Saturday, May 4, 2013

Another Terlingua Ranch Lawsuit

Posted from a new comment from an older blog. More TR info by Don Mahan The Old Post

By Jessica Upton

"By Texas State Law every body is supposed to pay a per acre fee not a jacked up flat fee. The small landowners are paying for the large landowners. This is not legal by state law I will be filing a Class Action Lawsuit against the past and present board members and the POATRI. The large landowner want a flat fee so they don't have to pay there share and the board also posted that the large landowners don't have to pay any fee."

49 comments:

  1. Looks like a real mess to untangle brother.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hope something can be worked out so it will be fair for all land owners, large or small.

    ReplyDelete
  3. SUERTE, I think the ranch pays out about as much $ defending lawsuits as they do taking care of business.

    DD, I guess time will tell.

    ReplyDelete
  4. vbklein

    If a man owns one tract or 4 tracts why is it assumed that the owner that has 4 tracts uses more services or increases expenses for the ranch?

    If you think about it the a single large property owner is causes less ware on the roads and need for service than would four single individual tract owners.

    Beyond road service, I do not know what services the ranch provides that I would ever use being in the solitario. Far from the ranch and wishing the ranch would divest and solely keep the roads up. Privatize what can be and Let the people (large and small tract owners) pay a flat road fee.

    ReplyDelete
  5. As one who pays their assessment, I feel I am entitled to speak about fees. First of all, I pay it because I am getting something for my money. I don't have to worry about getting in or out of my place because the roads are in excellent condition. Secondly, I get to vote. If I want to vote for change, I can participate. Those are not paying their assessments, I say "SHUT UP" just as in any other "election" - if you aren't part of the process you don't have a right to complain!!!

    There are many owners who have exempt properties (go check the documents from the beginning!!!) and do not have to pay the assessments but they do anyway because they see the great benefit that is provided.

    Come on people!! $165 per year!!!!That is pretty cheap!!! A couple tanks of gas for my truck!!!

    If you didn't want to pay the assessments, why did you buy land here??? It is stated in documents that anyone who buys land here has to pay it - no ifs, ands, or buts about it - go look it up on the POATRI website - its there! Just pay it or shut up!!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When I bought my land the seller didn't tell me there was a fee, So buyer beware.

      Delete
  6. It's always the 5 & 10 acre owners that are always doing all of the whining. Why don't you either just suck it up or get out. Us "big land owners" are tired of hearing your crap and spending all that money on frivolous lawsuits. Since us "big land owners" have got it so fk'n great here why don't you buy more land and join us, the grass is always greener they say, course there hasn't been much of anything growing here the last couple of years besides discontent...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We ain't whining, it just ain't fair!! We are paying all of your fees, and we're the ones that can least afford to pay. You large land owners and those exempt people are all a bunch of crooks getting out of paying your due!! We know you all have your buddies on the BOD doing your bidding!!

      Delete
    2. f'k off you little whiner

      Delete
    3. When I find out who you are I'm going to kick your azz!!!

      Delete
    4. Bring your lunch and your friends, whiner...

      Delete
    5. Every bill they send out is mail fraud. The current assessment was never approved by the members as required. It is a very small % of exempt owners who pay anything. Over 1/3 of the ranch is exempt land. Look at any other property tax it is always based on value. 100 acres cost more than 5 or 10 and should pay based on value(assessments are a tax)

      Delete
    6. What the Terlingua Board of Directors wants you to also pay for is a mismanaged hotel and resturaunt. I told them if you only rent the rooms on the weekends then only open on the weekends and the same goes for the resturaunt. But they say they want to stay open all the time so someone has to pay for it.

      Delete
  7. Anon, I guess the suit will figure this all out? It appears to me if someone only has 5 or 10 acres then the large land owners are the ones using all the ranch $ for road maintenance. BTW Small land owners whining? Who's whining now?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Yeah, maybe we can finally put you little land owners in your place once and for all!!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Bad thing about Anons is most people don't know who they are, but its actually pretty easy to find out.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Got them stirred up tonight David!!!

