|
|
|
|
|
Here are some facts that SOK TS owners have talked about and seemed very dissatisfied with under the current regime of Consolidated Resorts Management LLC running our Vacation Club. To see
in depth specifics go down through these headline paragraphs. Their ability to increase maintenance fees Activities that are no longer discounted unless you go through their spiel They will
not give out the mailing list to us, as owners, to solicit votes
for directors or anything else We need
a quorum of the membership responding to the ballot in order to elect
directors. Also we spoke to state agencies, visited with former employees,
and spoke to other real estate people. Here are some things for you to
consider that we discussed in our meetings. ASSESSMENT
for 2002 - During the meetings we had, there seemed to be a discrepancy
on what people had paid for their assessment. One person reported paying
$238 per week for a two-bedroom unit while another said, "wait a
minute, I paid $500 a week for a two bedroom unit." Then two other
people said they paid $700 a week for a three-bedroom unit. This is a
major, flagrant act, if Consolidated has done this. We need documentation
from everyone, as to what they paid for this assessment. HERITAGE
RESORTS MANAGEMENT COMPANY versus CONSOLIDATED RESORTS MANAGEMENT COM
PANY
- Michael Kaplan was asked at the Vacation Club Annual meeting in 2002,
why we were paying this assessment when monies had already been set aside
in the furniture fund of our annual maintenance fees, he replied, "Heritage
Corp. did not do a good job of managing the properties and that's why
we have taken it over ourselves. We will do our own managing, and money
will be set aside every year for updating out of the maintenance fees. He was then asked how he could say Heritage Properties Management Corp was not the same company as Consolidated Resorts LLC when all the employees stayed the same with exception of the President. Richard Rodriquez became the President of Consolidated Resorts Management LLC. And Phil Hardin, who was President of Heritage Properties, went to work for Consolidated Resorts in Las Vegas. Michael Kaplan said that was an out and out lie and that Heritage was a separate company from Consolidated. Mr. Kaplan has continually blamed Heritage for not doing a good job of management and not keeping track of the furniture fund and that's why there was an assessment. Mr. Hardin now works in the home office of Consolidated Resorts in Las Vegas. You judge for yourself!
Now, does that sound like co-mingling of funds to you? Why wasn't that furniture fund set aside and earning money? MAILING
LIST OF SOK OWNERS - We were given two affdavits from two different
timeshare owners that had been presented to Consolidated Resorts stating
they wished to have the mailing list to solicit votes and other business
of the Vacation Club. They were never given the mailing list.. Mike Sullivan,
realtor and Carol Nelson, SOK timeshare owner, went to Richard Rodriquez's
offce in March 2002 and asked for the mailing list. Mr. Rodriquez said
because of privacy matters we could not have the list. However, they would
put out a mailing for us at our expense. Carol then asked if it would
be all right to prepare that mailing and deliver the sealed envelopes
to them for labeling and mailing. He said, yes, but that they might have
to put a rebuttal in. Why should they put a rebuttal in a letter that
was paid for by the owners? GOVERNMENTAL
AGENCIES - In our meetings with homeowners in March 2002, we talked
about getting the mailing list on our own and how to do it. Carol Nelson
spent time with Mike Sullivan at Sullivan Realty. Mike taught her how
to read a tax lot number and then how to access the deeded documents through
the Bureau of Conveyances. While in Honolulu she went to the Bureau of Conveyances and they were very helpful. However, these deeds (each one, 8 to 18 pages long) are recorded on microfishe. It is a very long and exhausting process that we wouldn't even want to pay anyone to do for us, believe me. A real estate friend of Carol's, who resides in Honolulu, looked up one unit #124 for her on her data access program. She had the names of all the owners deeded to that unit, but no addresses. We could go one step further and ask her to find out where that list came from and if it were possible to get addresses. However, if CR will do the labeling and we send some people to monitor the labeling and mailing of a letter to the membership that would be easier. Carol then went to the State Dept. of Commerce (DCCA) to speak with the Director in Charge of Timesharing: Lori Beth Van Cantfort. She said that her agency does not handle the complaints, but she gave her some websites to look up the laws governing timeshares and said she would do her best to give us advice on where to go etc. Those websites
are: She read part of one of them to her and it stated that if the TS administrators would not give out the mailing list, they must make it available so that there can be vote solicitation. She also
said there was a rule governing non-proft organizations (of which the
Vacation Club is supposed to be) that states that the mailing list of
said non-profit organization must be made available to members thereof.
HOWEVER, there is a bill that is going before the legislature (in session
then) that states this does not apply to timeshares. Some of the members
of congress feel it should apply and others feel it shouldn't. VACATION
CLUB Board of Directors
If any of
you would like these documents, we would be happy to e-mail them to you. The members
of the Assoc. did not receive a slate of who was running for directors
of the association. They were just handed a ballot at the meeting and
asked to vote for the people that CR had put on the ballot or nominate
someone from the floor. CR votes the Vacation Club votes; therefore, they
put in whomever they wish. Remember,
we, as owners of the TS Vacation Club, are part of that organization also,
and we are entitled to be on that board. However, we received no notice
of the meeting (nothing was even posted in the buildings,). We found out
by asking an employee when it would be. We have every right to be at that
meeting and speak. In all other organizations to which we belong, there
is a nominating committee who puts up a slate of interested persons and
that slate is presented to the membership for vote prior to the meeting.
