Las Palomas update?

rockyptjoe

rockyptjoe

Guest
dry heat said:
good question, problem is the rental company can only rent units who have a contract with them (the contract is between the owner and the rental company- not the HOA). The HOA does not have anything in their bylaws that give them permission to audit the rental operators business. If another resort was able to have the HOA audit the rental operator's business, I would love to hear about it and find out how they went about it or the reason they used. So, to answer your question directly- I have not heard of the rental company being audited by the HOA for their financials or performance with owners.
Click to expand...
So...let me get this straight.....the rental company has no controls over it.....they only have a contract with the individual owners that allow them to rent their units, but not with the HOA. So what right does the rental company have to try to charge individual owners if they decide to rent on their own....that is, the owners who do not have a contract with the rental company? Or am I losing something here.....who is the "for profit side" of Las Palomas???? What prevents the rental company from being ousted? They have defaulted on their contracts with the individual owners by not paying them for the rental of their units.
 
Last edited:
playaperro

playaperro

El Pirata
dry heat said:
My dear Kenny,
Amazing how quick you are to post pictures of yourself with no one asking or caring. Why would you post a picture of your daughter online? I assume the complex is one of the milllions in property you oversee- very nice. However, I am worried that you would post a picture of your weener if someone said it was 4 inches. I could just hear you "Oh I will show him I don't, let me take a picture". You are a joke and a good mark to mess with. Since you are posting pictures on a public forum and inviting comments I will start with one suggestion- you may want to whiten your teeth, years of smoking has yellowed them.
Click to expand...
Must be something u do by the water cooler...
 
dry heat

dry heat

Pigeon coup coordinator
rockyptjoe said:
So...let me get this straight.....the rental company has no controls over it.....they only have a contract with the individual owners that allow them to rent their units, but not with the HOA. So what right does the rental company have to try to charge individual owners if they decide to rent on their own....that is, the owners who do not have a contract with the rental company? Or am I losing something here.....who is the "for profit side" of Las Palomas???? What prevents the rental company from being ousted? They have defaulted on their contracts with the individual owners by not paying them for the rental of their units.
Click to expand...
The HOA only allows all rental to go through one operator, the chosen operator has a contract as the exclusive rental agency at the resort (no different than other resorts). Since the owners are having issues with the performance of the Operator, the owners need to remove the operator by following sonoran law and following HOA bylaws when it comes to removing and replacing the existing operator with another. So yes, the existing operator can be removed or ousted by the owners who have a contract with them (not by the HOA). the HOA can only enforce one rental company, the cancellation or removal of the rental company must be done by the owners who have a contract with the operator. the owners are currently in this stage (removing the operator and replacing with another).
 
rockyptjoe

rockyptjoe

Guest
dry heat said:
The HOA only allows all rental to go through one operator, the chosen operator has a contract as the exclusive rental agency at the resort (no different than other resorts). Since the owners are having issues with the performance of the Operator, the owners need to remove the operator by following sonoran law and following HOA bylaws when it comes to removing and replacing the existing operator with another. So yes, the existing operator can be removed or ousted by the owners who have a contract with them (not by the HOA). the HOA can only enforce one rental company, the cancellation or removal of the rental company must be done by the owners who have a contract with the operator. the owners are currently in this stage (removing the operator and replacing with another).
Click to expand...

So...the rental company has a contract with the resort....isn't that the HOA???? Or is "the resort" some other entity? Are you also saying that the owners who do not have a contract with the rental company also have no say as to who is or is not the exclusive rental agent? That is what you're implying.
 
Last edited:
dry heat

dry heat

Pigeon coup coordinator
rockyptjoe said:
So...the rental company has a contract with the resort....isn't that the HOA???? Or is "the resort" some other entity? Are you also saying that the owners who do not have a contract with the rental company also have no say as to who is or is not the exclusive rental agent? That is what you're implying.
Click to expand...
The rental operator has an exclusive contract with the HOA.
The only owners that can remove the rental company are those that have a contract with the rental company (owners who do not have a contact with the operator cannot vote to remove them).
The HOA though has strict guidelines for the services and requirements of what the chosen rental operator must bring to Las Palomas in order to meet the HOA's standards (ex. AAA 4 diamond rated level for a hotel).
 
E

ernesto

Guest
So, I've reviewed all the docs again. I still don't see where I agreed to only 6 days per month for my family and friends to use MY dwelling. Got any input Dry?
 
C

curiousgeorge

Guest
ernesto said:
So, I've reviewed all the docs again. I still don't see where I agreed to only 6 days per month for my family and friends to use MY dwelling. Got any input Dry?
Click to expand...
Checked all those same docs and there is no guest of owner $5 daily fee. The CC&R's do mention a renter HOA fee, but no mention of a guest of owner fee.

The SC gets away with implementing these types of policies because they depend on owners ignorance or the fact that they are just checked out.
 
