Reunión de propietarios 2016

[Cindy Lieurance]

Iris y el Comité Directivo Fundacional -

Estamos de acuerdo - el intercambio de inquietudes y opiniones entre los propietarios puede ayudar todos ser más informados y consciente de las cuestiones.

Gracias de nuevo por todo su trabajo duro hacia la formación de una asociación de propietarios en una realidad, y gracias a todos los miembros del comité y otros voluntarios que han ayudado con las traducciones, las reuniones, y todos los detalles importantes.

¿Podremos ser informados de las propuestas que se presentarán en la reunión?
¿Qué decisiones vamos a considerar en la reunión?
¿Cómo podemos organizar los propietarios que no pueden asistir la reunión a enviar sus representación?

Pensamos que sería beneficioso saber lo que podríamos estar votar por o contra.

Gracias de antemano -
Cindy and Leslie "Marco" Lieurance
#233 El Centinela

[Cindy Lieurance]

John and neighbors:

Your numbers for past attendance at meetings sound about right to us. It is disappointing that such a minuscule percentage of property owners show up; more participation would be great.

Whether the meetings are held in Los Altos de Cerro Azul or down in Panama City, some will be unhappy about the location. Anyone who has ever organized meetings or other events can attest to the fact that it is impossible to make everybody happy, but quite a simple matter to make folks cranky and displeased with the date, time, and/or location. With Vecinos Vigilantes, for example, we hear complaints when the meetings are held on weekdays, and we hear complaints when meetings are held on weekends. Overall, the attendance numbers are about equal, no matter when they are held.

If we are to wait for an absolute majority to be present (physically or through proxy), nothing will ever be accomplished. In fact, provisions exist in the by-laws to address the issue of quorums, so it is perfectly legal to proceed with voting when a majority is not present. When there is no majority at a meeting, a second call can be made after one hour and in some cases a third call the next hour. Then, those present can make legally binding decisions.

Our current situation in Los Altos de Cerro Azul is minority rule by a single entity. On what decision have any of us had our voices heard? Road replacement? The Club's monthly charges deducted from the TSM? The TSM increases themselves?

The Committee is preparing a document that will describe in more detail the process of the establishment of The Homeowner's Association, including proposals from two law firms and their quotes of fees, with the suggested split between property owners and Vistamares. In this way, those who wish to vote by proxy will be informed. We will all be able to see the options available to us. The legal work for the establishment of The Homeowner's Association is estimated to take two years, as it works its way through the bureaucracy. Therefore, legal fees will be spread out over time.

We are presently living under minority rule. At least The Homeowners’ Association will provide a means for all of us to be taken into consideration. The progress being made by Vistamares and The Committee is very encouraging. Our congratulations to all who are working for the betterment of our community!

Cindy and Leslie "Marco" Lieurance
#233 El Centinela

[colmport]

I saw a posting of Leslie on my e-mail that does not appear here today.

I agree with Leslie that we owners need to have control over our properties. I also agree that currently, the common areas are managed by one entity and that entity is operated by a corporation of the Melo family.

It would appear that some believe that the formation of a homeowners' association (HOA) will provoke more owners to actively participate in day to day (quotidian) management of the community. Some also appear to believe that the cost per owner would be less if a HOA is formed.

As to the first belief: I do not believe that one additional property owner who does not currently show an interest in the quotidian operation of the community will show any more concern after a HOA is created. If a large number of property owners were dissatisfied with the current situation; we would have heard a roar long before now. It can therefore be inferred that the vast majority or property owners are content to leave the status quo unchanged.

What is truly proposed is that the single entity managing the common areas of the community be changed to another SINGLE entity. At best nothing will change except the identity of the common area management's name. With that said, the replacement of one management regime by another single entity managing the common areas may or may not have any real effect. If the new management can manage as effectively as the current management, I doubt anyone will notice or care. On the other hand, if the new management entity lacks the savvy and business experience needed to manage such a large community; the level of service will decline along with property values and the quality of life. At that point, we may hear the silent majority roar. Or we may merely see the abandonment of our community as it becomes another Los Pinos or another Las Nubes or worse another Altos de Pacora. Time will tell the tale.

