When RMA Cable TV is made voluntary will you subscribe?

[feistylady]

Yep, that is the date I remember being threatened with!

[Birdieman]

Wilbur, post #68, 10-02-08 "If push came to shove and the system was going to fail and we were going to be in breach".

Just so everyone knows, even Wilbur admits we'd be in breach of the MBA if we didn't have the cable system. So even though he contiually tries to convince you all that the MBA doesn't have anything to do with cable, he readily admits it here. It's almost JackT'esk.

[Matthew]

Originally Posted by Golfingbear

Matt according to the PROXY people signed the amendent established January 1, 2009 as the effective date.

Obviously that cannot/did not occur so now what? If it takes 24 months to make the changes will this be an issue? I guess my question is for John, Wilbur, and/or George. If the RMA is working towards implementing the bylaw changes are you going to give them time? If so how much time?

[Zebra Top]

Originally Posted by Birdieman

Wilbur, post #68, 10-02-08 "If push came to shove and the system was going to fail and we were going to be in breach".

Just so everyone knows, even Wilbur admits we'd be in breach of the MBA if we didn't have the cable system. So even though he contiually tries to convince you all that the MBA doesn't have anything to do with cable, he readily admits it here. It's almost JackT'esk.

He goes further than that, in a response to me, it may have been the one your referencing but I have not gone to look it up, Wilbur says, and yes Wilbur, I am paraphrasing, that if we did find ourselves in that predicament we could then amend the bylaw again to make it mandatory. I thought it was a squirrelly way to look at it then, and I still do today.

Edited to add: I have quoted Wilbur's comment in my response to Float-n-boat.

[Float-n-Bloat]

Originally Posted by Birdieman

Do you know what the funniest part in all this is? It's the fact that we are doing all of this because the 3 Amigos think it's worth it for a $15 or so savings on their HOA dues. Costing the residents thousands of dollars so they can save pennies, that my friends is the definition of ludicrous. Because after they save their whopping $15, they have to go out and spend $60, $70, $80 or more just to get what they already have. Mind freakin' boggling!

You mean the 3 amigos and another 1155 proxy signers or people who voted yes on having the option of a cable signal delivered to their home. Birdie, Max, Feisty, and now your “legal council” (the same group that is 0 for 3 on recent opinions, right!), I’m tired of you all freakin' saying I was bamboozled or that I don’t understand or that I can’t read. The MBA/cable agreement is easily interpreted to read that the RMA must have the INFRASTRUCTURE in place to deliver the signal. I understand that and I’m willing to pay my share for the upkeep of that infrastructure although I’m tired of paying for a poor quality signal. I’m sure any new developments would also like the option of whether or not they actually have to pay to get a signal.

This FOC action is simply forcing this board to do what the past boards should have done and that is to start working to get us OUT of the cable business. I’m willing to wait while the board finds another “legal opinion” that allows them to follow the bylaws but I’m guessing they better act promptly.

On a side note I notice I no longer get Channel 30 due to increased contract costs (from what I remember reading) to the tune of about $31,000 per year. When can I expect to see my dues decrease to reflect this change?

and on a side side note Birde, you and Max have shown such a deep conviction for proving Wilbur wrong at all costs (including siding with what will ultimatly be a losing cause) that I'm guessing you would disagree with him if he were to post something as obvious as it's dark out tongiht.

[Zebra Top]

Originally Posted by Float-n-Bloat

The MBA/cable agreement is easily interpreted to read that the RMA must have the INFRASTRUCTURE in place to deliver the signal.[

I doubt I can change your mind, but will Wilbur's words help. You can find his post in the Cable TV Ballot in the mail....who lied? thread, post #108. He was responding to me.

Originally Posted by Zebra Top
And if everyone opts out, and the Cable Facility (Service) can no longer sustain itself, what then? In my opinion the Agreement is inferring that there will be a Cable Facility (Service) providing service and will avail itself to the new users. I really don't think they were thinking that all there needs to be available is cable in the ground and the equipment at the ready in case they want to hook up.

