ANOTHER BLOGGER

reply

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "reply":

Stats are available via Google. If you are unable to find them just respond. In fact most people would be surprised from the info available when you use Google commands that are not published or above the ability of the average end user. Do a search on YouTube or Google for Google hacks for step by step instructions.

reply

Anonymous to me
show details 4:08 PM (25 minutes ago)

Reply

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "reply":

How do YOU know how many people look at this site?

What makes you think not that many? You're probably an average property owner just like me. You're looking at it, aren't you?

reply

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "reply - bod support":

I think the bod have thick skin. I wouldn't worry because not too many people are looking at this site. It's the same few people over and over again that come to this site.

reply - bod support

Anonymous to me
show details 11:44 PM (0 minutes ago)

Reply

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Anonymous to me show details 4:58 PM (54 minutes a...":

Based on the vicious attacks on both the character and qualifications of board members displayed on this site I sure wouldn't run for office. Don't be surprised if no one else runs next year either. There are a lot of accusations but it's all conjecture. Every time someone writes something positive about the BOD or a member someone else sees fit to tear them down. I believe half of what I see and none of what I hear. I think we elected some good people who are trying their best in a bad situation they inherited. Are they perfect? No, but if you can gather enough votes to walk in their shoes don't be surprised if you find yourself the object of some severe criticism on this site regardless of how hard you're working. Before you have a chance to accuse me - I'm not a board member, not a LA employee, not a real estate agent and not the attorney, all things I've erroneously been accused of on this site. I'm a property owner who somehow seems to enjoy their time at LA despite all the horrific things I read about here.

Anonymous to me
show details 4:58 PM (54 minutes ago)

Reply

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "reply - upgrades":

you hit the nail on the head, unfortunately too many people don't make inquiries to the proper people. I must say though that the issue was discussed at an open meeting, and PO's were told why that particular section in the back was done first, it was the worst! Had nothing to do with who lived there. Of course you would have to attend meetings to get the information.

PAUL KRUGMAN - FINANCES

OP-ED COLUMNIST
The Big Dither

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: March 5, 2009
Last month, in his big speech to Congress, President Obama argued for bold steps to fix America’s dysfunctional banks. “While the cost of action will be great,” he declared, “I can assure you that the cost of inaction will be far greater, for it could result in an economy that sputters along for not months or years, but perhaps a decade.”

Many analysts agree. But among people I talk to there’s a growing sense of frustration, even panic, over Mr. Obama’s failure to match his words with deeds. The reality is that when it comes to dealing with the banks, the Obama administration is dithering. Policy is stuck in a holding pattern.

Here’s how the pattern works: first, administration officials, usually speaking off the record, float a plan for rescuing the banks in the press. This trial balloon is quickly shot down by informed commentators.

Then, a few weeks later, the administration floats a new plan. This plan is, however, just a thinly disguised version of the previous plan, a fact quickly realized by all concerned. And the cycle starts again.

Why do officials keep offering plans that nobody else finds credible? Because somehow, top officials in the Obama administration and at the Federal Reserve have convinced themselves that troubled assets, often referred to these days as “toxic waste,” are really worth much more than anyone is actually willing to pay for them — and that if these assets were properly priced, all our troubles would go away.

Thus, in a recent interview Tim Geithner, the Treasury secretary, tried to make a distinction between the “basic inherent economic value” of troubled assets and the “artificially depressed value” that those assets command right now. In recent transactions, even AAA-rated mortgage-backed securities have sold for less than 40 cents on the dollar, but Mr. Geithner seems to think they’re worth much, much more.

And the government’s job, he declared, is to “provide the financing to help get those markets working,” pushing the price of toxic waste up to where it ought to be.

What’s more, officials seem to believe that getting toxic waste properly priced would cure the ills of all our major financial institutions. Earlier this week, Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, was asked about the problem of “zombies” — financial institutions that are effectively bankrupt but are being kept alive by government aid. “I don’t know of any large zombie institutions in the U.S. financial system,” he declared, and went on to specifically deny that A.I.G. — A.I.G.! — is a zombie.

This is the same A.I.G. that, unable to honor its promises to pay off other financial institutions when bonds default, has already received $150 billion in aid and just got a commitment for $30 billion more.