As to the idea that more owners will pay their fair share of any cost to maintain the common areas; I believe this is utter folly. The current deadbeats who refuse to shoulder their fair share of the burden to maintain our community are not likely to rush forth to pay up because the name of management has changed or the faces alleging to maintain control in Panama City change. If the services are maintained at the current level, those of us who pay religiously will continue to pay. If the services decline dramatically, I suspect that fewer and fewer owners will pour money into a rat's hole. This will cause what pilots refer to as a death spiral.

Our situation after the formation of a HOA will be precisely the same as it has been from the beginning. There will be minority rule by a single entity. The single entity will be composed of a board of directors who will represent themselves, a pitiful minority of the owners. Only time will tell whether these individuals are more attentive to the needs of their neighbors than the current management. I have had no difficulty having each and every concern of mine addressed immediately over the past nine years. I harbor no delusion that one management team will contain personalities more saintly than any other. My sole concern is business and management competence and experience in managing a community such as ours.

I do believe that the goal of a HOA is a lofty and an admirable goal. It will take years, as Leslie said. It will be expensive.

I applaud those who are climbing this mountain and I wish them well. I am not sure how the attorneys will be paid, however, I suggest that the movers of this issue take up a collection as we did last year to buy the security vehicle. I am skeptical that Melo will pay anything but his pro rata share of any cost based on the lots he still holds.

Our TSM cannot be legally diverted to pay such costs as we have paid these fees to maintain our common areas and it would be an embezzlement and misappropriation of our money entrusted to divert these funds to an endeavor unrelated to the purpose for which we have dedicated our funds.

I give my proxy to vote on any issues related to our community to our de facto Mayor, Mr. Robert Shirley and to his wife Nubia.

Dr. Mark P. Ort

[Marco]

Mark -

You are right that The Homeowers' Association will not lower the TSM. I know of no one in PACAR or on The Committee who has made this claim. Of course, increases in the TSM are inevitable just as they have been in the past. What we are seeking is more transparency and more communication concerning the increases and the ongoing day-to-day operations.

As for any other fears about Melo leaving. Let me explain...

PACAR WANTS MELO TO STAY.
AND MELO WANTS TO STAY.

Excuse the shouting, but how do these ideas get started?

Here's a quote from one the earliest messages on this forum in January 2012...

Propósitos del Grupo PACAR/Grupo Pacar Purposes
Postby admin » Sat Jan 28, 2012 3:01 pm

PACAR
Pro Altos de Cerro Azul Residencial

Somos un grupo de propietarios organizados que no representamos a nadie excepto a nosotros mismos.
Nuestros propósitos son:

a.- Mantener la continuidad de la Administración de Melo. No queremos administrar.
b.- Que nuestras propiedades mantengan o mejoren su valor.
c.- Que se mantenga la seguridad, la paz y la tranquilidad en el área.
d.- Que se legalice la Administración y la Asociación de Propietarios, tal como lo exige la
nueva ley 31 del 18 de junio del 2010, para lograr que todos los propietarios cumplan
con el pago de la TSM


We are a group of property owners who represent no one except ourselves.
Our purposes are:

a. To maintain the continuity of the administration by Melo. We do not want to administer ACA.
b. That our properties maintain or improve in value.
c. That we maintain the security, peace and tranquility in the area.
d. That we legalize the administration and the Property Owners Association, as required by the new Law 31 of 18 June 2010, in order to insure that all the property owners pay the TSM.

Thanks for continuing the conversation.

Sincerely,

[iqsimons]

Estoy positiva frente a este intercambio de opiniones y posiciones. ESTO ES DEMOCRACIA Y PARTICIPACION.

