Sunday, November 15, 2009
ROCC Meeting November 9, 2009
About six residents attended the meeting. Two or three were there concerning missing or nonfunctioning gas lights. (Just as an aside, these things have been a problem for a long time. Why doesn't the board just step in and repair them. I don't think anybody has looked at the cost. It could be minimal.)
Here are some other topics that came up at the Monday 11/9 meeting:
(1) I described my encounter with the Golf Course owner. One board member asked me why I was continuing to walk the path and enrage (or some such term) the golf course.
My answer was, because I want to demonstrate that we have not surrendered our access to the bike path. And as for the threat that I could be arrested for trespassing, I addressed that and, since some of you expressed concern for me, I will explain my reasoning in a separate email. But for now I will just say that a resident at the meeting understands what I am doing and said, "Let him get arrested, I'll pay the fine". Well, we will split the fine.
(2) We hope to meet soon with the ROCC lawyer to compose a letter that says, because the bike path is on many resident's property, residents will continue to use the bike path. I have also been thinking, rather than just that letter, maybe we should ask the lawyer how to best leverage this ownership to our advantage.
(3) I asked some questions to get a better understanding of how the January 11 election will be conducted. I am concerned about how difficult it could be to get votes cast for our candidates. The only way for a resident to cast a vote for any candidate is for that resident to attend the January 11 meeting and cast their ballot.
If they cannot attend the meeting they can mail in a proxy BUT the proxy can ONLY be assigned to the board president or another board member. A resident cannot vote another resident's proxy. Since in a typical election, very few people show up to vote, the board typically has enough proxies to carry the election their way.
(4) I asked how a person becomes a candidate. There was some discussion about the person providing the president a written description of capabilities, etc. I pointed out that it sounded like the board controlled the candidates. The letter requirement was withdrawn. I said I want to be a candidate and would have two more candidates to run for the three open positions.
(5) Gene Zambarda expressed interest in being appointed to an open board
position. This position would not be one of those to be filled in the next
election, it extends for another year. In my opinion, Gene is an ideal
candidate. He and I have discussed many Ransom Oaks issues, from enhancing
the appearance of our area to the bike path. He has the time, the initiative, and the ability to become a real asset to Ransom Oaks. We may need a demonstration of support by us to get him on the board. I may have to call on you all in the future to help make this happen.
Pete
Here are some other topics that came up at the Monday 11/9 meeting:
(1) I described my encounter with the Golf Course owner. One board member asked me why I was continuing to walk the path and enrage (or some such term) the golf course.
My answer was, because I want to demonstrate that we have not surrendered our access to the bike path. And as for the threat that I could be arrested for trespassing, I addressed that and, since some of you expressed concern for me, I will explain my reasoning in a separate email. But for now I will just say that a resident at the meeting understands what I am doing and said, "Let him get arrested, I'll pay the fine". Well, we will split the fine.
(2) We hope to meet soon with the ROCC lawyer to compose a letter that says, because the bike path is on many resident's property, residents will continue to use the bike path. I have also been thinking, rather than just that letter, maybe we should ask the lawyer how to best leverage this ownership to our advantage.
(3) I asked some questions to get a better understanding of how the January 11 election will be conducted. I am concerned about how difficult it could be to get votes cast for our candidates. The only way for a resident to cast a vote for any candidate is for that resident to attend the January 11 meeting and cast their ballot.
If they cannot attend the meeting they can mail in a proxy BUT the proxy can ONLY be assigned to the board president or another board member. A resident cannot vote another resident's proxy. Since in a typical election, very few people show up to vote, the board typically has enough proxies to carry the election their way.
(4) I asked how a person becomes a candidate. There was some discussion about the person providing the president a written description of capabilities, etc. I pointed out that it sounded like the board controlled the candidates. The letter requirement was withdrawn. I said I want to be a candidate and would have two more candidates to run for the three open positions.
(5) Gene Zambarda expressed interest in being appointed to an open board
position. This position would not be one of those to be filled in the next
election, it extends for another year. In my opinion, Gene is an ideal
candidate. He and I have discussed many Ransom Oaks issues, from enhancing
the appearance of our area to the bike path. He has the time, the initiative, and the ability to become a real asset to Ransom Oaks. We may need a demonstration of support by us to get him on the board. I may have to call on you all in the future to help make this happen.
Pete
Thursday, November 5, 2009
I Met the Golf Course Owner Yesterday and He Wasn't Very Nice
Well, I was walking the bike path yesterday. I take a route that follows sections that are owned by residents. There was a crew removing leaves and one of the men informed me that the bike path was closed. I told him that we had been informed by the golf course lawyer that we could use the bikepath (as long as there were no golfers and I didn't see a single one that day). He told me to take it up with the owner and pointed to a man further down the path.
I walked that way and he shut off his leave blower and told me the bike path was closed. I told him the same thing I had told the employee, your lawyer informed us we could use the bike path. He denied it saying he talks to his lawyer everyday and the lawyer never said that.
There was more conversation including his asking me if I was "Pete", to which I replied in the affirmative.
He also said he would have me arrested for trespassing.
I informed him that he didn't own the bike path.
He said he did.
I said we have the survey.
He said he has the survey.
He said he has easements.
I could have said the easements (where ever he may have them) may give him rights to use the bike path but they do not give him the right to exclude others but by then he restarted his leaf blower so I went my way.
And so it goes.
Pete
I walked that way and he shut off his leave blower and told me the bike path was closed. I told him the same thing I had told the employee, your lawyer informed us we could use the bike path. He denied it saying he talks to his lawyer everyday and the lawyer never said that.
There was more conversation including his asking me if I was "Pete", to which I replied in the affirmative.
He also said he would have me arrested for trespassing.
I informed him that he didn't own the bike path.
He said he did.
I said we have the survey.
He said he has the survey.
He said he has easements.
I could have said the easements (where ever he may have them) may give him rights to use the bike path but they do not give him the right to exclude others but by then he restarted his leaf blower so I went my way.
And so it goes.
Pete
Friday, October 16, 2009
ROCC Meeting October 13, 2009
News from the meeting:
(1) We had 6 residents attend the meeting including a new couple that are firmly convinced that the actions of the golfers has become atrocious since the residents have stopped using the bike path. They read a full page letter they will be sending to the board, the golf course, and the Amherst police department.
It describes how conditions have deteriorated over the summer months. They have reached their worst level since this couple moved in during the 1980s. The number of golfers urinating around their house and the incidents of obscene language has increased significantly. They are convinced that before, when we individuals and families were walking the bike path, the golfers were less likely to display such disrespect for residents.
They described one case where a car alarm went off somewhere in the neighborhood. A golfer kept yelling "shut the f... up" at the top of his lungs. He keep repeating this as he teed off, returned to his cart, and drove off.
