Cable TV ballot in the mail...who lied?

[Maximus]

Originally Posted by Luke

And Max, don't lecture me on what I knew when I moved here. I paid into the system, including premium, for longer than the total amount of time you've lived here. That dates back to pre-Second Restated CC&Rs, MBA, etc. So what I "knew" when I moved here, may not be the same as what is being peddled today.

No lecturing Luke. Glad to see you have contributed to the assets that belong to Rancho Murieta for a long time. I have too. Thank you for contributing to the build up of this wonderful community. I have too. It has worked out well has it not? Can you name the two revenue streams RMA has, and then explain what happens when one of them is vitiated? How do you think that will effect dues?

You decided to buy your own cable on top of what you were paying all those years. Now you want out because you have that opportunity via Freedom of Choice. Do you care that rates will increase with everybody who has RM cable? Oh, and what happens with broadband?

[Truly Julie]

Nonsense? Not so Wilbur, it is your argument that leads to a de facto division of interests and establishment of another member class and is an event I believe would ultimately result in the fractionalization of this membership, an event all should resist.

You assert I have not answered your fundamental question, au contraire, for those peevish, I believe the answer has long been apparent.

If it is true some channles are required by my theory to be mandatory and the cost of some are not, then is it not so because it was the path our representatives chose?

[Maximus]

Originally Posted by JT Weatherford

The FOC amendment will solve that probem once and for all.

Wrong. The bold print looks great but FOC doesn't solve any problems other than more litigation. It creates more problems. And if, in the end, FOC is implemented, it results in one less revenue stream for RMA and increased dues for everybody, and by FOC's own numbers, increases dues for RM Cable. Oh and it eliminates broadband too.

Hey, I can make it bigger!

[feistylady]

right on Max, I used to say, "just because it is said over and over, and on and on, doesn't make it so". Now I can say, "just because the letters are bigger doesn't make it so either"!!

[Wilbur]

Same back at y'all. Just because you keep saying the sky if falling doesn't mean it is. It's a simple reallocation of the operational costs to user fees in the fashion authorized by the Bylaws, and that's all it is. It doesn't mandate that cats lie down with dogs or any of that other nonsense. And it will pass.

[DBCooper]

Obama can solve this problem too.

[Maximus]

Originally Posted by Wilbur

Same back at y'all. Just because you keep saying the sky if falling doesn't mean it is. It's a simple reallocation of the operational costs to user fees in the fashion authorized by the Bylaws, and that's all it is. It doesn't mandate that cats lie down with dogs or any of that other nonsense. And it will pass.

Wilbur your comparison of FOC opposition to Chicken Little is laughable. But since you disagree, let’s have a little reality check. I have said that if FOC passes:


1) There will be more litigation over the cable issue;
2) RM Cable dues will increase as residents leave the system; and
3) Broadband will eventually be eliminated.


Please tell me if any of these statements are wrong. I know that you will blame RMA and RMA’s counsel for the litigation but the FOC folks are the ones who sued. FOC helped prepare the numbers that show cable dues will increase as people drop off, and it looks like 33-40% of RM residents will initially drop off. That will cause an increase in RM cable dues which will then cause others to fall off. Where am I wrong here?

[DBCooper]

I have a question for the legal professionals.

1. Does Rancho Murieta Properties LLC still exist?

This is a very important foundation to the argument that the Cable Agreement is within RMA and we would only be in breach to ourselves.

[Wilbur]

Originally Posted by DBCooper

1. Does Rancho Murieta Properties LLC still exist?

I just checked, Secretary of State shows them as an active corporation. It would be normal for them to keep the "shell" alive by paying the nominal annual fees pending construction. The creation of the corp and its governing docs is one of the things that has to be in place to satisfy DRE when they finally get to the process of seeking a Public Report authorizing the subdivision and sale of parcels/homes.

In addition to the obligations to that particular entity under the MBA the old 1989 Cable Agreement dating back to RMA's acquisition of the system from RMPI remains intact, and it contains a will-serve promise that runs to pretty much the whole CSD area, not just the Rancho North properties.. AND the provision that a developer of any of those unannexed properties can invoke the co-op clause and require RMA to hand the system off to a co-op of all HOAs in the service area. For free.

[Wilbur]

Originally Posted by Maximus

I have said that if FOC passes:

1) There will be more litigation over the cable issue;
2) RM Cable dues will increase as residents leave the system; and
3) Broadband will eventually be eliminated.


Please tell me if any of these statements are wrong.

OK, they're wrong. Except perhaps the first, but that will be up to the BOD. Once the Bylaws have been amended they will have to choose between obeying the Bylaws as adopted by the members and required by law, or seeking judicial cover for their defiance thereof.