Yo me pregunto: Queremos que otros tomen decisiones por nosotros? Por qué esta lucha para poder participar, decidir, aprobar y ejercer nuestros derechos? Por qué no confiamos en que somos nosotros los propietarios quienes debemos establecer las prioridades? ….muchas más preguntas podemos hacer los propietarios..... Sin embargo, voy al grano.

Las preocupaciones planteadas son reales, frente a hechos de abandono y otras situaciones de barriadas en Cerro Azul y en el Interior de la República de Panamá que en el proceso de su desarrollo se dio su decadencia. Por qué? Una respuesta es… No estaban esos propietarios organizados, ni preparados para agarrar al toro por los cachos.

Hoy concluyo a nivel personal que fue sabia la posición que asumieron los propietarios en el año 1995, de las asociaciones de las 9 lotificaciones del Residencial de Montaña los Altos de Cerro Azul. Ellas apenas funcionaban sin una estructura organizacional para operar, y permitieron al promotor, por ser el dueño mayoritario, decidiera no cobrar cuota de asociación, dejándolo que:

• En enero de 1996 estableciera una tasa de servicio y mantenimiento conocida como TSM, que es un precio que pagamos los propietarios a una empresa, por los servicios que nos brindan, temas que nunca aprobaron los propietarios;
• Actuaran tomando decisiones que son de competencia de los propietarios;
• No llamarán a Asamblea General de Propietarios, según estaba reglamentado en el Estatuto de cada asociación.
• No cambiaran las Juntas Directivas
• Continuara el promotor tomando decisiones de hecho y no de derecho

Esta posición del año 1995, garantizó que el Residencial no fuera abandonada por el promotor, pues no se había establecido una real organización y habían un sin número de problemas que solucionar y enfrentar.

Sin embargo, hoy en día el Residencial de Montaña Altos de Cerro Azul, es otra situación, pues en 20 años se ha madurado; las circunstancias han cambiado; las 9 asociaciones están legalmente inactivas; el promotor, que es copropietario ha consensuado con la creación de una asociación; los propietarios queremos participa; se requiere hacer las cosas de manera correcta con la debida asesoría jurídica.

No podría decir que es malversación de fondos el que se haya tomado del TSM casi $150,000 anuales. Sin embargo, si es cierto la desviación fondos sin nuestra aprobación para cubrir depreciación del Club y otro rubro de gastos para una propiedad privada que no es un área de uso común ni pertenece a los propietarios.

Dra. Iris Quintero de Simons- El Frente No. 89 iqsimons@gtempus.com 236-4587 6673-6750

[colmport]

Dra. de Simons posted an interesting history of our community. I do not doubt the historical accuracy of her recitation.

I do not believe that there is any fighting, or even major disagreement, among owners. I sincerely believe that each and every owner in our community wants what is the best for our community.

I know of no one who disagrees that the creation of a voluntary unincorporated entity known as a home owners' association (HOA) could be a good thing. Owners coming together to share ideas and to promote their community is seldom a bad idea.

It does seem as if there is some level of resentment with the current situation where the current management maintains the common areas for the benefit of all owners. This I fail to comprehend based upon my own very good experience over the past nine years. In Ohio, I own a property with a HOA. I have nothing to do with that HOA as it has no power over me or over my property and it has no authority to do anything but act as a social gathering for gregarious owners.

As I see the situation, that is what is proposed for Cerro Azul. A HOA will be formed that will have no authority whatsoever over any property or owner. It will be a voluntary unincorporated association of person who can socialize and engage in such community activities as they see fit. I have no issue with such an organization of like minded people. I am at a loss, however, to discern what this has to do with the TSM we pay, voluntarily, to the current management to maintain our common areas.

Yes, the common area that benefits all properties includes the Club and the pool (although these are technically owned by one of Melo's corporations). I seldom utilize either, however, I recognize that these amenities enhance the value of my property and those of all other owners.