There doesn't seem to be a good solution to this other than recording the actions, getting the cart number and hoping the Amherst police can get to the club house before the golfer finishes. I wonder how many other residents have to put up with this while the golf course no longer has to"put up with" us. And how much worse it can get.
(2) There is some confusion about letters the board may write. It wasn't clear if one letter would be in support of the deteriorating actions by the golfers and a second letter would retract the December 13 letter saying we didn't have access to the bike path. Perhaps the second letter was just being "considered".
Since some of us stayed for the second phase of the meeting wherein theboard conducted its business and nothing came up about any letter, we don'tknow where this stands. But you can bet it has, or is in the process of, petering out. We'll see what can be done to keep it alive.
The second letter is based on the new information that many sections of the bike path do not belong to the golf course. Even if the golf course may have easements to some subset of the bike path, the easement does not give the golf course the right to exclude us from using those sections.
(3) We heard that 13 of the 29 residents responded to the "encroachment"letter so far. It requested responses by October 15. There was a discussion about how many surveys were provided, which had easements, and what the surveys showed. Many showed no bike path encroachment however, it is a known fact that the bike path crosses many of those very properties. All this serves to exemplify the confusion around this issue. A good title and boundary dispute lawyer should be able to spin these facts into a very strong case for us.
(4) We heard again from one board member how "good" our present lawyer is. It is interesting that the new couple, who never heard any of this before, came to the conclusion that we need a new lawyer to "take a fresh look" at this. I don't understand why the board doesn't see this.
(5) That same board member, at one point jumped up and shouted, "Enough is enough with this foolishness", and "Shut up, I'm talking". When in fact he was interrupting one of the residents. I pointed out that there are provisions for removing a board member and they are not very onerous. I also pointed out that many many residents have asked me questions like, (a) Does the board realize they were elected to represent us? (b) Whose side is the board on, ours or the golf course's? (c) Which board members are on our side and which are on the side of the golf course?
I need to put in my $0.02 here. I believe we should consider forming a "probike path" slate of candidates to replace those board members that are against or even passive to this issue. As I understand it, there are three positions up for a vote this January. One of those is held by our strongest supporter. That leaves two open for us. Also, a board member with an additional year term has resigned. I am considering asking to be appointed to fill that position. I don't know if I can pull that off, but I do know that I would need a lot of support from you to do it.
(1) We had 6 residents attend the meeting including a new couple that are firmly convinced that the actions of the golfers has become atrocious since the residents have stopped using the bike path. They read a full page letter they will be sending to the board, the golf course, and the Amherst police department.
It describes how conditions have deteriorated over the summer months. They have reached their worst level since this couple moved in during the 1980s. The number of golfers urinating around their house and the incidents of obscene language has increased significantly. They are convinced that before, when we individuals and families were walking the bike path, the golfers were less likely to display such disrespect for residents.
They described one case where a car alarm went off somewhere in the neighborhood. A golfer kept yelling "shut the f... up" at the top of his lungs. He keep repeating this as he teed off, returned to his cart, and drove off.
There doesn't seem to be a good solution to this other than recording the actions, getting the cart number and hoping the Amherst police can get to the club house before the golfer finishes. I wonder how many other residents have to put up with this while the golf course no longer has to"put up with" us. And how much worse it can get.
(2) There is some confusion about letters the board may write. It wasn't clear if one letter would be in support of the deteriorating actions by the golfers and a second letter would retract the December 13 letter saying we didn't have access to the bike path. Perhaps the second letter was just being "considered".
Since some of us stayed for the second phase of the meeting wherein theboard conducted its business and nothing came up about any letter, we don'tknow where this stands. But you can bet it has, or is in the process of, petering out. We'll see what can be done to keep it alive.
The second letter is based on the new information that many sections of the bike path do not belong to the golf course. Even if the golf course may have easements to some subset of the bike path, the easement does not give the golf course the right to exclude us from using those sections.
(3) We heard that 13 of the 29 residents responded to the "encroachment"letter so far. It requested responses by October 15. There was a discussion about how many surveys were provided, which had easements, and what the surveys showed. Many showed no bike path encroachment however, it is a known fact that the bike path crosses many of those very properties. All this serves to exemplify the confusion around this issue. A good title and boundary dispute lawyer should be able to spin these facts into a very strong case for us.
(4) We heard again from one board member how "good" our present lawyer is. It is interesting that the new couple, who never heard any of this before, came to the conclusion that we need a new lawyer to "take a fresh look" at this. I don't understand why the board doesn't see this.
(5) That same board member, at one point jumped up and shouted, "Enough is enough with this foolishness", and "Shut up, I'm talking". When in fact he was interrupting one of the residents. I pointed out that there are provisions for removing a board member and they are not very onerous. I also pointed out that many many residents have asked me questions like, (a) Does the board realize they were elected to represent us? (b) Whose side is the board on, ours or the golf course's? (c) Which board members are on our side and which are on the side of the golf course?
I need to put in my $0.02 here. I believe we should consider forming a "probike path" slate of candidates to replace those board members that are against or even passive to this issue. As I understand it, there are three positions up for a vote this January. One of those is held by our strongest supporter. That leaves two open for us. Also, a board member with an additional year term has resigned. I am considering asking to be appointed to fill that position. I don't know if I can pull that off, but I do know that I would need a lot of support from you to do it.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Good News, the Letter is Printed
We got an email from Mark Walsh, the ROCC board President yesterday. He
said the majority of the board agreed with Gene's version of the letter that
requests assistance from those encroached on by the golf course.
It includes a request to return the response by October 15 and a space to
indicate if they have submitted their surveys, will submit one, or don't
have one.
I printed all 29 of them and delivered them to Mark today around 5:30 PM.
He will sign and mail them.
We are on our way!!!
Now to make sure we get the right kind of lawyer on this.
Pete
said the majority of the board agreed with Gene's version of the letter that
requests assistance from those encroached on by the golf course.
It includes a request to return the response by October 15 and a space to
indicate if they have submitted their surveys, will submit one, or don't
have one.
I printed all 29 of them and delivered them to Mark today around 5:30 PM.
He will sign and mail them.
We are on our way!!!
Now to make sure we get the right kind of lawyer on this.
Pete
Friday, September 18, 2009
September 09 ROCC Board Meeting
I'll give you the bottom line first. We will draft a letter to the residents that are encroached on by the bike path. The letter will be from the ROCC board president and ask those residents to allow the board to use their property rights as leverage to restore our rights to the bike path. I am amazed how the board still does not perceive how important this is to the residents and how urgently we want it resolved.
Full report, about 16 residents attended the meeting. As suggested by members, I summarized the current state by describing how approximately 31 properties are encroached on by the bike path.