The truth is that the Bernanke-Geithner plan — the plan the administration keeps floating, in slightly different versions — isn’t going to fly.

Take the plan’s latest incarnation: a proposal to make low-interest loans to private investors willing to buy up troubled assets. This would certainly drive up the price of toxic waste because it would offer a heads-you-win, tails-we-lose proposition. As described, the plan would let investors profit if asset prices went up but just walk away if prices fell substantially.

But would it be enough to make the banking system healthy? No.

Think of it this way: by using taxpayer funds to subsidize the prices of toxic waste, the administration would shower benefits on everyone who made the mistake of buying the stuff. Some of those benefits would trickle down to where they’re needed, shoring up the balance sheets of key financial institutions. But most of the benefit would go to people who don’t need or deserve to be rescued.

And this means that the government would have to lay out trillions of dollars to bring the financial system back to health, which would, in turn, both ensure a fierce public outcry and add to already serious concerns about the deficit. (Yes, even strong advocates of fiscal stimulus like yours truly worry about red ink.) Realistically, it’s just not going to happen.

So why has this zombie idea — it keeps being killed, but it keeps coming back — taken such a powerful grip? The answer, I fear, is that officials still aren’t willing to face the facts. They don’t want to face up to the dire state of major financial institutions because it’s very hard to rescue an essentially insolvent bank without, at least temporarily, taking it over. And temporary nationalization is still, apparently, considered unthinkable.

But this refusal to face the facts means, in practice, an absence of action. And I share the president’s fears: inaction could result in an economy that sputters along, not for months or years, but for a decade or more.

roofer needed

looking for a roofer to fix my rubber roof -- any one have any experiences with any of them at la-- difficult to decide who to call -- thanks - chipper

12' wide issue won't happen !!!!!!!!

THE TONE OF THIS LETTER SUGGESTS THAT THE 12' WIDE ISSUE WITH THE TOWNSHIP IS IN TROUBLE OR DOA!!!! --

LA MUST UPGRADE THEIR INFRASTRUCTURES FOR ELECTRIC, WATER AND SEWAGE--

AT THE RATE THAT THIS BOD IS PROCEEDING WITH THESE UPGRADES IT WILL BE 10 YEARS OR MORE BEFORE THEY COULD POSSIBLY UPGRADE THESE SYSTEMS-- THEY ARE SCREWING AROUND WITH THESE PROJECTS AND NOT MAKING ANY PROGRESS AT ALL --

I'D LIKE TO KNOW HOW MANY PROPERTIES HAVE HAD ELECTRICAL UPGRADES, LATERAL UPGRADES AND IN WHAT TIME FRAME AND AT WHAT COST PER PROPERTY-- THEY PROBABLY DON'T EVEN KNOW - I'D BET THAT THE COST PER PROPERTY IS MORE THAN MOST PROPERTIES ARE WORTH

THEY HAVE CONTRACTORS THAT ARE RIPPING OFF THE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION BUT THEY STILL DO BUSINESS WITH THEM -- I WONDER WHETHER THESE CONTRACTS ARE EVEN PUT UP FOR LEGITIMATE BIDS WITH REPUTABLE CONTRACTORS OR ARE WE USING SOME ONE'S FRIEND???

THIS BOD IS RESPONSIBLE FOR GETTING THESE UPGRADES DONE IN A TIMELY MANNER AND AT AT DECENT RATE--

ELECTRICAL UPGRADES SHOULD BE 200 PER YEAR WITH A GOAL OF COMPLETING THE COMPLEX IN LESS THAT 10 YEARS-- THEY ARE NOWHERE NEAR THAT GOAL

LATERAL UPGRADES AND SEWAGE MUST ALSO BE DONE SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH THE ELECTRICAL WORK

SO YOU CAN SOON SEE THAT THIS BOD ISN'T DOING IT'S JOB AND THE UPGRADES AREN'T AMOUNTING TO ANYTHING -

UNLESS THERE IS SERIOUS EFFORT MADE TO UPGRADE THESE SYSTEMS WITH CONTRACTORS THAT CAN DO THE WORK, COSTS CAN BE CONTROLLED AND THE MEMBERSHIP WILL PAY THE BILL THE 12' WIDE ISSUE IS NOT A LIKELY SITUATION FOR LA

