SOS (Save Our reSort)
If you had
economical problems at your home, which action would you take?
·
To
reduce the expenses related to the maintenance of your house as much as
possible, and to wait for better times? or
·
To
keep the expenses level and to start a debatable reform of dubious profitability
and only in the long term?
We believe
that the sensible solution is the first one.
Our Committee has chosen the second one in the case of the renovation of
the Hacienda Riquelme gardening contract.
The Committee intended to directly approve the bid submitted by STV, which includes removing the so
called “Polaris strips”. Given the
strong opposition to this measure
by some owners, an EGM has been called for
January 8th, 2014 to put to a vote this proposal.
Our opposition
to sign the contract with STV in the conditions reported to us (very poorly, by
the way) is based the following reasons:
·
The
removal of Polaris strips is an irreversible modification that substantially
alters the property we bought.
·
It
is a change that, as our legal advisors report, to be approved, it is mandatory
the agreement of every owner. And there is no unanimity (The article 17 of the
Condominium Law and the article 5bis of our statutes set that unanimity is
required before introducing relevant reforms in the property of all of us).
·
It
is a reform that replaces lawns (in good or bad condition) by stones. We
believe that the aesthetics of the resort becomes worse. In addition, an earth floor could be
regenerated. A stone floor cannot.
·
It
is a reform than can put into risk the trees of the resort that have grown
properly (precisely the ones planted in these strips).
·
We know neither the small letter of this contract, nor rigorous, solvent and
comprehensive data to support the
decision that the Committee promotes.
·
The savings are only hypothetical and in the long-term. A much more
actual saving would be to
deduct the cost of removing the Polaris
strips included in the bid of STV (no company works for free). That is a lot
of money to pay for irrigation water!
·
Up
to date, Resortalia has not delivered any data, as requested by at least a
sub-community president, in order to objectively evaluate
the true advantages of the STV bid.
The current President of the resort is elected only for the community
of owners and not the public EUCC land hence he has no authority to call
an EGM. Furthermore, the notice of the EGM has not been delivered
legally.
·
If the financial and economical survival of the resort recommends changes, we
think they should be done within a strategic plan, and not as isolated
initiatives.
·
Making these changes to the resort is very dangerous. It sets
a precedent and opens the way for other controversial decisions. Why not
to cut down our trees to save the cost of pruning, spraying and irrigating
them? Why not to convert lawns into fields to grow lettuces (we could use
cheaper irrigation water)? Why not to paint the buildings in a different color,
if we find cheaper paint? Why not to remove the perimeter fence to radically
finish with the problem of its rusty?
We appreciate the job carried out by
the Committee members. No doubt it must be frustrating to work hard as a
volunteer and to receive opposite opinions.
But as owners that have invested our
savings in Hacienda Riquelme, we do not have to consider positively any
Committee proposal. We are not going to say always yes, in particular if we
firmly believe that they are putting into risk the future market value of our
investment, already very devaluated.
The
Committee represents the owners’ community and their task is to ensure the
maintenance of the resort, not dismantling it.
The resort has developed and survived six years of world crisis. Now that
it seems that the situation improves, we believe it is not time for
experiments. We prefer other measures, like trying to renegotiate some
contracts still having too high rates, and improve the effective monitoring and
control of our gardening suppliers.
Good evening all, I regret that I have been put in the position where I must apologise for the invasion of your privacy through a number of unsolicited e-mails. It is difficult to find the right balance between having access to sub-community presidents via their official e-mail addresses and being able to curtail the excesses of those who have their own agendas - and I wish that I had the answer. In the current situation, there is a difference between the promotion of an opposing point of view (which is right and proper) and sending a stream of unsolicited e-mails which simply end up by being counter productive as most recipients get so annoyed with them that the e-mails are rightly consigned to the bin. Indeed, one of our S-C Ps has become so disenchanted by these unwanted e-mails that, regrettably, he/she has resigned. In closing, may I take this opportunity to wish you all a very happy New Year. Nigel Bradbury
ReplyDeleteWe really do need to correct this miss-information within the community.
If someone has an alternative viewpoint from the Committee, then it is incorrect that their alternative views "should be rightly consigned to the bin" as Nigel directs.