I also tried to document that we need a new lawyer because the current one failed to properly perform his last action item (Now reported to cost $2500) and took eight months to find out that the Golf Course would not furnish their survey. Of course, I then went to the town and a few days later picked up that survey.
As a result of a lot of conversation and statements from the residents, it was agree that the president will send the letter described above. Having experience with how slowly the board acts, I requested a timeline for the letter. They proposed a month to draft the letter and a month to run it past the board. Thus my comment above about lack of urgency. After some protest by the attendees, a resident agreed to draft a letter and email it to the president.
This is a link to the list of properties crossed by the bike path: ClickHere
Other tidbits (please email me anything I forgot so I and add to this list).
(a) One resident expressed his frustration of how the board performs saying something like, "In the 15 or 20 years he has interacted with the board he has never seen it act in the interests of the residents. There always seems to be a hidden agenda that controls the board's actions. They do not represent the residents."
(b) Another said since we have now established that there is some question regarding rights to the bike path, the board should send a letter to the Golf Course stating that it is retracting the letter saying we do not have access to the bike path. We should also inform the residents that they should resume using the bike path. I thought I saw some board members (only 5 of the 9 board members were present) nod in agreement. Any bets on when we will ever see such letters?
(c) A board member said that the Golf Course lawyer told our lawyer a few months ago that he didn't think the golf course would mind if we used the bike path when there were no golfers. To which a resident reported that her husband jogs the path every morning before golf starts and twice this week he was told not to use the path.
A few of us found one board member to be particularly disturbing. He made statements like:
We don't have a case.
We can't pursue this any more.
The board won't fund 31 people that have faulty surveys.
In case anybody is interested, here is an excerpt from the Offering plan
that relates to removal of a board member: Click_Here
It requires a quorum, defined as: Click_Here
I wish we had more people show up. The board still doesn't "feel the need".
That is all I can think of for now.
Pete
Full report, about 16 residents attended the meeting. As suggested by members, I summarized the current state by describing how approximately 31 properties are encroached on by the bike path.
I also tried to document that we need a new lawyer because the current one failed to properly perform his last action item (Now reported to cost $2500) and took eight months to find out that the Golf Course would not furnish their survey. Of course, I then went to the town and a few days later picked up that survey.
As a result of a lot of conversation and statements from the residents, it was agree that the president will send the letter described above. Having experience with how slowly the board acts, I requested a timeline for the letter. They proposed a month to draft the letter and a month to run it past the board. Thus my comment above about lack of urgency. After some protest by the attendees, a resident agreed to draft a letter and email it to the president.
This is a link to the list of properties crossed by the bike path: ClickHere
Other tidbits (please email me anything I forgot so I and add to this list).
(a) One resident expressed his frustration of how the board performs saying something like, "In the 15 or 20 years he has interacted with the board he has never seen it act in the interests of the residents. There always seems to be a hidden agenda that controls the board's actions. They do not represent the residents."
(b) Another said since we have now established that there is some question regarding rights to the bike path, the board should send a letter to the Golf Course stating that it is retracting the letter saying we do not have access to the bike path. We should also inform the residents that they should resume using the bike path. I thought I saw some board members (only 5 of the 9 board members were present) nod in agreement. Any bets on when we will ever see such letters?
(c) A board member said that the Golf Course lawyer told our lawyer a few months ago that he didn't think the golf course would mind if we used the bike path when there were no golfers. To which a resident reported that her husband jogs the path every morning before golf starts and twice this week he was told not to use the path.
A few of us found one board member to be particularly disturbing. He made statements like:
We don't have a case.
We can't pursue this any more.
The board won't fund 31 people that have faulty surveys.
In case anybody is interested, here is an excerpt from the Offering plan
that relates to removal of a board member: Click_Here
It requires a quorum, defined as: Click_Here
I wish we had more people show up. The board still doesn't "feel the need".
That is all I can think of for now.
Pete
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Why the ROCC Board is Ignoring Us
I think I know why the board is ignoring us. They don't realize how many of us there are and how strongly we feel on this bike path issue. Not enough of us are speaking up at the meetings. Even when we have 20 or 30 residents present, only 4 or 5 say anything. Well, we need to remedy that.
The board has instituted a 3 minute rule; everyone gets to speak for 3 minutes. So I urge everyone to take some of their 3 minutes to show the board we are serious.
If you want the board to fund a new lawyer to represent us, TELL THEM!
If you want the board to provide funding of $5,000 or $10,000 to cover legal fees and other expenses, TELL THEM!
If you want (and I may regret this but "in for a dime, in for a dollar") me to coordinate the lawyer and other activities, TELL THEM! I don't want any payment. I have nothing to gain beyond rights to the path, but I sure want to succeed.
If you believe the board is ignoring the petition signed by over 200 residents, TELL THEM!
If you believe that the board has forgotten that they were elected to represent us, TELL THEM!
If you believe some members of the board are on the side of the golf course, TELL THEM they have to change!
If you want to know which board members are on the side of the residents, and which are on the side of the golf course, DEMAND they make it public! (Note, the board has an "unofficial policy" of presenting a "united front" to the residents.)
If you would vote to remove any board member that won't back these actions, TELL THEM! (Note, according to the offering plan, sections "5.06 Removal" a board member can be removed by a majority vote of a quorum and according to section "4.04 Quorum", a quorum is the LESSER of 1/10 OR 100 members.)
If you believe in just a few of these points, please make yourself heard. Print out a copy of this and take it with you to the meeting. Make a few extra copies to hand out to other attendees.
This has gone on too long. The meeting is Monday, 9/14, 7:00 PM Greenwood Rec. center.
Thanks,
Pete
The board has instituted a 3 minute rule; everyone gets to speak for 3 minutes. So I urge everyone to take some of their 3 minutes to show the board we are serious.
If you want the board to fund a new lawyer to represent us, TELL THEM!
If you want the board to provide funding of $5,000 or $10,000 to cover legal fees and other expenses, TELL THEM!
If you want (and I may regret this but "in for a dime, in for a dollar") me to coordinate the lawyer and other activities, TELL THEM! I don't want any payment. I have nothing to gain beyond rights to the path, but I sure want to succeed.
If you believe the board is ignoring the petition signed by over 200 residents, TELL THEM!
If you believe that the board has forgotten that they were elected to represent us, TELL THEM!
If you believe some members of the board are on the side of the golf course, TELL THEM they have to change!
If you want to know which board members are on the side of the residents, and which are on the side of the golf course, DEMAND they make it public! (Note, the board has an "unofficial policy" of presenting a "united front" to the residents.)
If you would vote to remove any board member that won't back these actions, TELL THEM! (Note, according to the offering plan, sections "5.06 Removal" a board member can be removed by a majority vote of a quorum and according to section "4.04 Quorum", a quorum is the LESSER of 1/10 OR 100 members.)