BUT EVEN WITHOUT THE 12' WIDE ISSUE ON THE TABLE THESE PROJECTS NEED TO BE DONE OR SOMEDAY LA WILL BE CHAINED SHUT FOR VIOLATIONS OF ONE TYPE OR ANOTHER, FINES OR JUDGEMENTS AGAINST THE COMMUNITY

SO THE BOD IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS PROBLEM -- LET'S SEE IF THEY CAN DO ANYTHING

---- CHIPPER



>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CLICK TO ENLARGE >>>>>>>>>>>>>

reply - roberts rules of order

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "reply - rules - upgrades":

http://www.condolawyers.com/articles/robert.htm. Lawyers interpretation of Roberts Rules as they pertain to homeowner associations. I couldn't find anything on the Internet that mandates associations in PA must adopt this format. I'm from Missouri, Please Show Me a PA gov website that says we must by law adhere to these guidelines. All I could find is that following the guidelines are voluntary and could be adopted in the association bylaws.
Robert's Rules of Order, the recognized guide to running meetings and conferences effectively and fairly, as advertised on their website.

reply - upgrades

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "reply - rules - upgrades":

Joe Birrell's explanation makes sense to me but the reason that section was done first wasn't made very public or there wouldn't be such an uproar on this site. It seems to me that based on comments here if section 5 was done first people in sections 1,2,3 & 4 would complain. If section 4 was done first those in 1,2,3 & 5 would find a reason to complain. You can please some of the people some of the time but you can't please all of the people all of the time.

mixed bag of replies

Anonymous to me
show details 12:39 PM (3 hours ago)

Reply


Anonymous to me
show details 4:04 PM (1 minute ago)

Reply

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "reply - rules - management????":

Sounds like this was written by Lenny or Marietta themselves, or one of their infamous friends. They're good for taking all the credit for things getting done, except that it has all been in the works long before they got involved.

>>>>>>>>>>> AND



Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "UPDATE FOR LA WEB PAGE ?":

If an obituary page is going to be posted, it should at least be updated with guidelines. Some information about the people would be nice. Without the details the page is meaningless. In my opinion the page should come down or do it right. By the way, I have checked a few other lake communities in the area and not one has an obituary page.

Perhaps the web admin for the site can post more info about events, pictures, etc. From a marketing perspective the focus should be on LA and how great it is for families.

Does anyone think the obituary page turns people away?

Just my 2 cents. Have a nice day. :)

reply - budgets

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "rules + bod":

I SURE DON'T WANT TO VOTE ON THE DAY TO DAY OPERATIONS THAT IS WHY WE PAY BIG BUCKS TO PROPERTY MANAGERS, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THAT GIVES THEM LICENCE TO SC--W US . I JUST WANT TO VOTE ON THE PROPSED BUDGET THAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE PRESENTED AT AN OPEN SPECIAL MEETING TO PRESENT THE BUDGET PREPARED BY THE BOD & THEN VOTED ON YES OR NO BY A MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE PRESENT WHETHER TO ACCEPT OR DECLINE JUST AS YOU DO ON YOUR SCHOOL BUDGETS. THAT RIGHT FOR THE LAST 3 BUDGETS HAS BEEN TAKEN AWAY BY THE BOD. THAT IS WHAT CCLA TOOK THEM TO TASK FOR. WHAT IS THE PROBLEM & WHY IS PAST & PRESENT BOARD PAYING A LAWYER TO TAKE AWAY YOUR RIGHTS. CAN IT BE THAT THERE IS NOT AN UNANIMOUS VOTE ON THIS ISSUE & THE 2 MEMBERS MR. BERKEY TRIED TO TAR IN HIS INFUMOUS LETTER VOTING TO KEEP YOUR RIGHTS? WHY NOT ASK WHEN THERE IS A MEET THE CANDIDATES NIGHT OR AT AN OPEN BOARD MEETING? ASK EVERY CANDIDATE IF HE THINKS PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE NO RIGHT TO VOTE ON THESE ENORMOUS INCREASES OR WILL HE ALSO WANT TO BE AGAINST YOUR RIGHT AS AN OWNER TO VOTE

reply - rules - management????

