What Owners say happened at the AGM about the increase in bulk scam

Not having been at the AGM, I have been waiting for the HOA to send out the minutes. 

Paul Burchell told me that they would be “distributed after the first trustee’s meeting”. This took place on Thursday, February 14, 2019. No minutes have been released as yet. Just a hard to read, and equally to understand, email called “Increase in FAR (Bulk)”. Who writes these things? I feel sorry for Paul Burchell having to attach his name to any email no trustee is willing to put his name on.  

In the absence of the minutes, here are parts of e-mails that I received from owners who were at the AGM. And reading the “Increase in FAR (Bulk)” e-mail, I have to think that the writer was, like me, also not at the AGM.

So I’ll share with you and the writer what owners who were actually at the AGM have told me (bold added by me):

Owner 1

“Not sure if you've been informed, but the 'expansion' of Thesens was rejected by a forced vote by the homeowners (as the HOA had removed the topic from the agenda pending the commission - slimy ) . No decision on the insider offenders yet.”

Owner 2

“In a nutshell a member asked for a show of hands from the floor for members who were against the increase in bulk. Nearly 80% of those present did not want it.”

Owner 3

Of significance and importance to us is that the question of the TIHOA DRP and Trustees decisions relevant to the question of “Increased Bulk or FAR” was hotly debated. Although poorly controlled and after many exchanges the action of the Trustees in establishing a sub-committee was put to the vote and their action was carried by the narrowest of margins. Then because of continued pressure It was decided to have a “Straw Poll” for an indication from the meeting to sub-committee as to whether the Members actually wanted any “increase in Bulk or FAR”.  The overwhelming vote was NO – my estimate 90% against, so the Subcommittee has a clear mandate of Members feelings and this really took the Trustees by surprise.

Owner 4

So we survived, although it probably was the largest gathering ever by Members for an AGM it was not overly dramatic. It was interesting to hear the comments, Chris Mulder spoke leaving no doubt that for him and the Developers negotiating the Building Rules for TI were long and hard. Graham Power also spoke and sort of intimated Members take a vote on whether the Committee proceed with their deliberations. Another Member stood up and said, let’s have a show of hands. This was the obvious solution. By far, I mean by a huge margin the overwhelming majority stuck their hands up for leaving the DRP Guidelines concerning Footprint and Bulk as is. There was then a call of hands for the proposal the Committee investigate the issue. If there were twenty it was a lot. This was not a formal vote but a show of hands to guide the Trustees.

The Committee still stands but their job is to resolve the issue of properties who are over Footprint or Bulk.

In real terms I think this means they are not going to let go of the Bulk story, it is bound to raise it’s ugly head again. The Trustees maintain there are more than 30% of houses not in compliance; their inference is that these can be fixed by the Bulk story. Chris strongly disagreed and said that under his guard every building was properly checked.  So that’s where we are, I don’t for one minute think the Bulk issue has gone away.

This owner’s prediction has proven correct. It hasn’t gone away.

So to the “Increase in FAR (Bulk)” email (all quotes from the email are in italic).

“The implementation of the FAR rules would be held over until the Board of Trustees has considered and, if approved, acted upon the inputs of the sub-committee and the Members.

Just so we are clear here, we have an AGM, one of the best attended ever according to a member, where 80% to 90% of those attending vote NO to increasing the bulk, and the trustees still seem to believe they will decide if the bulk will be increased? This is absurd.  IT IS NOT THEIR CALL.

On top of this, the trustees have not been able to make a coherent argument to owners the reasons for this increase in bulk. They have changed their story on the reason for the increase twice (Read HOA tries out a new story - I'm not buying it. ), shut out any opposing viewpoints and tried to ban an owner, who asked difficult questions, from attending the AGM.  They have also misrepresented and underplayed the huge impact it will have on everyone who lives on Thesen Islands.

All the time, promising “prompt replies” to questions, but never answering them.  Read What I know: A summary of the scam to date

You have to ask what is the real agenda of the trustees to continue to try to force this increase in bulk through? Any reasonable person would say that if 80% to 90% of those attending the AGM are against the increase, that is probably as good a yardstick as you can get for where homeowners stand on this issue.

“Following the AGM, Lester Day has developed a Terms of Reference (ToR) which has been shared with the Trustees.  Clearly this ToR will need to be discussed at the first meeting of the FAR sub-committee and then approved by the Trustees by Round Robin.  This ToR will then be shared with the members.”

Given that the trustees still feel it is their decision alone (and to hell with the owners and the Constitution) to increase the bulk, how likely are the Terms of Reference going to take into account the huge opposition of owners to increasing the bulk?  This was the understanding of many owners who were at the meeting that:

“the Subcommittee has a clear mandate of Members feelings and this really took the Trustees by surprise.”

