Personal Assesment

When I listened to the discussion at our last meeting the only repeated concern recognized where the concerns of the majority owners whose interest was for profit and very few comments from owners using their units for pleasure. As set forth in the declaration where it will prevail if there are any issues in conflict with the By-Laws, we’re not dealing with some sort of rocket science or a unique situation because our property is located in Rockport, TX we are dealing with the intent of the formation of a condominium regime. It clearly states in our declaration the intended use of the property is for personal use first. Please review article IV of the declaration; ARTICLE IV -.PURPOSE AND POWERS PARA 1.) The corporation does not contemplate pecuniary gain or profit to the Members thereof, and it’s specific and primary purpose is to provide for the preservation and maintenance of a Condominium Project, as provided in the Declaration of Covenants conditions and restrictions of Kontiki Condominiums (hereafter referred to as the Declaration) located in Aransas County Texas. PARA 2 The general purpose and powers are: (a) To promote the common good, health, safety, and general welfare of the residents within the property.
Many courts they have ruled the original intended use prevails, case in point, where animal husbandry and or farms encroach on residential property emitting fowl odors and other discomforts connected with the encroaching industry, who wins, the original intent wins 99% of the time (who was here first and the intended original use of the property). If the original intended use is for pleasure and the declaration takes precedence over the By-Laws wouldn’t it make common sense the declaration would have to be changed first? Good luck changing the original intended use at Kontiki, I think the board’s time and efforts can better serve the association sticking with what is already written in the declaration but it appears the newly elected board has no intention of preserving the original use but to construe and film flam Phase II owners as to their PERSONAL INTERPATIONS of the declaration to create a unique situation where the front office is a needed asset to the purchasers of unit 111. Is this conflict of interest or at best another version of Crowley 2 domination trying to hide any and all undisclosed assets and bogus rights to common elements? According to an email from Richy it appears unit 111 was sold to the Crowleys with the same back door dealings and wouldn’t it make sense unit 111 would have to be sold with the same back door dealings to capitalize on the configuration as an office area? The only trick to maintain the value of this situation would be to defended it with an iron fist; whereas, any and all owners contesting this dictatorship were dealt with by evading questions and intimidation when they were only exercising their rights to free speech.

Rental Companies

I did a little comparison on property management rates and some are higher and some lower.

Costal Bend Property Management 18%

Kontiki Beach Management 22.5% plus maid fees. Key Allegaro charges 30% for Phase I listings and wonder for how long; maybe untill the By-Laws are changed and have control of our office!!!!! I would incurage Phase I cliants to ask why the differance.