Here is a term that can be misleading to many. Doesn’t dedication of assets seem like a nice soft and fuzzy term? Well, let’s discuss it.
A very important part of the plan of those first involved in the re-writes of our governing documents was making dedication of assets by our board possible without the current mandated vote of 50% plus one of the property owners. This was before incorporation was being very openly discussed in our community. Many of those on the re-write committee were and are still staunch supporters of incorporation.
What the non-threatening term “dedication” means is the board being able to give away all the property we own as associate members to a new city. Our buildings, streets, parks, you name it could all be given away by the board without your consent. You have paid taxes on these assets, you have paid to maintain these assets, and you have even paid to build these assets. Do you want seven people to have the authority to give them away? I don’t!
I asked the question at one of the informational meetings regarding the re-writes worded very close to the following…………”Keeping in mind your errors and omissions policy is there anything in the newly written documents that would allow our assets to be given away by any other means than a 50% plus 1 vote of the property owners?” I asked the question directly to the attorney present to answer questions. He chose not to answer. A member of the panel said no but does it give you pause to realize the attorney would not commit? I want and expect solid answers before supporting any re-writes of our governing documents. We deserve to know what we are signing off on. Would you sign any contract without understanding what is in it?
These are dangerous times, folks, and vigilance is most necessary. Do not be fooled by gentle sounding phrases. Demand answers to the tough questions.
Ken Dillenburg