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "COMMENT REPLY -- RULES":

It was good to read something from an owner who makes sense as oppose to the friend of the board president who only wants to ignore the fact that former board presidents & board members have run Lake Adventure like their private kingdom with the lowly servants having no rights to republish that ridiculous letter he wrote condemning CCLA when he is spending money on the lawyer to fight against property owners right to vote on the budgets and wants to make it only right for 7 elected members to decide on much dues are for 1749 lots.
That was Lenny Masucci, board member you saw who has a reputation of helping property owners when they can't get the help from our maintence to perform work they get paid to do and there is only 1 woman on the board the one elected last year Marietta Richard who I and many others saw on job sites & working in office after Gary was fired. Understand that she volunteered to oversee work that was needed until a property manager was going to be hired. All I know is that I didn't see those two board members sitting at the pool enjoying themselves like our esteemed Pres. & Treasurer, Ed Rohs. I guess you know who I am voting for if they are running. I am anonymous because I don't want Mr. Berkey blaming me for his mistakes.

reply - rules - upgrades

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "COMMENT REPLY -- RULES":

CALL THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE FOR CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND THEY WILL TELL YOU THAT ASSOCIATIONS SUCH AS OURS BY PA LAW MUST BE RUN UNDER ROBERTS RULES OR GO TO A LIBRARY OR INTERNET AND LOOK IT UP.
AS TO THE QUESTION OF WHERE IS THE ELECTRIC BEING UPGRADED I STOPPED & ASKED WHEN I SAW THEM INSTALLING IT IN FALL & WAS TOLD BY JOE BIRREL, COMPLIANCE OFFICER FOR LA THAT THE WORK WAS NOW BEING DONE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PARK BECAUSE THAT IS THE OLDEST SECTION & FIRST SECTION PUT IN IN 1976 AND WOULD CONTINUE BEING INSTALLED SO THAT OLDEST SECTIONS WOULD GET UPGRADED & THAT THIS WOULD IMPROVE THE OTHER AREAS AS WORK PROGRESSED. THIS CERTAINLY MADE SENSE TO ME RATHER THAT GOING TO MAYBE PERFERED AREAS WHERE BOARD MEMBERS HAVE THEIR LOTS. MAYBE WE FINALLY HAVE SOME MEMBERS THINKING OR HAVE MORE EXPERIENCE THAN THOSE WHO SERVED ON BOARD BEFORE. FROM WHAT I HEARD FROM OTHERS THE FIRST SECTION THAT WAS DONE ALL THE WAY IN BACK OF PARK WAS DONE BECAUSE 3 BOARD MEMBERS HAVE LOTS BACK THERE & PM KNEW WHERE HIS BREAD WAS BUTTERED, YOU THINK?

LETTER FROM PREZ !!!

this may be the most interesting and revealing letter in the adventurer -- enjoy!!!

>>>>>>>>>>> CLICK TO ENLARGE

COMMENT REPLY -- RULES

Anonymous to me
show details 4:45 PM (16 minutes ago)

Reply

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "rules + bod":

Would the party who made the statement that members have no right to vote on budgets, expenditures etc. please tell me which page, of the 1840, in Roberts Rules contain that statement!!!!Being a member of a Homeowners Association for over 20 years and Lake Adventure for 18 but must confess really didn't bother to get involved until someone told me about the Chipper last month and after reading entries am really shocked to find out all the issues that exist. First off, the duly elected board has the responsibility to work for the membership and not their gains, as people have indicated with members getting electrical upgrades, road and sewer repairs while others who are not friends of board members flounder. Yes, there is a lot of mis-doings going on if even .01% of these is true. But the main response is that members have no rights. Are we in Cuba or other countries run by dictators, we damn well do have the right to vote on where our money is going so before the party who made that statement should read Roberts Rules updated version as of 2006 to see how an organization such as LA should be run. As far as people making supposedly false statements they should be taken with a grain of salt, plus, if people wouldn't feel threatened if they verse their opinions about what's going on they would put their names in blogs, I sure as hell won't after hearing threats at the August meeting against CCLA members. As CCLA goes I too wonder, as a blogger mentioned, how much their lawyer costs in comparison to what we are being charged by the lawyer who was to solve our trailer problem only to generate more anger towards LA by the township!!! Election time is coming and property owners should reflect their approval or dis-approval of board members up for re-election personally I observed one member, while I spent my three weeks up there last summer, I believe his name is Lennie who was trying to get repair work done on property owners lot that had been dug up with a hole the size of a bomb crater and saw him there numerous times along with a woman board member doing supervisory work that should've been done by a manager or maintenance supervisor. If they are up for re-election they will get my vote and only wish other board members took that kind of interest. I wish I was in the position to run for the board but family obligations and work prevent this but I can assure you when retirement rolls around and I do have the time I will take a greater interest in LA and where my dues are going.

