UN Resolution, HOA Dues, and other things. A letter to Carol Bruner from Sherry Rose

> Carol, I have followed your writings with interest since arriving in VE as an owner in 2013.  I have never met you personally but recognized your astute mind and writing skills.  I looked forward to meeting you one day.  However, I am really astounded by the recent UN dialogue being bantered about by you and your continued advice against paying the mandatory HOA dues.
>
> You, and all of us, had our opportunity to exercise our rights to refuse to belong to a HOA by NOT buying a home situated in a community predicated on the HOA system.  We were free to make that choice BEFORE buying into VE!  There are many free standing homes just outside the gate and we all knew BEFORE we purchased in VE that it is a community predicated on a home owners association and a developer's resort property communal existence model!
>
> Human rights are for everyone, but you are insinuating that certain human rights trump others rights - for instance the Developer's rights to purchase acreage, to take the risk to develop that acreage, and then to OFFER some of that developed property with unique amenities for sale within the communal living concept.  Human rights issues can not mean that you achieve your rights at the expense of someone else's rights!  You were not forced to buy into the HOA concept, you had a choice of where to buy!  Additionally, Panama City would collapse as all those high rises, town house communities, and condominium complexes have some form of a HOA business model in place in order to operate!  Panama would be off the list of places to retire in a heart beat!
>
> As we all exercised our free choice rights to purchase in VE and knew that a form of an HOA model was in place, our human rights have not been violated!  Okay, you now own within the gates and you must pay your pro-rata share of the communal dues for your right for communal services!   Please refer back to the former SC directive of September 30, 2014, wherein your SC issued the broadcast that HOA dues are MANDATORY and then listed the seven penalties for non-payment.
>
> What has changed since then other than the names of the HOA governing body?  The same former SC members who issued this directive, collected dues, and spent the funds are NOW advising members not to pay their dues!  This is dangerous and can certainly have unintended consequences for the members who listen to your advice.  The non-related excuse of UN human rights issues is beneath your powers of reasoning!

> Your opinion that the current governing body was illegally elected and, therefore, not empowered to collect the necessary dues to maintain all our lifestyles while continuing to work on the pertinent issues of our community is just that - your opinion!  It is also unfounded in truth or logic!
>
> I certainly feel that with your intellect and your protracted tenure within the HOA structure of VE,  you became aware that the HOA documents you were operating under had not been properly filed within the appropriate governmental agency.  However, instead of confronting that problem head on, ya'll obviously accessed the likelihood that you would not come through that process without a new election of all members and a rewording of some of the CC&R language.
>
> I note that your website is constantly demanding answers from the newly elected HOA governing body.  There have been many questions asked of the former SC members that have been ignored or ridiculed.  Therefore, indulge me to ask the most pertinent ones on my mind now.  

What did your SC accomplish during your reign of absolute power?  Yes, the former wording of the CC&Rs ( now modified within the election of January 2015 to provide membership oversight ) allowed you to do ANYTHING without membership approval except increase the dues more than 10% per annum.  Why did ya'll suggest a budget increase of 20% in our dues last year until the push back from the residents?   Why didn't ya'll do a Security Survey BEFORE arbitrarily breaking a legally binding contract to replace the existing security service?   Why didn't your recent SC provide the membership with the "actually spent " 2014 budget figures?   Who chose to withhold the information regarding the privately owned website ( posing as the official HOA website )?  Who chose to launch a campaign of ridicule and hate of both the Developer and of the HOA members who opposed the SC's tactics while still supporting the issue of the asset transfer?  Who is investigating the "Enemies List"?  
Why are ya'll so desperate to prevent the funding of the new HOA governing body to pay our HOA obligations which directly effect everyone's lifestyle within our community?
>
> The recent former SC members are now alleging that they didn't get to vote in the January 2015 election.  They were notified just as we were of the election and even invited to run their slate of candidates.  They not only chose NOT to participate but used the privately owned website to broadcast their directive for the community to boycott the meetings and NOT to vote!  That was a total disservice to our HOA and it really didn't really work out as you had intended, did it?
>
> We have paid our dues for the privilege of using our vacation villa a few weeks a year.  It is time that the residents realize that it is an obligation each condo/villa/homeowner chose to assume and committed themselves to pay when they, of their own free will, purchased in VE.  If you and the other former SC members keep handing out the advice to not pay dues we won't be discussing the type of security we want - there will be none!  We won't be discussing sewage treatments and water chlorine levels because there will be sewage everywhere and the water will not be safe to drink!

> How can your group be so blinded by anger to wish these circumstances on everyone?  The current actions of the unseated SC group are detrimental to all of us but some resident members who take your unsolicited advice and then incur consequences ( see your seven items of the penalties of non-payment on the above referenced directive ) may just decide to hold you and your former SC members ( who only identify themselves as the SC on the privately owned - NOT by the Association) personally liable for their predicament!

> Sincerely, Sherry Rose