Once the HOA is created, what will this have to do with those who choose to pay a TSM (or any other service fee by another name) to an entity to maintain the common areas, to include the pool and the club? The HOA will have no legal authority to levy or to collect any fees except to the extent that the deeds to the property require such or to the extent that any owner individually enters into a contract obligating himself or herself to pay fees to an organization he or she joins. To be enforceable on future owners, however, any such individual contract must be incorporated into the deed as condition of ownership that "runs with the land". The HOA may start a fund and it may collect voluntary contributions. The HOA may retain the services of any service provider to perform whatever work the HOA wants done. It may enter a contract with any entity, to include a Melo corporation. Accurately, the persons joining any such organization may vote on how their money is spent.

What we need to focus upon as we form a new entity for property owners to share ideas and to associate freely; we all need to focus on the need to maintain the current level of services. Our streets are not the best in Panama, however they are far better than every inch of road past the police station toward Altos de Pacora and beyond. The water service exceeds even that IDAAN provides to most residents of Panama City (my mother in law in Betania was out of water for a week last year). The common areas are well maintained. The office is convenient for the payment of TSM and water bills. Our new HOA will not have an office, unless we rent space owned by Melo's company at whatever rent he requests. We will not have a staff to attend our needs on a daily basis. We can meet periodically and discuss objectives and desires. We need to assure that we maintain our community as we form a new voluntary unincorporated association that will permit more interaction and dialog among the property owners.

Let me close where I started: The exchange of communications among owners is not dispute, fighting, or even disagreement regarding the goals to be achieved. We all want our community to remain the paradise we came of know and to love. We need to keep our eyes on the prize as we pursue this goal of creating a new HOA.

Dr. Mark P. Ort
#61 Torreon

[John James Cilliers]

From: John James Cilliers

I believe that the legal cost over the proposed 2 years for this new association WILL RESULT in more than usual INCREASES in our TSM.

There is no evidence that changing the situation or the names involved will in any way will result in better management.
The likelyhood of this causing bigger increases in our TSM is HIGHLY LIKELY.

I believe that a independant Company like Vistamare is more objective and by that....... does not promote situations where neigbours are in confluct with each other.
It is better that residents deal with a independant company like Vistamare rather than having to deal with other residents or neigbours.

In all the world, residents association run by residents has led to conflict within the community. It turns into a kinder garden of opinions and politics.
There are alway winners and loosers.

When the community is run by a independant entity like Vistamares...... conflict between owners and neighbours was avoided.

This new commity is already talking about confrontation with the owners that does not pay.........This BEFORE THEY EVEN STARTED.

I support greater community involvement with Vistamares.
I see no reason to embark on great changes that will cost a lot of money and time and in the end have no real additional benefit.

I realise that a small group of people has a dream and that their intentions are good.
For me the road to hell is also ferquintly paved with good intentions.

I realize that they (The people fighting for the change) have spend a lot of their time and effort on their dream.
I also realize that they are bound to consider anybody that is opposed to their dreams as their oposition.
The devition within our community therefore has already started.

This proves my point.

For me our reality is that we are lucky to have Vistamares and a very low TSM.

To change this for me is a folly.

This is not only my opinion but alo that of hundreds of other owners.

If this group that is trying to achieve their gouls are frustrated by our valid concerns as neighbours and property owners then they must understand that they
are not the leaders representing us......there is no such leaders.

All owners have equal rights and thereby the right to their opinions without being negatively judged by others.

Democracy does not imply that a small group of people can decide for the majority.

For his reason I will only consider a true majority vote of 80 to 100% of the total of 2000.00 lots to be a decision that reflect the will of the community.

100.00 people is 5%
400.00 people is 20$
1200.00 people is 60%
1600.00 people is 80%

Unless 1200.00 to 1600.00 of the residents are physically present at the meeting and vote in favor of the new association the vote can not be considered representative of all the voices of this community.

This is my personal opinion as a owner of 4 properties (16,17,18 Alcazar and 123 La fortaleza) in Los Altos de Cerro Azul.

Kind regards
John Cilliers

[colmport]

I agree with the well written comments of Mr. Cilliers.