If you believe in just a few of these points, please make yourself heard. Print out a copy of this and take it with you to the meeting. Make a few extra copies to hand out to other attendees.
This has gone on too long. The meeting is Monday, 9/14, 7:00 PM Greenwood Rec. center.
Thanks,
Pete
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Results of the Analysis of the Survey
Last night I finished the analysis of the golf course survey. Believe it or not, there are 27 properties that are crossed by the bike path. Not all are private homes and some of them may have easements on them to allow the GOGC to use the bike path but most do not. According to a chart on the drawing, the golf course encroaches (their word not mine) for a total length of4,183.8 feet in 15 separate sections.
I have a call in to board member Tom Meldrum to turn the list over to him.
I'm not sure what the ROCC Board plans to do next. I think we should convince the board it is time to get a good lawyer to unite these residents and force the GOGC to back off.
I can't see any reason to wait any longer. Here it is August already and we have been forced off the bike path since November. I don't see why things should wait for even the next board meeting. I am going to push for action now. If things are not well on their way by the September meeting, I hope as many of you as possible can be there and bring others if you can. The board must be made to act. We can finish this issue here and now if we act.
Pete
I have a call in to board member Tom Meldrum to turn the list over to him.
I'm not sure what the ROCC Board plans to do next. I think we should convince the board it is time to get a good lawyer to unite these residents and force the GOGC to back off.
I can't see any reason to wait any longer. Here it is August already and we have been forced off the bike path since November. I don't see why things should wait for even the next board meeting. I am going to push for action now. If things are not well on their way by the September meeting, I hope as many of you as possible can be there and bring others if you can. The board must be made to act. We can finish this issue here and now if we act.
Pete
Sunday, August 16, 2009
August 10, 2009 ROCC Meeting Summary
Three main topics came up at the Monday 8/10/09 ROCC meeting. They centered on the fact that the bike path crosses resident's property and in some cases there is no easement in place to allow the GOGC access to the bike path.
Topic #1
Should the ROCC take advantage of this fact and use it as leverage to force the GOGC to negotiate?
Some say the ROCC should not get involved in this, it is up to those residents to take any action. My argument is the residents don't have a good reason to do that. Either separately or together, the expense of a lawyer would be a large cost just for the right to use the bike path. However, if the ROCC paid for the lawyer and ALL residents gained access to the bike path, the benefit relative to cost would be substantial. If you recall, when I collected signatures I asked residents if they consider this important enough to pay an additional $10 or $15 assessment to cover legal costs. Nearly 90% (17 out of 19) replied "yes". I doubt any additional assessment would actually be necessary; our position is strong enough that it would never go to court.
Topic #2
Are we getting adequate legal representation now?
I argued that we are not. Last November when the GOGC notified the ROCC lawyer that the Prudential mortgages were discharged, our lawyer did not look into any other reason why the GOGC could not block our access. Not the easement issue, not Adverse Possession, nor any other legal maneuver. In fact, in every case that I have heard of, "our" lawyer seems to argue the issue from the side of the GOGC not from our side. Anyone that has ever dealt with a lawyer knows they can take any "fact" and turn it to look good for the client and bad for the opposition. I have seen just the opposite from "our" lawyer.
Topic #3
Just what properties are crossed by the bike path and what easements are in place?
Ever since last November our lawyer has been asking the GOGC for "their survey" so we can find these properties. At the last meeting we were informed that the GOGC would not be providing that survey. Eight months late.
As I reported earlier, I made trips to the County Clerk, Amherst Town Hall and Amherst Highway Department. I reviewed various maps of resident's properties and the GOGC property. I concluded that indeed many residents do NOT have to allow the GOGC to use the bike path.
It seems there is a desire to find ALL of the properties like this rather then just go with the few I found so far. In discussing this the survey came up again and the need to use it to find those properties. I pulled out one of the maps I got from the Highway Department and lo and behold, it is the long sought after survey!
It shows the bike path wandering on and off various resident's property. According to a chart on the drawing this occurs at 14 separate points and totals over 4,000 feet in length!!! No wonder the GOGC didn't want us to see the survey!
I took the action item to identify the properties where this occurs and provide the list to the board.
Which begs the question, why didn't our lawyer know that the maps are readily
available? Why did he wait all these months without pressuring the GOGC to provide the survey?
To summarize, large sections of the bike path cross resident's property. If we can get the ROCC board to hire a good real estate lawyer we can get the GOGC to reverse the position that we cannot use the bike path. Simple as that.
Pete
Topic #1
Should the ROCC take advantage of this fact and use it as leverage to force the GOGC to negotiate?
Some say the ROCC should not get involved in this, it is up to those residents to take any action. My argument is the residents don't have a good reason to do that. Either separately or together, the expense of a lawyer would be a large cost just for the right to use the bike path. However, if the ROCC paid for the lawyer and ALL residents gained access to the bike path, the benefit relative to cost would be substantial. If you recall, when I collected signatures I asked residents if they consider this important enough to pay an additional $10 or $15 assessment to cover legal costs. Nearly 90% (17 out of 19) replied "yes". I doubt any additional assessment would actually be necessary; our position is strong enough that it would never go to court.
Topic #2
Are we getting adequate legal representation now?
I argued that we are not. Last November when the GOGC notified the ROCC lawyer that the Prudential mortgages were discharged, our lawyer did not look into any other reason why the GOGC could not block our access. Not the easement issue, not Adverse Possession, nor any other legal maneuver. In fact, in every case that I have heard of, "our" lawyer seems to argue the issue from the side of the GOGC not from our side. Anyone that has ever dealt with a lawyer knows they can take any "fact" and turn it to look good for the client and bad for the opposition. I have seen just the opposite from "our" lawyer.
Topic #3
Just what properties are crossed by the bike path and what easements are in place?
Ever since last November our lawyer has been asking the GOGC for "their survey" so we can find these properties. At the last meeting we were informed that the GOGC would not be providing that survey. Eight months late.
As I reported earlier, I made trips to the County Clerk, Amherst Town Hall and Amherst Highway Department. I reviewed various maps of resident's properties and the GOGC property. I concluded that indeed many residents do NOT have to allow the GOGC to use the bike path.
It seems there is a desire to find ALL of the properties like this rather then just go with the few I found so far. In discussing this the survey came up again and the need to use it to find those properties. I pulled out one of the maps I got from the Highway Department and lo and behold, it is the long sought after survey!
It shows the bike path wandering on and off various resident's property. According to a chart on the drawing this occurs at 14 separate points and totals over 4,000 feet in length!!! No wonder the GOGC didn't want us to see the survey!
I took the action item to identify the properties where this occurs and provide the list to the board.
Which begs the question, why didn't our lawyer know that the maps are readily
available? Why did he wait all these months without pressuring the GOGC to provide the survey?
