I'm getting more concerned about the actions of the Charlesgate board president. Last spring he told me flat out that he wouldn't spend a penny to save the bike path.
I have also heard that he has taken actions or made statements like:
(1) Requested the "disbursement journal" (what ever that is).
(2) Wanted a copy of the offering plan and covenants.
(3) "No body wants the bike path".
(4) Questioned how the Charlesgate portion of the assessment is determined.
(5) Complaints about proxy method. (We all do but maybe he is on the otherside, wanting more control for the board).
(6) That money spent on the lawyer was wasted.
I don't know the extent to which statements 1>6 are not true and I will correct them if so informed. My concern is he could make it difficult for the ROCC board to take the actions necessary to protect our rights to the bike path. He could even make it difficult for the pro-bike path candidates to win in the ROCC board election if he has a lot of control over what happens in Charlesgate.
(1) Does anybody know if the bike path was discussed at the Charlesgate board meeting January 13?
(2) Does anybody have a list of the Charlesgate board of directors and where they stand on the issue? Ideally the Charlesgate residents should speak up and get the Charlesgate board and its president to see things the right way. If I had a phone list for the Charlesgate board I would ask all the Charlesgate residents I know to call their board and get them moving in the right direction. I would appreciate any help on these actions.
Thanks
Pete
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Thursday, January 7, 2010
January Newsletter with Election News and Our Lawyer's Letter
The January newsletter is out. As I hinted, the election has been canceled,
primarily because it the way it was structured, a fair vote could not
happen.
I am sure the letter I sent to each board member and the board's lawyer
prompted this.
As a result, according to the bylaws, a committee made up of one board
member and two residents (that are not running) will be formed to select the
slate of candidates. I don't know if the one board member on the committee
can also be a candidate in the election.
I hope some of you can attend the January 11 meeting to get on this
committee and ensure I will be one of the candidates. If not I'll have to
mount a write-in campaign (which is allowed under the bylaws).
According to the newsletter the committee will then select the candidates
and a new proxy will be created at the February meeting.
Also, the letter from our lawyer to the Glen Oaks Golf Course lawyer is
printed on the inside of the back cover of the newsletter. There is no
explanation about it. It is the result of the November 16th meeting between
the board's lawyer, Ron Shubert, board members Tom Meldrum and Gene
Zambarda, and yours truly. I have not heard of any response from the golf
course.
Thanks,
Pete
primarily because it the way it was structured, a fair vote could not
happen.
I am sure the letter I sent to each board member and the board's lawyer
prompted this.
As a result, according to the bylaws, a committee made up of one board
member and two residents (that are not running) will be formed to select the
slate of candidates. I don't know if the one board member on the committee
can also be a candidate in the election.
I hope some of you can attend the January 11 meeting to get on this
committee and ensure I will be one of the candidates. If not I'll have to
mount a write-in campaign (which is allowed under the bylaws).
According to the newsletter the committee will then select the candidates
and a new proxy will be created at the February meeting.
Also, the letter from our lawyer to the Glen Oaks Golf Course lawyer is
printed on the inside of the back cover of the newsletter. There is no
explanation about it. It is the result of the November 16th meeting between
the board's lawyer, Ron Shubert, board members Tom Meldrum and Gene
Zambarda, and yours truly. I have not heard of any response from the golf
course.
Thanks,
Pete
Sunday, January 3, 2010
ROCC Board Elections
There will be news coming out about the ROCC election.
I believe I know some of the details but I have been asked to not reveal the
information.
To demonstrate that I can be a "team player", all I will say is, those of
you that are calling residents regarding voting for me, you should no longer
make any calls.
Happy New Year.
Thanks,
Pete
I believe I know some of the details but I have been asked to not reveal the
information.
To demonstrate that I can be a "team player", all I will say is, those of
you that are calling residents regarding voting for me, you should no longer
make any calls.
Happy New Year.
Thanks,
Pete
Sunday, December 20, 2009
How to Vote For Pete
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
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, 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