more replies

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "rules + bod":

I know the concensus is the previous PM and BOD did damage but what specifically has the new BOD done to mismanage finances, labor and equipment? Is the thought that only a few members have been replaced so they are all guilty by association to the previous board members? If we are being exposed to lawsuits and city/county fines we need to know what they are doing and quickly address each issue as the fines impact our dues and ultimately our pocket books. Paying dues for facilty upgrades is one thing but I'd like to know what labor and city laws we must address to avoid fines to which we may be open to. It sounds like they are doing nothing right. I for one am in the dark as to all the possible infractions this BOD has left us open to and you appear to have more information as to what the BOD is doing right and wrong than the rest of us so we'd like further details. As for unqualified members, I read the biographies of each candidate last year and they all had business management experience, financial accountability, etc. If candidates lie on the bios that are mailed out how are we to know who is qualified? I would hope there is some screening to make sure there is truth in each candidate's resume.


and


Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "rules + bod":

it's comments like yours that lead people to think our BOD isn't qualified to make decisions, these bd members come from very diversified backgrounds, some professional, some running businesses, some with quite alot of knowledge of electrical, water systems and sewer mgmt. Do not believe everything the people at the twsp. tell you, there are some there who just love to give out misleading or plain wrong information. You don't know what you are talking about, but you're accusations sure do stir the pot, which is one of the biggest problems at LACA.

replies

Anonymous to me
show details 2:59 PM (0 minutes ago)

Reply

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "12' wide + infrastructure problems":

SURE KEEP CALLING THE TOWNSHIP, 5 PEOPLE WILL GET 5 DIFFERENT ANSWERS, THE TOWN ARE NOT TRYING TO HELP, BUT THEY ARE GOOD AT DOUBLE TALKING.

and


Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "bod + mismangement + finances = bingo":

I GUESS IF THE CCLA MAKES THE SAME FALSE ACCUSATIONS LONG ENOUGH THEY FEEL PEOPLE WILL EVENTUALLY BELIEVE WHAT THEY ARE ACCUSING THE BOD OF. ALL I CAN SAY TO NEW OWNERS OR ANYONE INTERESTED IN HOW LACA IS RUN IS TO ATTEND OPEN BOARD MEETINGS AND GET FIRST HAND INFORMATION FOR YOURSELF, THEN MAKE YOUR OWN DECISION.


and


Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "bod + mismanagement + finances = bingo":

YEAH FOR THE NEW MEMBERS, WHO WERE NO BETTER QUALIFIED THAN PAST BUDGET MEMBERS WHO INCLUDED AN ACCOUNTANT, AND PERSONS WHO WORKED IN BOOKKEEPING, DOESN'T SOUND LIKE 90% TO ME, BUT HERE WE GO AGAIN WITH THE MISINFORMATION. GOTTA LOVE THE CCLA.

rules + bod

Anonymous to me
show details 10:30 AM (1 hour ago)

Reply

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "bod rules + budget":

3. In Robert's Rules, the decisions are made by the members of an organization. Why doesn't an Association board allow the members to vote on issues that face our Association?
This is a common question which illustrates a basic misunderstanding about the structure of an Association. In a typical homeowners' association, the individual owners have very limited rights. They have the power to elect the board, and they have some rights under the law regarding mergers, dissolution of the corporation, changes to the Association's governing documents, and other types of major decisions as provided by applicable law. The major decision-making authority vests with the elected board of directors. Therefore, even where Robert's Rules may apply, the members will not have the right to vote on the day to day business decisions of the Association.