In 34 years of representing persons as a lawyer, I have had far too many occasions to represent clients in disputes with their neighbors. Those who desire to dictate to their neighbors their personal whims and wishes form HOAs and then attempt to bully the majority of the neighborhood. This misconduct frequently results in costly court battles that do little but to line the pockets of lawyers and to poison community relations. Other than the pleasure of bullying and the sense of power achieved by the "lords of the HOA", nothing positive is EVER accomplished. Those who refuse to be bullied do not tolerate the bullying. Therefore the feuds persist until a judge in a Court of Law puts an end to it all. In the most recent case I handled, the court dissolved the HOA because the leaders of the same used the HOA as a weapon to offend and to oppress neighbors.

I agree that we do not need such tribulations here. In my later years, I am not seeking financial gain from the strife of my neighbors and I refuse to contribute to the income of my fellow lawyers locally to advance folly.

It will cost a great deal of money to push this large rock uphill. Our TSM cannot be used to fund this folly. TSM is paid voluntarily by a small minority of us to maintain the common areas to include the roads; the green spaces; the recreational areas and trails and yes, even the Club and the pool areas. It is not paid to tilt windmills or to line the pockets of lawyers who cannot change the law. Our TSM should not be raised to pay legal expenses that would not maintain the common areas but would likely result in actions detrimental to the interests of most owners. Misappropriation of TSM funds will likely result in fewer property owners voluntarily contributing to this fund which will result in further degradation of the area.

I have been informed that competent legal counsel locally (one contacted by those who desire to form a HOA) has stated UNEQUIVOCALLY that any HOA (formed after the fact, as is proposed) lacks any legal authority whatsoever to enforce its will on non consenting property owners. Those who purchased parcels of property that had no deed restrictions or conditions in their deeds requiring the participation in any future voluntary unincorporated association cannot be compelled to join any such organization. Only those who voluntarily join such a group may be bound by the group they join. Panama remains a country of laws patterned after its creator, the United States. It is not a country that denies Due Process of Law to its residents. Panama is not a country that permits unlawful and uncompensated taking of property rights by one individual (or even a group of individuals) from another.

Each parcel of property that contains a covenant that compels the owner to be a member of any form of HOA can be enforced to the extent that that HOA continues in operation and remains legally viable. There are no such HOAs remaining in this community. I do not believe one EVER existed for Torreon. The nine defunct entities are historical relics that cannot be resurrected from the dead, not even by Jesus Christ himself.

Consequently, the HOA that our neighbors seek to form is fine. It is a community organization, like a church, a Boy Scout Troop, an Elks Lodge, the Masons, etc. People can join such an organization if they choose. They can refuse to join, if they choose. If they join, they can pledge allegiance to their friends, so long as they belong. I suppose that anyone who desires can re-issue a deed liening their own property with such a pledge of allegiance now and in perpetuity if the language of the deed states that such pledge "runs with the land".

Like Mr. Cilliers, I want to see an end to any acrimony, real or potential. I am happy to see the enthusiasm of our neighbors and a community spirit. Let the organization form itself and let those who desire to join and to participate do as they desire. For the majority who may or may not participate; they may continue their association with Vistamares or such successor entity that may replace Vistamares.

BUT, as Mr. Cilliers states, without a majority vote of property owners consenting to the imposition previously nonexistent restrictions on their property ownership; those forming the HOA must understand that their will shall not be done on earth as God's will is done is in heaven. They will not be permitted to dictate ANYTHING to their neighbors. If anyone believes that they will be able to enforce their desires on anyone else or to collect funds involuntarily as Vistamares has not been able to do for 20+ years; I would like to see specifics of the collection and of the enforcement mechanism that will be imposed. With this detailed plan, please state, with specificity, the cost in legal fees for each such effort (how many dollars o Balboas will be expended for each dollar hoped to be recovered). The reason Vistamares does not collect TSM from those unwilling to pay is that there is no legal mechanism to do so and any such futile efforts would cost far more money than anyone could ever dream of recovering. Businesses, or HOAs, do not survive long if they pursue exercises in futility and in doing so squander resources.

