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
Thursday, October 1, 2009
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