To summarize, large sections of the bike path cross resident's property. If we can get the ROCC board to hire a good real estate lawyer we can get the GOGC to reverse the position that we cannot use the bike path. Simple as that.
Pete
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Before August ROCC Board Meeting
Well, we have had some interesting developments but we don't know exactly
what they mean. Which serves to emphasize what came out at the last
meeting. We need a good real estate lawyer that wants to win our case. And
we don't have that now. However, I have been talking to one and he has
given us some good information....at no charge so far.
Here is what we have found out. It all revolves around the fact that the
bike path crosses many resident's property (approximately 20) and the status
of easements for the golf course to use it is quite nebulous.
(1) There are some residents that have maps of their property showing the
bike path and referencing an easement by a number.
(2) There are residents that have maps showing the bike path but no
reference to any easement.
(3) There are residents that have the bike path crossing their property but
no map shows that, nor is there any reference to any easement.
Furthermore, I went to the Erie County Clerk's office, the Town of Amherst
on Main St. and the Town offices on North Forrest trying to understand the
situation. At the Clerk's office I called up all the documents related to a
property like #1 above. I could find no reference to the easement number
shown on that resident's map. I called up the easement by its number and
found it but it does not reference any resident's property. An employee at
the clerk's office pointed out that the map had a Town of Amherst stamp and
directed me to the Town. There I found that it seems all the town cares
about is easements it holds for drainage and utilities. Thus, just what
does the referenced easement number on a map mean and who does it impact?
As was said at the last meeting, we are not lawyers so we don't know what
any of this means. If a case could be made that the golf course can't use
portions of the bike path, we should be able to get them to negotiate. It
would be most powerful if one good lawyer represented all those residents as
one entity. And was paid by the ROCC since it will benefit all home owners
in Ransom Oaks. We tried to bring that up at the July meeting but got
shouted down.
I don't know if this Monday's meeting is a time to force the issue. I am
concerned that we won't have enough residents at the meeting. For the June
meeting we had over 30 residents, for the July meeting, we were down to only
about 10. Some of you have already told me that you will be out of town
Monday or can't make it for other reasons.
I don't know, I don't know, I don't know.
Pete
what they mean. Which serves to emphasize what came out at the last
meeting. We need a good real estate lawyer that wants to win our case. And
we don't have that now. However, I have been talking to one and he has
given us some good information....at no charge so far.
Here is what we have found out. It all revolves around the fact that the
bike path crosses many resident's property (approximately 20) and the status
of easements for the golf course to use it is quite nebulous.
(1) There are some residents that have maps of their property showing the
bike path and referencing an easement by a number.
(2) There are residents that have maps showing the bike path but no
reference to any easement.
(3) There are residents that have the bike path crossing their property but
no map shows that, nor is there any reference to any easement.
Furthermore, I went to the Erie County Clerk's office, the Town of Amherst
on Main St. and the Town offices on North Forrest trying to understand the
situation. At the Clerk's office I called up all the documents related to a
property like #1 above. I could find no reference to the easement number
shown on that resident's map. I called up the easement by its number and
found it but it does not reference any resident's property. An employee at
the clerk's office pointed out that the map had a Town of Amherst stamp and
directed me to the Town. There I found that it seems all the town cares
about is easements it holds for drainage and utilities. Thus, just what
does the referenced easement number on a map mean and who does it impact?
As was said at the last meeting, we are not lawyers so we don't know what
any of this means. If a case could be made that the golf course can't use
portions of the bike path, we should be able to get them to negotiate. It
would be most powerful if one good lawyer represented all those residents as
one entity. And was paid by the ROCC since it will benefit all home owners
in Ransom Oaks. We tried to bring that up at the July meeting but got
shouted down.
I don't know if this Monday's meeting is a time to force the issue. I am
concerned that we won't have enough residents at the meeting. For the June
meeting we had over 30 residents, for the July meeting, we were down to only
about 10. Some of you have already told me that you will be out of town
Monday or can't make it for other reasons.
I don't know, I don't know, I don't know.
Pete
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
ROCC Board Meeting Monday 7/13
If you recall from item #1 in my write up of last month's meeting,
"(1) A resident pointed out that Prudential has subsidiaries that issue
mortgages and they may hold mortgages in Ransom Oaks. Liberty Mutual was
given as an example. Shubert said he will look into it. Perhaps find all
subsidiaries of Prudential and see if any of them hold mortgages in RO."
We thought we were going to get a report of the results of looking for those
other companies. Instead we were told that Liberty was not owned by
Prudential. Then a search was performed to find if any mortgages on Ransom
Oaks were held by Prudential. There are none of course, we already knew
that. ROCC paid a title search company either $400 or $700, it wasn't clear
to me which, to do a search, to which we already knew the answer. I believe
it was Einstein who said, "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over
again and expecting different results".
It was clear to a few of us that this effort is not goal oriented but just
procedures oriented. We stated that we want another lawyer on this. One
that will give us a fresh look at the situation and be proactive about
solving this problem. A discussion, that might be described as heated
ensued, with one board member loudly asserting that the issue is dead and
will not continue.
I kept thinking about the 200 plus signatures you all collected wanting
access back. Actually 203 signed out of 204 who were asked. That is 99.5%
of the residents want this. Many of you have stated many times that the
board is elected to carry out our wishes and they don't seem to be doing
that. They are not representing us. With that thought in my head I told
the board member making the loud assertion that he can be removed from the
board.
Only 10 residents showed up for the meeting and only 9 remained for the bike
path discussion. It would have been better if more of you were there to
express the need for a new lawyer. Many of us concluded that was needed
months ago. The lack of focus on the desired result is appalling. We prod
and prod and then get a half effort in response.
We were also told that the GOGC informed the ROCC that they will not be
providing the survey that the board asked for many months ago. I will
hazard a guess that they don't have a current one. If that is really true,
then on any particular section of the bike path, who knows if it is on GOGC
or a resident's property? I suppose that in the area near the clubhouse it
might be difficult to argue that some resident owns it but else where....?
I have decided that if I am ever challenged by GOGC personnel I will assert
that the section I am on belongs to the nearest residence. Simple??
On a lighter note, during this last week we surpassed the 1000th visitor to
our blog,
http://gobart09.blogspot.com/
Quite an accomplishment.
Thanks,
Pete
"(1) A resident pointed out that Prudential has subsidiaries that issue
mortgages and they may hold mortgages in Ransom Oaks. Liberty Mutual was
given as an example. Shubert said he will look into it. Perhaps find all
subsidiaries of Prudential and see if any of them hold mortgages in RO."