The laws of Panama and the rules of ANAM will govern. The terms of any currently existing deeds will prevail. Let each side pledge to allow those who disagree with them to live in peace as neighbors just as liberals live next to conservatives; religious next to pagans; etc. So long as we each respect our neighbor and his or her choices; so long as we each live and let the others live; in peace and in harmony (or by merely ignoring those with who we disagree vehemently) life should continue as we all wish to see it continue.

I also agree with Mr. Cilliers that if a vast majority of owners (as opposed to a miniscule minority comprising a fraction of one percent) want an organization that will rule with some degree of authority; I am a firm believer in Democracy as practiced in Athens, one owner, one vote with an absolute majority governing.

Dr. Mark P. Ort
Casa 61, Torreon

[iqsimons]

COPIO EL SIGUIENTE MENSAJE QUE LLEGO AL ADMINISTRADOR


De: Daniel Muñoz [mailto:dmunoz@cableonda.net]
Enviado el: miércoles, 13 de enero de 2016 02:30 p.m.
Para: admin@altosdecerroazulresidencial.org
Asunto: RE: Pro Altos de Cerro Azul Residencial (PACAR) Daily Digest

TSM should be paid by everyone. If everybody pays, there would be more funds available to cope with all CAPEX and OPEX. The club should be owned by all property owners and profits should be aimed at dealing with both CAPEX and OPEX. There should be an option to give it as a concession to a private entity for a fee and this fee should be used for both CAPEX and OPEX.
Melo should pay more than regular owners as they use the road for business purposes.
We need a ruling entity which will present an annual budget for the consideration of all owners regardless of whether the owner acknowledges or not and responses should be taken into account for changes. Monthly reports should be sent to all owners in respect as to how the budget is being executed.
Nothing should be made on the backs of property owners. If they occur, there will be no difference between this new HOA and Melo.
As for the upcoming meeting, technology advancements can be used to get as many people involved as possible. WEBEX is an option which is free. Presentations can be streamed through internet, the same as the conference audio. Questions could be sent over the chat screen. All in one application and it can be accessed everywhere.
I appreciate all efforts that go towards getting the decision making process closer to property owners.
As to lawyers, I doubt that there are none available in the community that could help in this matter. If there are any fees to pay, they should be way lower than regular ones. Lets us act as a real community and not try to make a profit here.

Regards,

Daniel Munoz
Fortaleza #62

[Marco]

Dear Mark and neighbors -

First of all, allow me a sidebar. I'm sure you didn't mean to imply that in earlier years you sought to profit from the strife of your neighbors. (Insert smiley face here!)

As you and John Cilliers state forcefully, Panama is a country with the rule of law. A property owner cannot be forced to join The Homeowners Association. Notwithstanding that the code of Panama and ANAM (pg. 3 of the Owners Manual 2012) require that The Homeowners' Association be created years ago. The Committee is working to correct that error.

Once established, The Homeowners Association will be a legal binding organization for the future. Yes, some people will be left behind by their own choice. The rest of us, members of a community, will have a voice in the day-to-day operations. Then we can say this truly is our community.

There is no legal reason for us to join The Homeowners Association. But, there are some compelling ones. For me the most vital is continued security and safety which you fail to mention in your post. While it is a pleasant sight to have clean streets and closely manicured common areas for the public I would hope that the advancement of the security detail would trump all other concerns. I want to have a deciding vote in those decisions. Currently I do not.

Also presently, none of us has a deciding vote in how the TSM will be spent. To get that vote will require The Homeowners Association. The TSM funds cannot be misappropriated since there is no legal contract. I didn't sign one, did you?

As you say, the laws of Panama and ANAM will govern. This will be a step in the right direction for all of our futures.

Best regards,

Leslie Lieurance
233 El Centinela