Southgate

What's everyone's view on the new covenants? How do you think the vote will go?

New Covenants

I have voted against them.

The new covenants are too vague on important issues such as how much the fee is going to be, how often it can be raised, who has the authority to raise it, and what the money will be used for.

In addition, I will repeat what I have mentioned before in a different thread on this discussion group. That is that the threat of lien's and so forth to force people to comply is heavy handed and unneccessary.

Some of the changes make sense - the satellite dish bit for example.

Also, I am not sure that it is entirely legal to force people to begin paying mandatory dues, when they have not been doing so in the past. Something about a ''grandfather rule''?? I am not certain about this though, not being a lawyer or anything.

I agree

I completely agree with your first paragraph ''The new covenants are too vague on important issues such as how much the fee is going to be, how often it can be raised, who has the authority to raise it, and what the money will be used for.''

We are also going to vote against it. The lien issue is another point. Very heavy handed. Another point I'd like to make is that saying the position of 'compliance officer' will be non-compensatory means that NOTHING will get done (as usual). We will have a mandatory fee which will be used for absolutely nothing and things still won't be enforced beans.

Here we go again

As you can see by the dates on these replies, this discussion is glacially slow.

Once again a set of proposed covenants has been sent out and once again, they are vague in places, and heavy handed in others. My detailed objections will be sent to the ''ivory tower'' in the next day or so for their immediate rejection.

Once again I will be voting against them.

Now doubt we will resume this discussion in 2010 or some such time.