We thought we were going to get a report of the results of looking for those
other companies. Instead we were told that Liberty was not owned by
Prudential. Then a search was performed to find if any mortgages on Ransom
Oaks were held by Prudential. There are none of course, we already knew
that. ROCC paid a title search company either $400 or $700, it wasn't clear
to me which, to do a search, to which we already knew the answer. I believe
it was Einstein who said, "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over
again and expecting different results".
It was clear to a few of us that this effort is not goal oriented but just
procedures oriented. We stated that we want another lawyer on this. One
that will give us a fresh look at the situation and be proactive about
solving this problem. A discussion, that might be described as heated
ensued, with one board member loudly asserting that the issue is dead and
will not continue.
I kept thinking about the 200 plus signatures you all collected wanting
access back. Actually 203 signed out of 204 who were asked. That is 99.5%
of the residents want this. Many of you have stated many times that the
board is elected to carry out our wishes and they don't seem to be doing
that. They are not representing us. With that thought in my head I told
the board member making the loud assertion that he can be removed from the
board.
Only 10 residents showed up for the meeting and only 9 remained for the bike
path discussion. It would have been better if more of you were there to
express the need for a new lawyer. Many of us concluded that was needed
months ago. The lack of focus on the desired result is appalling. We prod
and prod and then get a half effort in response.
We were also told that the GOGC informed the ROCC that they will not be
providing the survey that the board asked for many months ago. I will
hazard a guess that they don't have a current one. If that is really true,
then on any particular section of the bike path, who knows if it is on GOGC
or a resident's property? I suppose that in the area near the clubhouse it
might be difficult to argue that some resident owns it but else where....?
I have decided that if I am ever challenged by GOGC personnel I will assert
that the section I am on belongs to the nearest residence. Simple??
On a lighter note, during this last week we surpassed the 1000th visitor to
our blog,
http://gobart09.blogspot.com/
Quite an accomplishment.
Thanks,
Pete
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Monday 6/8/09 ROCC Board Meeting.
I attended the 6/8/09 meeting of the ROCC Board . I didn't get a count of the number of attendees but there were more than the last meeting based on the fact that there were many more people without seats than last time. Two Town of Amherst representatives were there.
The ROCC had the board lawyer, Ron Shubert there to explain the bike path situation and answer questions. Ron was introduced as the lawyer that has represented Ransom Oaks for over 20 years and a former resident ofCharlesgate. Ron also pointed out that he had been a board member also.
His description of the current situation contained nothing new. Basically it is the same as described in the November ROCC board letter:
click here
That is, since the GOGC has shown that the list of mortgages still held by PIC no longer exist, GOGC is relieved of having to give us access to the bike path.
I tried to note points of interest that came out of the Q and A but I am sure I missed many. If any of you that attended can add to my list, please email me or post here.
(1) A resident pointed out that Prudential has subsidiaries that issue mortgages and they may hold mortgages in Ransom Oaks. Liberty Mutual was given as an example. Shubert said he will look into it. Perhaps find all subsidiaries of Prudential and see if any of them hold mortgages in RO.
(2) Get a restraining order or some other court order that restores our access to the path until the issue is resolved. Shubert said he might do it if there was a real possibility of us winning in the end but not for frivolous reasons.
(3) What could be done using cases where the bike path crosses properties and there is no easement for the bike path? This came up repeatedly and Shubert couldn't see any application of this leverage.
(4) What about Adverse Possession? Roughly this means if you have been"using" property for a long time it becomes yours. Shubert said this didn't apply, I think it was because we were using it under some agreement but I didn't understand all of the conversation. Maybe someone else got the meaning and can add to this.
(5) As for golfers urinating or doing other damage or trespassing on resident's property, the resident should call the police. But they need to"catch" the individual. "Cellphone video" perhaps?
(6) A board member pointed out that he had scheduled a golf outing at a different golf course and it would mean a $10K (or $15K) loss to the GOGC. Another resident is considering the same. Then it was pointed out that the GOGC should be made aware of the reason for going elsewhere. Perhaps in a letter stating the reason and that other golf courses will continue to be used until Ransom Oaks residents can use the bike path again. It was suggested that the RO Newsletter should provide contact information for the GOGC so residents can send letters.
(7) There is aerial photography that can be used to see which properties maybe crossed by the bike path. I pointed out that I had already done that and have a list of 21 potential properties including the county "PIN" and "SBL"identification numbers and I asked who wants a copy. No one wanted it.
(8) We should consider a letter writing campaign to the Amherst Bee or other "letters to the editor". It was pointed out that this could have a negative effect. Just like RO gets all the news cameras when there is flooding and "sinking homes".
(9) If we wanted to stage a protest march, would we need a permit from the town? Call the building department, they should be able to provide the information.
(10) If we did things to disturb the golfers (air horns for example) what could happen. It could be considered harassment.
(11) A survey of a property that has an easement for the bike path was presented. It includes a reference to a number or series of numbers. Shubert was not familiar with the easement number. It should be on file with the county clerk. No need to go and get it, he can have the clerk send it.
(12) We need to also pursue the "Court of Common Opinion". That is frequently more powerful than a court of law.
That is the extent of my notes. I am sure I missed a lot and may have misinterpreted what was said. Please add to the list and correct me where I am wrong. You can do it in a private email to me:
GOBART09@gmail.com
or post it as a comment to this post
The ROCC had the board lawyer, Ron Shubert there to explain the bike path situation and answer questions. Ron was introduced as the lawyer that has represented Ransom Oaks for over 20 years and a former resident ofCharlesgate. Ron also pointed out that he had been a board member also.
His description of the current situation contained nothing new. Basically it is the same as described in the November ROCC board letter:
click here
That is, since the GOGC has shown that the list of mortgages still held by PIC no longer exist, GOGC is relieved of having to give us access to the bike path.
I tried to note points of interest that came out of the Q and A but I am sure I missed many. If any of you that attended can add to my list, please email me or post here.
(1) A resident pointed out that Prudential has subsidiaries that issue mortgages and they may hold mortgages in Ransom Oaks. Liberty Mutual was given as an example. Shubert said he will look into it. Perhaps find all subsidiaries of Prudential and see if any of them hold mortgages in RO.
(2) Get a restraining order or some other court order that restores our access to the path until the issue is resolved. Shubert said he might do it if there was a real possibility of us winning in the end but not for frivolous reasons.
(3) What could be done using cases where the bike path crosses properties and there is no easement for the bike path? This came up repeatedly and Shubert couldn't see any application of this leverage.
(4) What about Adverse Possession? Roughly this means if you have been"using" property for a long time it becomes yours. Shubert said this didn't apply, I think it was because we were using it under some agreement but I didn't understand all of the conversation. Maybe someone else got the meaning and can add to this.
(5) As for golfers urinating or doing other damage or trespassing on resident's property, the resident should call the police. But they need to"catch" the individual. "Cellphone video" perhaps?