E

ernesto

Guest
Seems to me the Secret Squirrels had a bit of a discussion concerning their "right " to restrict all others to 6 days per month of friends and relatives staying at YOUR home.They agreed that it needed a vote but implemented it anyway.Can those of you that read this and don't own there believe the audacity of these guys? Are they from Joisey or what?You from Joisey Dryheave?
 
dry heat

dry heat

Pigeon coup coordinator
Ernesto and Curiousgeorge,
I am sure the SC's main priority is the transfer of HOA control and the replacement of a rental operator. I am exhausted answering your questions. I believe the restrictions were not sent by the SC. My suggestion is to approach the entity that sent you the correspondence. If you are still upset about the results, I suggest you start a grass roots campaign to accomplish your wishes. You guys are just wasting time barking online, if you want something done it will require action.

best of luck.-
 
T

Tomcat

Guest
Its amazing how drymeat avoids answering questions...Now as soon as a few owner pull out there contracts and other papers drymeat doesn't seem to like information sharing and he is tired now.... good go take nap drymeat you must be very tired from running everyone in circles with useless answers that help no one....wow you could run for politics drymeat.... Their famous for talking in circles and never answering the questions ask to them.... someone should post the purchase contract online and lets all pick it apart :) cross out names and other personal info first ! wow 6,600 views on this thread... someone is bound to see something in the contract of interest :)
dry heat said:
Ernesto and Curiousgeorge,
I am sure the SC's main priority is the transfer of HOA control and the replacement of a rental operator. I am exhausted answering your questions. I believe the restrictions were not sent by the SC. My suggestion is to approach the entity that sent you the correspondence. If you are still upset about the results, I suggest you start a grass roots campaign to accomplish your wishes. You guys are just wasting time barking online, if you want something done it will require action.

best of luck.-
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
dry heat

dry heat

Pigeon coup coordinator
Tomcat said:
Its amazing how drymeat avoids answering questions...Now as soon as a few owner pull out there contracts and other papers drymeat doesn't seem to like information sharing and he is tired now.... good go take nap drymeat you must be very tired from running everyone in circles with useless answers that help no one....wow you could run for politics drymeat.... Their famous for talking in circles and never answering the questions ask to them.... someone should post the purchase contract online and lets all pick it apart :) cross out names and other personal info first ! wow 6,600 views on this thread... someone is bound to see something in the contract of interest :)
Click to expand...
I want you guys to have as much fun as I do. So here is a fun project. Find out who the restrictions of use affect. Read the Operator agreement. Read the latest HOA bylaws (don't go off the one you purchased on since addendums and such have been added, changed, removed over the years in the form of general assembly meetings). After your research, contact a mexican contract attorney and follow up on your questions. If you feel you have something to go on, then contact the rest of your fellow owners and present the information with the intend of changing something. It will require a lot of work, but I am fully confident you guys can do it. Based on the passion you show here, I know the two of you will enjoy the work.
 
E

ernesto

Guest
dry heat said:
Ernesto and Curiousgeorge,
I am sure the SC's main priority is the transfer of HOA control and the replacement of a rental operator. I am exhausted answering your questions. I believe the restrictions were not sent by the SC. My suggestion is to approach the entity that sent you the correspondence. If you are still upset about the results, I suggest you start a grass roots campaign to accomplish your wishes. You guys are just wasting time barking online, if you want something done it will require action.

best of luck.-
Click to expand...
FYI:
The "entity" that issued these new mandates, as reported in a mass e-mail from ALP on March 7th, consisted of SC, TC, OLP and ALP representatives, as a result of meetings that occurred throughout the week-end of 3/4, all agreeing to, among other things, restrict owners' rights to the use of their properties, both within and outside of the rental pool. The SC and /or TC reps absolutely not only assisted in facilitating these changes, they INSTIGATED them.
 
E

ernesto

Guest
For a 2 bedroom ,about $300 a month. So 800 units with 3/4 paying, they collect $600 per day. That chlorinates alot of pools and cuts alot of grass considering what they pay there.
 
dry heat

dry heat

Pigeon coup coordinator
ernesto said:
FYI:
The "entity" that issued these new mandates, as reported in a mass e-mail from ALP on March 7th, consisted of SC, TC, OLP and ALP representatives, as a result of meetings that occurred throughout the week-end of 3/4, all agreeing to, among other things, restrict owners' rights to the use of their properties, both within and outside of the rental pool. The SC and /or TC reps absolutely not only assisted in facilitating these changes, they INSTIGATED them.
Click to expand...
Are you sure you are quoting the mass e-mail from ALP correctly. You may want to read what the SC does in your bylaws. I could give you the answer, but I am sure you will believe it more if you read it yourself. You are wasting your time here, if you want action get to it and so something. bitching and crying over your frustration gets you no results. Andale amigo!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top