Wilbur's response: (bold italics mine)

The obligation is to make it available on the same terms it is available to RMA members. I agree this necessarily implies that some service is available. But if the price is exorbitant under a Chicken Little scenario they have the option to shop elsewhere. But again, 2/3 of the cost of service is programming paid to programmers on a per user basis, and most of the remaining third is the reserves which the BOD remains free to keep in the general dues (and which don't fluctuate with the number of actual users, they're actuarially based on component replacement costs).

And one other thing which I think gets forgotten. If this doesn't pan out and the community wants to revert to forced mandatory subscription, all they have to do is amend the Bylaws again to repeal the amendment. Under any credible Chicken Little scenario surely the BOD would then be able to produce facts instead of speculation supporting the alleged parade of horrors.

[Maximus]

Noi I would agree with anyone who says it's dark outside.

I keep seeing this 1158 number getting thrown around. Float do you think it would have been 1158 had the door to door folks honestly advised residents they want RM cable/broadband eventually gone? Do you think it would be 1158 if people would have actually read the MBA and Cable Agreement? Do you think it would have been 1158 if people knew there would be litigation over all of this?

If you believe this statement which you just made, "The MBA/cable agreement is easily interpreted to read that the RMA must have the INFRASTRUCTURE in place to deliver the signal" then you are repeating what Wilbur has said, and yes, you have indeed been bamboozled.

Again, here it is for you in plain english: "Basic Cable Service Expenses are included in the Rancho Murieta Regular Assesment and shall not be excluded in determining the RMA Contribution." Float, do you know how the MBA defines "Basic Cable Expenses"? Here's a hint - it isn't just infrastructure.

If you think I'm wrong please do what I have invited Wilbur to do. Quote that part of the MBA that supports your nonexistant "infrastructure" argument. Don't believe what Wilbur or I say. Please try to be honest with yourself as to what it says, read it carefully and seriously ask yourself what is intended throughout that entire document.

[Wilbur]

"Are" and "must be" are two very different things. Read me a passage which says all those expenses must be included in the assessment. That sentence does not say that.

Max, did I miss a post wherein you answered my question for a change? Have you read this alleged letter?

[Float-n-Bloat]

OK, I'll bite...Couple of questions Max.

Your interpretation of the MBA will require the RMA to have the infrastructure and programing. What level of programing will they get and how much will they need to pay for it?

Why/how does this prevent the RMA from offering the programing as optional to me as the bylaws now require?

[Birdieman]

Originally Posted by Float-n-Bloat

You mean the 3 amigos and another 1155 proxy signers or people who voted yes on having the option of a cable signal delivered to their home. Birdie, Max, Feisty, and now your “legal council” (the same group that is 0 for 3 on recent opinions, right!), I’m tired of you all freakin' saying I was bamboozled or that I don’t understand or that I can’t read. The MBA/cable agreement is easily interpreted to read that the RMA must have the INFRASTRUCTURE in place to deliver the signal. I understand that and I’m willing to pay my share for the upkeep of that infrastructure although I’m tired of paying for a poor quality signal. I’m sure any new developments would also like the option of whether or not they actually have to pay to get a signal.

This FOC action is simply forcing this board to do what the past boards should have done and that is to start working to get us OUT of the cable business. I’m willing to wait while the board finds another “legal opinion” that allows them to follow the bylaws but I’m guessing they better act promptly.

On a side note I notice I no longer get Channel 30 due to increased contract costs (from what I remember reading) to the tune of about $31,000 per year. When can I expect to see my dues decrease to reflect this change?

and on a side side note Birde, you and Max have shown such a deep conviction for proving Wilbur wrong at all costs (including siding with what will ultimatly be a losing cause) that I'm guessing you would disagree with him if he were to post something as obvious as it's dark out tongiht.

Float, you are hilarious! I hadn't realized you were so funny. And for the record, Wilbur is wrong and he knows it. Have you not been reading? Have you not noticed that he hasn't one time argued the language in the MBA with anyone? Have you not notice he won't answer any of our questions or that he can't prove our interpretation of the MBA and C A wrong? But you can continue to believe whatever you want, it's your prerogative. But keep this in mind, you already have the same FOC today as you will have in the future. No one is forcing you to watch RM cable, and you can get satellite anytime you wish. Best case scenario is that in the future, you might have an extra $15 bucks in your pocket to help pay your satellite bill. But even that is highly unlikely, because of the C A.