(6) A board member pointed out that he had scheduled a golf outing at a different golf course and it would mean a $10K (or $15K) loss to the GOGC. Another resident is considering the same. Then it was pointed out that the GOGC should be made aware of the reason for going elsewhere. Perhaps in a letter stating the reason and that other golf courses will continue to be used until Ransom Oaks residents can use the bike path again. It was suggested that the RO Newsletter should provide contact information for the GOGC so residents can send letters.
(7) There is aerial photography that can be used to see which properties maybe crossed by the bike path. I pointed out that I had already done that and have a list of 21 potential properties including the county "PIN" and "SBL"identification numbers and I asked who wants a copy. No one wanted it.
(8) We should consider a letter writing campaign to the Amherst Bee or other "letters to the editor". It was pointed out that this could have a negative effect. Just like RO gets all the news cameras when there is flooding and "sinking homes".
(9) If we wanted to stage a protest march, would we need a permit from the town? Call the building department, they should be able to provide the information.
(10) If we did things to disturb the golfers (air horns for example) what could happen. It could be considered harassment.
(11) A survey of a property that has an easement for the bike path was presented. It includes a reference to a number or series of numbers. Shubert was not familiar with the easement number. It should be on file with the county clerk. No need to go and get it, he can have the clerk send it.
(12) We need to also pursue the "Court of Common Opinion". That is frequently more powerful than a court of law.
That is the extent of my notes. I am sure I missed a lot and may have misinterpreted what was said. Please add to the list and correct me where I am wrong. You can do it in a private email to me:
GOBART09@gmail.com
or post it as a comment to this post
Statement Of Support
We have collected over 200 signatures so far. Only one person refused to sign. That implies 99.5% f residents want this turned around.
The package was presented to the Board at the May 11 meeting in the Greenwoods Rec. Center. Also, 20 residents attended wanting more to be done about this problem.
To download and print the signature sheet Click Here.
Here is a map indicating in RED what streets we have covered as of 5/13/08.
The package was presented to the Board at the May 11 meeting in the Greenwoods Rec. Center. Also, 20 residents attended wanting more to be done about this problem.
To download and print the signature sheet Click Here.
Here is a map indicating in RED what streets we have covered as of 5/13/08.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Was I Smiling?
When I walked the bike path yesterday (Wednesday) I walked past one of the grounds crew. He took out his cell phone and started working the keyboard. I'm betting he took my picture. I hope he caught me with a smile on my face because I sure was smiling.
Pete
Pete
Monday, April 27, 2009
Thank You!
Pete,
Your effort is appreciated.
Agreed, great job by Mike @172 Glen Oak as to finding that the bike path is on his property. Hopefully, other home owners with property adjacent to the bike path are performing the same research.
Regarding the bike path and property lines it may cross, has any research been performed at appropriate Town of Amherst and /or Erie County offices regarding property surveys or similar info being available for review ?
Gene Z
Your effort is appreciated.
Agreed, great job by Mike @172 Glen Oak as to finding that the bike path is on his property. Hopefully, other home owners with property adjacent to the bike path are performing the same research.
Regarding the bike path and property lines it may cross, has any research been performed at appropriate Town of Amherst and /or Erie County offices regarding property surveys or similar info being available for review ?
Gene Z
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Pete's Friday Walk
Just to bring everyone up to date. I walked the bike path again Friday. First time since Tuesday because of weather and scheduling conflicts.
Again, one of the employees stopped me and told me I can't use the bike path. I asked him if he would be telling me that if I was the grandmother that can't let her grandchildren play in her yard because of incoming golf balls. Or even play on her deck because of the golf balls. He said people that live on a golf course have to expect that.
I then asked about golfers that urinate on homeowner's property and he agreed that should not happen.
I also offered him the "Good Neighbors" list but he refused saying he had seen it.
I am now confident that the management of the golf course is aware of the list and its implications, namely that there is more to coexistence than their interpretation of an old agreement.
I know that the ROCC board is looking into legal aspects of the issue but in the mean time, the "Bike Path Closed" signs are up and I'm afraid many homeowners that normally would be using the bike path are avoiding it.
This is an issue that is in dispute and, until it is settled I don't see how the golf course can change "the rules".
Yesterday I talked to two homeowners and one told me she noticed substantially less people using the bike path. Another said he sees plenty of people, walking and biking.
Are many of you continuing to use the bike path as you did before? How many have reduce or curtailed their use of the bike path?
Is it time for us to "kick it up a notch"? Perhaps a letter to the owners, signed by as many residents as we can get.
Or any other suggestions?
Please reply, either email or by posting/commenting here.
Pete
Again, one of the employees stopped me and told me I can't use the bike path. I asked him if he would be telling me that if I was the grandmother that can't let her grandchildren play in her yard because of incoming golf balls. Or even play on her deck because of the golf balls. He said people that live on a golf course have to expect that.
I then asked about golfers that urinate on homeowner's property and he agreed that should not happen.
I also offered him the "Good Neighbors" list but he refused saying he had seen it.
I am now confident that the management of the golf course is aware of the list and its implications, namely that there is more to coexistence than their interpretation of an old agreement.
I know that the ROCC board is looking into legal aspects of the issue but in the mean time, the "Bike Path Closed" signs are up and I'm afraid many homeowners that normally would be using the bike path are avoiding it.
This is an issue that is in dispute and, until it is settled I don't see how the golf course can change "the rules".
Yesterday I talked to two homeowners and one told me she noticed substantially less people using the bike path. Another said he sees plenty of people, walking and biking.
Are many of you continuing to use the bike path as you did before? How many have reduce or curtailed their use of the bike path?
Is it time for us to "kick it up a notch"? Perhaps a letter to the owners, signed by as many residents as we can get.
Or any other suggestions?
Please reply, either email or by posting/commenting here.
Pete
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
What Does GOGC Have a Right to Use?
Mike at 172 Glen Oak checked his property lines as I said in a previous post. Well today he outlined his property with orange fluorescent paint. To see a picture
Click Here
That is the tee for hole #3 for those familiar with the course.
Mike has also checked his deed and the only easement is for Ransom Oaks for drainage. That pretty much locks it up. GOGC will have to stop using our bike path in that section and route their golf carts somewhere else.
If you know of any one that would like help doing the same thing, I am ready. If most or all of the residents who own sections of the bike path demonstrate their willingness to assert their ownership, this issue can be put to bed quickly.
Great job Mike, thanks.
Pete
Click Here
That is the tee for hole #3 for those familiar with the course.
Mike has also checked his deed and the only easement is for Ransom Oaks for drainage. That pretty much locks it up. GOGC will have to stop using our bike path in that section and route their golf carts somewhere else.