Also when each SCP was elected they clearly signed data protection forms for the use of the SCP email accounts to be used and as such any email sent to the SCP email address to do with the community is not "unsolicited". If individual SCP's do not want to receive correspondence on key owner issues then they really are in the wrong roles and need to resign.
In terms of the latest saga then Pedro is the gardening subject matter expert as he designed a number of PW resorts and the committee would be wise to work with locals rather than constantly against them. As I recall the same fundamental mistakes arose with the sub community cleaning contracts where we were constantly told they could not be performed any cheaper. A local supplier subsequently reduced the costs by 70%.
In closing, surely artificial grass would be a compromise to the PW strips, an idea raised by a number of owners two years ago but that was from an owner not on the committee.
Fully agree with you (except for artificial grass, that deserves further study) :-)
ReplyDeletePaco
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I note the point that the committee believed that the changes being voted on by e-mail were legal. I am surprised at this view, as I produced a detailed report in 2012, when I was on the committee, that clearly outlined the legal position on voting on such issues, in which I clearly stated that all such votes had to be presented at either the AGM, or an EGM, and this was agreed by Resortalia. This was also the position of the Resort President at the committee meeting where this issue was discussed. The fact that the rest of the committee believed that this e-mail vote was legal is, in my opinion, very worrying.
We cannot just apply what we believe is more democratic and ignore Spanish Community law as though it is not relevant. I appreciate that the HPA is not perfect, but it contains checks and balances that are very important for all our protection. I have seen many examples of resorts where committees and Resort Presidents have made very poor decisions without a legal vote, often ending in court cases costing thousands of Euros, and in some cases bankrupting the resort. I am not suggesting that is happening in this case, but the precedent it may set for the future is of great concern. I spent a huge amount of the two years when I was the Resort President at La Torre undoing some of the damaged caused by the first committee, which resulted in various legal challenges from a group of owners and community presidents, so I have experienced first hand the problems this can cause.
David Bamford
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resortalia issued last week, the legal report about the changes that Committee want to make in landscaping of the Resort.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion this has not been reported to the owners correctly and maybe many of you ye not read. Maybe when you read it you will understand why they have not been properly informed.Now I draw you the report's findings:
III. CONCLUSIONS
Area 1: Town Hall area & Area 2: Town Hall Areas affected by the Contentious Administrative Process.
In order to carry out the modifications included in the report of the Contentious administrative process (recurso contencioso administrativo) and, and after the advice of the Lawyer of the Community, Professor Santiago González Varas, it would be necessary to get a first instance Court Rule.
Area 3: General Community areas.
Fort the modification of these zones, it is necessary to call a General Meeting of all the Subcommunities as well as for the General Community. In such meeting and affecting the Bye – Laws of the General Community, the approval needs to be ratified by unanimity.
Area 4: Private areas
In case that the zones of modification are private, the Community needs permission in
writing signed by the legal representative of the company owner of the zone.
I attached the report in English, plus the link to the website of the Community which has been uploaded (in case anyone thinks I modified them and I'm lying). http://hrgr..es/images/documents/2014/legalreport.pdf
Pedro de Pedro Nicolás
Presidente del Edificio Espliego 1.
Agricultural Engineer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am a member of the committee, and always have been. I had resigned but had to remain in my role until an EGM was held to replace me. Nobody wanted to do it so a name had to be drawn out of the hat. As previously documented, my name came out of the hat, so I had to remain as PP, or go to court to get it out of it. That was not an option as I was in the UK when it happened and will be there until the next AGM. I had the agreement of the Resort President to respond although the full committee had not seen my email at the time. I was responding to two emails from non-committee members.
I agree with your comment “It would also be unwise not to follow Resortalia's legal direction.” Before you make comments about what is legal and what isn’t I suggest you read Resortalia’s legal direction on these proposals. This clearly states that we do not need a unanimous vote to change the grass verges and do almost all of the other changes in the proposal.
Regards
Ron
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pedro,
I have done my best to give people as much information as possible to help them make the decision........ People will have to make their own mind up. I have spent too much time on it already and have no more time to spend debating this with you, or anybody else.
Regards
Ron