    ReplyDelete
  11. John Wells (several traks) big and small ? DOES NOT PAY THOSE FEES, crap man xxxx

    ReplyDelete
  12. Looks like it Lance.

    Pablo, what does JW have to do with this?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Not Anonymous,

    vbklein

    Exempt property owners is surely worth questioning. why are they exempt? how did they become exempt?

    And those not choosing not to pay and being left alone w/o extenuating circumstances... not paying??? no cosequences???

    But, please explain how an owner that owns 4 or more properties that are contiguous in solitario uses more ranch assets than 4 single tract owners?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Simply amazing what a little beer and a full moon will do to people.

    ReplyDelete
  15. vbklein,
    I may be wrong but this is what I've heard about the exempt properties. Some of the original properties were sold as exempt from fees, whether this was as a sales incentive, good buddy thing or what I don't know. Then around 10 years ago there was another group that became exempt for as long as the current owners kept the tracts, once sold they would no longer be exempt. This seemed to be more of a good buddy thing but I have no proof of that or what other reason was given for this later exemption.

    I agree with you about an owner with multiple tracts using less assets than multiple single owners.

    Billy Bob, ain't it great :)

    ReplyDelete
  16. It's not necessarily a question of paying proportionately for "using services." Another way to look at it is: "what's an equitable way to divide up the burden of financing the cost of POATRI"?

    Many other types of tax aren't based on linking the tax to how much service is used. They are based instead on judgments about a way of financing government that will be perceived as fair by the majority of those who are required to pay.

    For example, property taxes are higher for properties with higher values. This isn't because those properties "use more services." It's because that's one way of allocating the financing burden among the community. Same with income taxes. Those with more income pay higher taxes. The higher taxes aren't because those folks necessarily "use more services." It because that's another way of dividing the financing burden among the members of society.

    There are several ways of allocating fees (taxes) to equitably divide the cost of government services. Most of those methods aren't based on "use of services," although some are.

    Just saying that we shouldn't assume that a system that doesn't match link fees with "services used" is somehow flawed. We live in a world with lots of fees that don't have that kind of link.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I have a question for everybody. We are new property owners. Just moving into a house on 52 acres. And we are definitely going to be paying our dues, so that we have a maintained road to get in and out. We live a mile from 118. Is the issue the amount of road that people have to travel to get to their place or the size of the property that is the problem?

    What does it matter if you buy 5 acres that is 3 miles off the highway or 50 acres that is near the highway?

    Not trying to get politcal here, just curious?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This all about the little guy getting the shaft and the big land owners sitting around the pool. Say around for a while and you will understand. I live here many years. you will change your mind on day.

      Delete
  18. The fee is the same no matter how much, how many or how far you are from anything. My road was graded once in two years, although I can see HWY 118 from my place the road really never needs graded. But the 20 acres I had in Cedar springs is a whole different story It's 17 miles from the ranch road and takes at least 30 minutes to drive, the last couple of miles probably haven't been graded for 5 years or more.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Welcome to the area. Before 2005 the fee was acreage based. In 2005 I believe it went to a flat rate for all. Since that time there are those that own smaller tracks that feel that they are paying a disproportional amount in fees since the change, and there are those that feel that the change was brought inappropriately by the BOD. In a nutshell that is what all the hurrah is about.

    Really a lot of the ranch history, well at least the last 20 years or so reads like some poor novel at times. Mystery, intrigue, insider trading, he said she said, everything except murder I think... It's fun to dig into but you never really seem to get to the bottom of anything. Anymore I just try to enjoy the days here and leave the politics behind, that's why I moved here to begin with...

    ReplyDelete
  20. "Is the issue the amount of road that people have to travel to get to their place or the size of the property that is the problem?"

    IMO, the controversial issue is the size of the property. For better or worse, many folks are accustomed to the concept of "the more you own, the more you should pay." That's essentially the way property taxes are set up. And it's the way that many (most?) HOAs are set up. In a typical HOA though, the lots are all about the same size, so the "more you own the more you pay" manifests when someone owns more than one lot. At Terlingua Ranch the lots vary widely in size, so saying that an owner of Lot A (640 acres) and Lot B (5 acres) should pay the same fees is not a good comparison with most other HOAs.