If you know of any one that would like help doing the same thing, I am ready. If most or all of the residents who own sections of the bike path demonstrate their willingness to assert their ownership, this issue can be put to bed quickly.
Great job Mike, thanks.
Pete
My Bike Path Walk Today (4/21/09)
I walked the bike path today and an employee spoke to me. I can't remember the exact sequence or everything that was said but basically she addressed me as sir and said:
I could not use the bike path,
Something about they have legal rights,
She refused to accept the paper I carried that lists the Good Neighbors items.
She refused this twice and said she was familiar with documents (but I don't know if she knew about this specifically).
I said:
I they don't have the right to stop me,
I will be back tomorrow at the same time weather permitting,
The "Bike Path Closed" signs will have to come down.
Pete
I could not use the bike path,
Something about they have legal rights,
She refused to accept the paper I carried that lists the Good Neighbors items.
She refused this twice and said she was familiar with documents (but I don't know if she knew about this specifically).
I said:
I they don't have the right to stop me,
I will be back tomorrow at the same time weather permitting,
The "Bike Path Closed" signs will have to come down.
Pete
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
I have been informed that Prudential has purchased a home in Ransom Oaks. Thus Prudential now has a financial interest in Ransom Oaks and the GOGC must cease this nonsense about us using the bike path.
They must also continue to maintain the bike path which means it is time for them to clean up the debris that has collected on the path near the pond by Glen Oak drive.
Pete
They must also continue to maintain the bike path which means it is time for them to clean up the debris that has collected on the path near the pond by Glen Oak drive.
Pete
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
I don't understand why anyone would want to walk or bike on the path around the golf course. IT IS DANGEROUS!!! There are golf balls flying around all over the place. If you get hit by a golf ball, it could mean serious injury. I have witnessed first hand the injury that can be caused by being hit by a golf ball - it isn't pretty. I have never walked on the path and I am not about to start now.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Interesting Survey and Tomato Plants
Michael Lawler of 172 Glen Oak sent me an email this morning. He just had his property surveyed.
He found, "the entire cart path to be on my side of the lot line - with the exception of the ROCC covenant for a 10' drainage easement - there is nothing in my property title for allowing GOGC access to my property - what legal right do they assume they have - do they understand that their operations extends onto several adjoining properties? I have already contacted my attorney to address some other issues associated with this."
He said, "Wonder what they'd (GOGC) say if I put my BBQ pit on it - and planted a tomato garden on the tee box LOL"
I offered to buy the tomato plants.
PeteC
He found, "the entire cart path to be on my side of the lot line - with the exception of the ROCC covenant for a 10' drainage easement - there is nothing in my property title for allowing GOGC access to my property - what legal right do they assume they have - do they understand that their operations extends onto several adjoining properties? I have already contacted my attorney to address some other issues associated with this."
He said, "Wonder what they'd (GOGC) say if I put my BBQ pit on it - and planted a tomato garden on the tee box LOL"
I offered to buy the tomato plants.
PeteC
Monday, April 6, 2009
Renee 1704 Forest Edge
I usually run at 6:45 AM on the course before any golfers are out. I passed the club house and a worker was pulling out carts and he saw me. I didn't make eye contact and he didn't try to track me down.
I'm willing to run the neighborhood around the course, but the only section that worries me is Smith road. There are no houses and if I were to scream for help, no one would ever hear me. With the bike path killer cases so fresh in mind, safety is a concern for me.
I plan on offering to sign the standard golf course release if I am stopped, and to be as polite and cooperative as I can.
I'm willing to run the neighborhood around the course, but the only section that worries me is Smith road. There are no houses and if I were to scream for help, no one would ever hear me. With the bike path killer cases so fresh in mind, safety is a concern for me.
I plan on offering to sign the standard golf course release if I am stopped, and to be as polite and cooperative as I can.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
I talked to a GOCG worker today.
I was walking the bike path today and one of the grounds crew told me that the bike path was closed. I told him I know of three lawyers and a retired judge that disagree with that. I then said I intend to continue walking the path and I know of many others that will also.
I have been carrying the "Good Neighbor" sheet and plan on giving it to the GOGC management when they say something to me. I didn't give it to him because he was just informing me that it was closed. I saw no reason to get one of the grounds crew involved in this.
Note, I have been walking the bike path everyday, weather permitting. Somedays I just do the south edge, others I do the complete circumference.
Pete
I have been carrying the "Good Neighbor" sheet and plan on giving it to the GOGC management when they say something to me. I didn't give it to him because he was just informing me that it was closed. I saw no reason to get one of the grounds crew involved in this.
Note, I have been walking the bike path everyday, weather permitting. Somedays I just do the south edge, others I do the complete circumference.
Pete
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Perhaps we should make sure that the bike path is used, with due deference to the golfers, in the usual way, and see what the Golf Course owners do about it. How can they possible police the whole bike path all the time? Was the list of things done by "good neighbors" sent to the owners, and if so, how did they react? P.
Monday, March 23, 2009
What Do We Do?
Well, the season for using the bike path is coming. I think we have to anticipate that the GOGC will do something to enforce their opinion.
What will GOGC do?
What will we do when it happens?
Certainly, we need to know about it. Please get the word out to users of the path that they should contact one of us. Then let us know what GOGC did, either via posts here or email me.
What will GOGC do?
What will we do when it happens?
Certainly, we need to know about it. Please get the word out to users of the path that they should contact one of us. Then let us know what GOGC did, either via posts here or email me.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Golfers Are Out There
I was talking to Teresa yesterday and we saw some golfers playing. I think the temperature was about 40 degrees and windy.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Post by Doral Ct. Resident
I feel it is very unfortunate we cannot utilize such a wonderful ammenity. Can't we let people decide to use the path at their own risk? If not,is it possible for the board to obtain liability coverage?
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
The Bike Path Is In Use
I talked to someone that lives on the path and he said he saw over 30 people walk past his lot on Sunday.
One of our group walks it with her husband every day.
One of our group walks it with her husband every day.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Still Recruiting
I'm still walking the Glen Oak, Ransom Oaks Drive route and handing out the information slips. Often I encounter people that I gave slips to on previous walks. They expressed great enthusiasm and appreciation. But never sent me an email to sign up.
Them I chastise.
Come on, how can they know when we need help if they don't sign up?
Pete
Them I chastise.
Come on, how can they know when we need help if they don't sign up?
Pete
Sunday, March 1, 2009
We Need to Get the Word Out
I just took my 2 mile walk. Based on my survey of people I met along the way, two out of three didn't even know about the closing of the bike path.
Good thing I had some prints of the handout.
I will add to this blog, an excerpt from the ROCC newsletter that describes the problem.
Pete
Good thing I had some prints of the handout.
I will add to this blog, an excerpt from the ROCC newsletter that describes the problem.
Pete
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