No such thing was done. The owners
did complain loudly about leaking windows and other structural things
that maintenance was not getting done. We got the impression that the
full time owners are getting a real run around from CR. Pat Sullivan brought up the fact that the owners of the property on which we are paying a lease payment to, are very likely to be in a position to want to sell it. The attorney who represents the family trust that owns this property, told Pat that since their parents had both died this past year, (they were from Bend, Oregon) the three sons may be interested in selling it. A price of $8 million had been spoken of, but the attorney felt like they would settle for a lot less than that. Perhaps, 4 to $5 million. There is a sticky wicket here, and that is: David Resnick (a land lease person with his offce across from SOK) originally negotiated the lease between the property owners and the SOK. Of the monies paid for the lease each year, 80% of it goes to David Resnick and the rest to the owners of the property. Even if we bought the properLy, we would still have to pay that 80% to Resnick until the lease expires in 2036. However,
there is talk in the Hawaii legislature about these types of leases, and
that once the property has sold is it fair to continue the lease. There
are individual cases that have taken this issue to trial. It would seem
to be a shame to pass up this opportunity to buy this property. Pat Sullivan
roughly figured the least each TS owner would be assessed is $500 and
the most $1000. Considering, this year's past assessment of which we had
no say whatsoever to do something (redecorate) that we have already paid
for, buying the property on which our buildings sit would be a much better
expenditure. Michael
Kaplan was not too keen on the idea at all. We think because CR still
owns around 20% of their units they would have to come up with a nice
chunk of cash. This would set their profit margin back, hmmmmmm!!!!!!! At the SOK
VACATION CLUB ANNUAL MEETING (timeshare owners) there were not a lot
of owners there. Maybe a dozen. It was clear that we all felt the same
way. Again, Michael Kaplan ran this meeting. Carol Nelson brought up several
things: assessment, Heritage vs. CRM, co-mingling of funds. Others mentioned
the new ugly carpet and bedspreads the uncomfortable new chairs, and the
two banana plants in the LR that are huge. People tried
to get some kind of understanding of finances, but they were talked circles
around. Others were waiting for "new business" to bring up what
they wished to discuss. However, when Carol asked the question, "since
the TS owners own 70 to 80 percent why are we not represented on the Board
and why don't we have some say in these matters", Michael Kaplan
went on the attack. "Where did you get that figure?" Who told
you that? Are you just pulling numbers out of thin air?" She started
to say, "well your sales people keep telling us that", but he
cut her off and said, "Is there a motion to close this meeting?"
He got one from one of his lackeys and a second from another one and that
was the end of the meeting. New Business
was never brought up. So much for Robert's Rules of Order. Just before
leaving to go home, Carol ran into one of the carpet layers just getting
out of his pickup. The back end was loaded with rolls of the new carpet.
She asked if she could see the carpet. She told the carpet layer that
in the model unit she saw, the carpet was waffley looking and looked like
a bad lay job. He said," well this carpet was made to be glued down
and these people wanted it laid over pad. Because of the latex back it
would only stretch in 100-degree weather, and then not very much. We are tired
of giving our money to CR to use how they see fit and where they see fit.
We want to be able to vote on what needs to be done and who the directors
of the board will be. We are guessing that most all of you are feeling
the same way. WHERE
DO WE START? ---- WHAT DO WE DO? WORKING
WITH THEM FORMING A NEW VACATION CLUB This would
mean contacting the membership CCRM has
said they would send a letter out for us. We need
5 percent of the people to respond in a positive way to call the meeting We need 15 percent of the people to vote for a quorum. A majority of this 15 per cent would determine the outcome. We need to hire an attorney to guide us through this process to make sure we are doing everything right and according to the by-laws of the current Vacation Club. We are in
the process of building a website so that everyone will be able to go
to it and then respond to whatever it is they wish the membership to know. Before
we proceed, we need input from all of you. Do you want to go forward?
Are you willing to help in some way? Will you send us some money to help
defray our costs? The anticipated
costs so far are, setting up a website, consulting an attorney, and
sending a mailing to the membership. The website
is relatively inexpensive. It was about $75 to get set up and $15 a month. We don't
know what the attorney may cost. We are not going to sue, this is for
advice only on how to proceed, Sending
out a mailing is not too hard to figure, as there are 7000 owners that
must be notified. We have
had donations so far that total $600. That was from 3 people. For us to
continue on, we need your response. Please direct your e-mails
to Sokts@aol.com. Let us know if you
feel we should try and work with this current management or whether we
should go out on our own. We would also like to know what you paid for
your assessment per week for the refurbishing in 2001/2002. If you feel
we should go out on our own, let us know what you are willing to do and
please send your donations to our treasurer: Ron Daugherty
|
|
|
News
. Photos . Email |
|
|
