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
Saturday, August 22, 2009
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