    One thing you should understand about this debate is that for a long time the fee was based on a calculation that included a component based on the amount of property owned. This was changed by owner vote to a flat fee per owner in 2005. That vote was (and still is) the subject of considerable controversy and more than one lawsuit. To change the fee, another owner vote would be required.

    ReplyDelete
  21. It is the condition of the road that should be at question, not how frequently it gets graded. Repeated grading causes more problems than it fixes. If it's passable in a high clearance 2wd vehicle, it's good enough - some areas are rough enough, it will take 4wd. 15 years now and when the road gets too rough, I call and it gets handled.

    ReplyDelete
  22. GO GET THEM JESSICA!

    WHAT BROTHER DON POSTED IN 2011 - IS MOST CERTAINLY TRUE - AND I URGE ALL READERS TO CLICK ON THE OLD POST & READ ALL OF HIS COMMENTS.

    RONALD MAHAN

    ReplyDelete
  23. ANOTHER METHOD TO CHANGE POATRI'S BEHAVIOR IS QUIT SUBSIDIZING THEIR CORRUPT BEHAVIOR.

    THIS IS KNOWN AS: NO SAY - NO PAY!

    VERY POPULAR - AS LESS THAN 50 PERCENT OF PROPERTY OWNERS PAY ANYTHING! POATRI WILL REFORM - ONLY WHEN FORCED TO - BY LACK OF FUNDS.

    RONALD MAHAN

    ReplyDelete
  24. Dave, I think this is getting to be like a political ad for those that like the ranch politics.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Bkid, I think you're right. I guess the next post will be about a lost dog and my being elected as commander of the legion. All posts will be filled with new officers. I wonder what kind of crap will come up on that?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Congratulations David.!!

    Bigfoot

    ReplyDelete
  27. J. Braun proved in court and it is still on public record that the 2005 could not have been passed by the membership. Not enough people voted to pass it even if they all voted in favor of it. Then Pres. Janet Sullavan published the results in the ranch news paper. The BOD Not admitting this is just asking for more lawsuits, and the evidence is already there to prove it.

    ReplyDelete
  28. So you won? Well good, maybe you can do something with it.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I guess the argument is that it costs the same to maintain a road to a large tract as a small tract and the owner of a small tract uses lodge pool or whatever the same as the owner of a large tract. I don't think maintenance fees can legally be imposed on property that is exempt from them. If no contract exists imposing those fees you can't come along and impose them. Lucky for me that my original large tract was never a part of Terlingua Ranch although I did later buy a couple of small nearby tracts that I pay maintenance fees on.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I just called today about purchasing a piece of property in Terlingua Ranch. I was surprised that the fee was the same no matter what size lot you have, but it does make sense that I will use the roads the same about whether I have 50 acres or 500. I am happy to pay the accessed fees either way as long as they provide the promised services.

    ReplyDelete
  31. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Blog Administrator didn't like the facts about Terlingua and the Texas State law dealing with land owners and there money.

      Delete
    2. I didn't delete anything!

      Delete
  32. The reason this is going to Court is that all land owners should pay a per acre fee because 1 acre is about 100 yards long so if you have 1 acre you should pay for your 100 yards of road if you own 10 acres then you should pay for your 1000 yards of road. Everyone should be taxed on a per acre basis. There are 3500 property owners but the board says that only about 700 people are allowed to vote by state and federal law this is not legal if you read code 204,205,and 209 you will see that the board is not allowed to take your right to vote away from you. The code says it doesn't matter if your in good standing when it comes to your money you do have the right to vote. The Lawsuit will void the past elections and the changes to the articles and the fees will be brought up to date legally according to the Courts. And all property owners will be allowed to vote for a new board of directors who they can trust because some like me will be looking over there shoulders.

    ReplyDelete
  33. So much for the dream of solitude away from political bs..

    ReplyDelete
  34. My lawyer told me to let the board take me to Court because I sent in $1.00 per acre if 65% of the land owners send in $1.00 per acre it becomes law.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For some reason I don't ever see this happening.

      Delete