And that:

“The Committee still stands but their job is to resolve the issue of properties who are over Footprint or Bulk.”

And how come Lester Day (and other trustees) never responded to the owners that he may be a beneficiary of the premature decision to increase the bulk without formal approval?  Read What I know: A summary of the scam to date  Read The Email that got Craig and the Smith banned

“A key element of the work of the sub -committee is to establish the impact of the proposed increase in FAR by property.”

An email from an owner received in the last few days:

“Ken - Not what I, and I believe others, understood would be part of the committee’s mandate.”

“To gather this data accurately and cost effectively has been a challenge.  To this end Orrie Fenn and Lester Day have held 7 meetings with management over the past few weeks and we now believe we have established the best way to gather the data and to trust the integrity thereof.”

Cost effectively? So it’s costing us?  So aside from umpteen thousands of Rands in legal fees, this fiasco continues to cost us even more money. (Good news, the data has integrity and we can trust it. There is a shortage of both around here.)

By the way, do you know that the trustees have stopped dealing directly with one owner, only talking to him though a lawyer*? I know enough about lawyers that they charge for reaching over to sharpen their pencil before taking notes so this is costing us big time.  Oh, and the recent AGM had a first. The first time a lawyer was flown down from Johannesburg, put up in a hotel and paid to attend the AGM.  How has a simple HOA come to this? Well, read my blog. We know how.

Can the HOA tell us how much they have spent on attorney fees since this began?   

*Let me ask you question. If someone ran for trustee and got up and said “I will only speak to an owner through a lawyer” would you vote for him or her? No, you say? So shouldn’t a trustee who doesn’t do what he was elected to do, resign? What’s next, only speaking to an owner through your therapist?

OK, another quick question: How do you know if you a following a trustee on Thesen Islands?  The car has a bumper sticker “Don’t speak to me, speak to my lawyer”.

“We are now getting a grasp of how long it will take to populate the data.  When we have this answer we will be in a position to call the first meeting of the sub-committee next week.”

Populate the data? Huh?

“In order to clarify possible misconceptions, we list the timeline of documents sent to Knysna Municipality relating to, inter alia, FAR.

7 August 2018    E-mail sent to Knysna Municipality with addenda, showing proposed FAR changes relating to T2, T3 and T11 of the Guidelines.

14 August 2018  Follow up with Knysna Municipality, requesting response. Received feedback thereafter from Knysna Municipality that Knysna Municipality required all the additions and amendments to be incorporated into the Design Guidelines document and re submitted in one, all-encompassing document, not in an addendum format.

2 questions that have been asked many times before: 

How many plans have been approved based on the non approved FAR changes? Please provide the date of approval, stand number and owner’s name.  

I refer you to The Email that got Craig and the Smith banned. Please answer the questions he is asking. 

If the HOA is genuinely committed to “clarify(ing) possible misconceptions” then clear up the perception that selected insiders benefited from the illegal increase in bulk.      

18 December 2018  A Design Guidelines document encompassing all previous addenda from 2014 - 2018, including the proposed FAR changes, was delivered to Knysna Municipality for consideration and who stamped the TIHOA copy, acknowledging receipt thereof.

On 31 December, 2018, the HOA told homeowners that “the implementation of the new FAR rules will be held over”. But I refer to the Agenda of the Design Review Panel Meeting of 22 January, 2019, which says:    

“Guideline Amendments

6.1. BCO submitted changes to the DG to Knysna Municipality in December 2018. Proof of payment request received by BCO during January 2019 and provided to KM. BCO awaiting feedback over progress of application. BCO to provide feedback to DRP when received.”

If the HOA said on December 31, 2019 that the FAR rules have been "held over", which I assume means the process to increase the bulk has been stopped, then why was the HOA in January 2019, through the Building Control Office (BCO) and the DRP, still engaging with the KM about payment and feedback for the changes submitted?  

14 February 2019  KM was advised that TIHOA have withdrawn the submission delivered to them on 18 December 2018.  A Design Guideline document, excluding all the FAR amendment proposals but including addenda from 2014 - 2018, will be delivered to Knysna Municipality during the course of the week of 18 February 2019.”

What took so long? 6 weeks? Was it due to confirmation from the KM Town Planner on February 11, 2019 that “ Yes, we have recently received an application for the increase in bulk and the application is still in its initial stage”, that triggered this withdrawal 6 weeks after you told homeowners that “the implementation of the new FAR rules will be held over”? 

The problem is the HOA has no credibility. This “Increase in FAR (Bulk)” like all their communications demonstrates that plainly to anyone with insight.

A vote of hands showed 80% to 90% of the owners at the AGM do not want it. Therefore, you can safely assume the majority of owners do not want an increase in bulk.   Your job is to follow the wishes of the owners. Not to impose your wishes on us.