anon -- that's why the bod members should have some experience in managing a business or overseeing an organization-- this bod has too many members on it who are unqualified for this job -- they continually display an arrogant attitude toward the association members, they mismanage the assets of the community from the finances to the labor and equipment, they operate on the edge of the law and skirt around any number of laws, their actions expose la to fines, lawsuits, and possible adverse settlements-- the association membership needs to be sure they know who they are voting onto this bod -- the consequences of having unqualified people on the bod can be very detrimental to the welfare of the community

12' wide + infrastructure problems

Anonymous to me
show details 10:17 AM (1 hour ago)

Reply

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "permits - township":

I too called the twsp and was advised there was miscommunication regarding trailer permits. I was also told our electric system was one of the main reasons we were denied 12' wides. They don't want more stress on the electric system, they feel a larger trailer would use more electric than an old 8 1/2 wide. Actually a new 12' wide would use less electric than an old tipout. The new 12's are enegery compliant and with new furnaces, hot water heaters and cooling systems plus better insulation they are more energy efficient. Too bad the twsp doesn't see it that way.

adventurer -- more

>>>>>>>>>>>> CLICK TO ENLARGE

bod rules + budget

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "hydrants - bod":

I am a new owner (4 years) but isn't this Association run according to Roberts Rules, I thought that this was law in PA as in most states which I believe states that property owners have the right to vote for or against a new budget & if voted against then a new budget must be prepared & presented. Also at a schedule hearing of the budget a quoram of the people attending can vote for or against. From listening to neighbors this board or previous members for the last two years over-ruled the quoram and pushed an unwanted budget thru & the next year the board wouldn't allow the property owners vote. Even this year when they lowered the dues by $150.00 (a drop in the bucket, after the enormous increases from the $950 charge 5 years ago) they still would not ALLOW the owners to vote on budget. Someone with knowledge of PA law of Roberts Rule is this even legal? Help please if you know the answer and can back it up so we can take them to task.

permits - township

Anonymous to me
show details 1:58 AM (1 minute ago)

Reply

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "PERMIT REQUIREMENTS":

Mistake by township - what else is new - Lake Adventure there new cash cow - I called & you only need as before permit for trailer placement from LA - recommend that if your lot does not have original stakes according to your deed then get it surveyed & staked. Hey, have friends in other dingman communities & they just go get a permit for a deck from twp with no hassel then when completed inspector comes out & gives approval. Why all the harrasment aginst us? What is twp objective to force us out and sell to a developer so they have more taxes to coffer. I guess they're not worried about infrastruce of other communities who are having way more problems with their Assoc than us - Heard that Sunrise suing their builder who they pay dues to & won't even fix their pool plus not living up to their promies. Dingmans after them too?:

obit procedures

Anonymous to me
show details 5:39 PM (11 minutes ago)

Reply

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "UPDATE FOR LA WEB PAGE ?":

I agree about the obituary page needing to come down. What is the purpose of having it? In fact, it can really open a can of worms. If someone passes on and their name is not listed, can that be seen as discrimination? What is the process to have someone added to the page? No process is listed on the web page. That leads me to believe that the board, management and staff extend condolences as they see fit. If you do it for one, you must do it for all.

THIS PAGE NEED TO COME DOWN or add some processes around it such as:

- How to submit a name
- Length of time name will be published
- background about the person (Details)

right on the mark !!!!!!!

Anonymous to me
show details 5:29 PM (3 minutes ago)

Reply

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "SLOOOOOOOOOOOOOW PROGRESS ????":

If you've been an owner for five years you must have observed what the status of our infrastructure and fines we had to pay due to mis-management by our maintenance department and sewer treatment plant by the previous manager and with no audit available at the time of his being let go who knows what else he did. One item everyone must be aware of is the DEP is on our case about the water and sewer and if everyone just thinks we have the best people taking care of these utilities at present why are the township and DEP evaluating us. For everyone's information the DEP fined Eagle Lake $35K for violations last summer as first time offenders and with us alrteady paying a $10K fine do you think we will be fined less?? If so wait for the Easter Bunny to pay it. In previous blogs the infrastructure has been mentioned by the township the reason we cannot upgrade our trailers, hello, if the same people maintain our systems and use the same contractors for repairs and upgrades where do you think we are headed--for a train wreck. The new manager, by the information from the board, should make the maintenance and sewer treatment and water system a top priority or face more fines and possibly a closure. If you need proof about Eagle Lake look on the web site for Eagle Lake/Wilkes Barre fine and you can see what I'm talking about. As a full time resident of Pennsylvania I've found out the hard way about the laws and fines the state hands out and with the township having lean times in meeting their budgets there is no faster way to build up revenues than fining property owners.

SLOOOOOOOOOOOOOW PROGRESS ????

Anonymous to me
show details 11:35 AM (1 hour ago)

Reply

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "bod + mismangement + finances = bingo":

I've been an owner for almost five years. I didn't receive a copy of the CCLA claim. When was it mailed out? It would be appreciated if someone would submit it to Chipper and let him post it so those of us who are unaware of the situation can be updated. While I don't doubt the claims I'd like to see the letter rather than rely on hearsay.
We have a new manager and you indicate for the first time we are receiving fiance accountability and have board members with backgrounds relative to their board seat. Sounds to me like this BOD has accomplished quite a bit in the last nine months.

bod + mismangement + finances = bingo

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "in defense of everything !!!":

You must be new owner or you would have received the mailing about what CCLA was requesting as the rights of property owners to have acess to. There never was a lawsuit against the Association but after years of requesting info. and the boards over the past 20 years running the community like their own little kingdom and refusing to ALLOW property owners, without having to sign 5 documents plus getting a notary to verify their signature then maybe the bod would allow you to see whatever you requested. They even asked the Attorney General to step in who informed them that the only way to force the issue was to hire a private attorney & get the courts to intervene to force them by PA. law "A right to know state" to let anyone look over the books. Enough people in the community felt that the only way to do this was to raise money to hire a lawyer which at least a third of property owners felt it was important enough to put up their money to try & get answers. Their intention has never been to sue for money, which would only be suing themselves, but since the board refused to provide answers were hoping that the courts would side with owners and & rule that they have a right to know if their money is being spent correctly or is being mismanaged. If it has cost $9,000 as Mr. Berkey states it is because they are fighting against your rights and the new lawyer they have hired is charging outrageously high fees as I have heard that CCLA has not spent even half that amount for their lawyer. Why is the President & some board members fighting so hard against CCLA what are they trying to hide? A manager gets fired after 5 years, not because he was doing a great job but because there were problems with his management, don't you think owners have a right to know if he mismanaged our funds that he had the right to sign for loans, and exhorbitant contracts and to accept bids. With so many other associations the last few years proving that money is stolen from their accounts & people going to jail that we are not entitled to the proof that our money has not also been misappropriated? Sure Mr. Berkey this summer stated that if you want to review anything he will now allow it after you request it in writing and get approval. But this is after CCLA had to hire a lawyer, but says if they want to have an accountant check the finances then they should pay the fee. Why? the responsibility is the Boards not members of the community to prove that the PM did the right thing under our employment

bod + mismanagement + finances = bingo

Anonymous to me
show details 9:29 PM (31 minutes ago)

Reply

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "in defense of everything !!!":

IN ANSWER TO WHAT A WONDERFUL JOB THE TREASURER, ED ROHS DID THIS YEAR WITH THE BUDGET THAT EVERYTHING IS LISTED, YOU ARE RIGHT, BUT NO THANKS TO HIM BUT TO THE FACT THAT FINALLY AFTER ALL THE YEARS OF THE SAME PEOPLE ON THE BUDGET COMMITTEE WHO 90% HAD NO BACKGROUND IN FINANCE A NEW COMMITTEE WAS FINALLY FORMED WITH ACTUAL OWNERS WHO HAD BACKGROUNDS IN FINANCE, BUDGET PREPARTION & THE FACT THAT THE NEW BOARD VOTED THAT THERE SHOULD BE MORE ACCOUNTABILITY TO THE COMMUNITY. PLUS THE FACT THAT MEMBERS OF CCLA HAVE REQUESTED TIME & TIME AGAIN FOR AN ACCOUNTING OF VARIOUS FUNCTIONS IN THE COMMUNITY THAT WERE NEVER BROKEN DOWN BEFORE AS TO COST & RETURN. SO MUCH INFO ON THIS YEAR'S BUDGET IS MANY THANKS TO THE NEW MEMBERS WHO MADE SURE THEY GOT ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS THAT THE COMMUNITY NEEDED TO KNOW.
ALSO THANKS TO THOSE CCLA MEMBERS ON THE BUDGET COMMITTEE WHO ALSO WORKED HARD TO GET YOU THE INFO.

PAUL KRUGMAN

OP-ED COLUMNIST
Climate of Change


By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: February 27, 2009
Elections have consequences. President Obama’s new budget represents a huge break, not just with the policies of the past eight years, but with policy trends over the past 30 years. If he can get anything like the plan he announced on Thursday through Congress, he will set America on a fundamentally new course.

The budget will, among other things, come as a huge relief to Democrats who were starting to feel a bit of postpartisan depression. The stimulus bill that Congress passed may have been too weak and too focused on tax cuts. The administration’s refusal to get tough on the banks may be deeply disappointing. But fears that Mr. Obama would sacrifice progressive priorities in his budget plans, and satisfy himself with fiddling around the edges of the tax system, have now been banished.

For this budget allocates $634 billion over the next decade for health reform. That’s not enough to pay for universal coverage, but it’s an impressive start. And Mr. Obama plans to pay for health reform, not just with higher taxes on the affluent, but by putting a halt to the creeping privatization of Medicare, eliminating overpayments to insurance companies.

On another front, it’s also heartening to see that the budget projects $645 billion in revenues from the sale of emission allowances. After years of denial and delay by its predecessor, the Obama administration is signaling that it’s ready to take on climate change.

And these new priorities are laid out in a document whose clarity and plausibility seem almost incredible to those of us who grew accustomed to reading Bush-era budgets, which insulted our intelligence on every page. This is budgeting we can believe in.

Many will ask whether Mr. Obama can actually pull off the deficit reduction he promises. Can he actually reduce the red ink from $1.75 trillion this year to less than a third as much in 2013? Yes, he can.

Right now the deficit is huge thanks to temporary factors (at least we hope they’re temporary): a severe economic slump is depressing revenues and large sums have to be allocated both to fiscal stimulus and to financial rescues.

But if and when the crisis passes, the budget picture should improve dramatically. Bear in mind that from 2005 to 2007, that is, in the three years before the crisis, the federal deficit averaged only $243 billion a year. Now, during those years, revenues were inflated, to some degree, by the housing bubble. But it’s also true that we were spending more than $100 billion a year in Iraq.

So if Mr. Obama gets us out of Iraq (without bogging us down in an equally expensive Afghan quagmire) and manages to engineer a solid economic recovery — two big ifs, to be sure — getting the deficit down to around $500 billion by 2013 shouldn’t be at all difficult.

But won’t the deficit be swollen by interest on the debt run-up over the next few years? Not as much as you might think. Interest rates on long-term government debt are less than 4 percent, so even a trillion dollars of additional debt adds less than $40 billion a year to future deficits. And those interest costs are fully reflected in the budget documents.

So we have good priorities and plausible projections. What’s not to like about this budget? Basically, the long run outlook remains worrying.

According to the Obama administration’s budget projections, the ratio of federal debt to G.D.P., a widely used measure of the government’s financial position, will soar over the next few years, then more or less stabilize. But this stability will be achieved at a debt-to-G.D.P. ratio of around 60 percent. That wouldn’t be an extremely high debt level by international standards, but it would be the deepest in debt America has been since the years immediately following World War II. And it would leave us with considerably reduced room for maneuver if another crisis comes along.

Furthermore, the Obama budget only tells us about the next 10 years. That’s an improvement on Bush-era budgets, which looked only 5 years ahead. But America’s really big fiscal problems lurk over that budget horizon: sooner or later we’re going to have to come to grips with the forces driving up long-run spending — above all, the ever-rising cost of health care.

And even if fundamental health care reform brings costs under control, I at least find it hard to see how the federal government can meet its long-term obligations without some tax increases on the middle class. Whatever politicians may say now, there’s probably a value-added tax in our future.
But I don’t blame Mr. Obama for leaving some big questions unanswered in this budget.

There’s only so much long-run thinking the political system can handle in the midst of a severe crisis; he has probably taken on all he can, for now. And this budget looks very, very good.