Community Association Meetings

Hi Tollerance

We understand now what the community boundaries are as it was explained at the Manzana 3 meeting in December, but possibly some of the confusion arises from when we were sold the properties.

We bought our property on Manzana 3 through Medsea early in 2006 when Antonio was in the sales office. At that time we were told that it was an urbanisation where eventually we would have to pay community charges of about 15-20 euros a month for the upkeep of the total site including all the roads & all the green areas (play area etc), but not the pool & leisure area as this would be council run & we would be able to pay when we used it or buy weekly passes. We were also told that there would be one president for the total site.

I think people were probably told different things dependent on which agent they went through. We were never told by our agent or Antonio that the inner walkway would be gated for instance. We are now friendly with other people who bought at the same time as us & some were told this & some weren't. In 2006 the properties were selling so fast that we had to queue up to put our money down with people waiting behind us. Looking at our English translation of the paperwork not everything has been translated which naively we missed at the time.

We love San Cayetano though & having watched programmes on TV about urbanisations that do not have licences etc we should count ourselves extremly lucky that we bought through such a reputable builder.

Hi Tollerance,

I bought a Quad in Manzano 4 last year and I was aware that I was buying into a financially shared community when we bought our quad on Manzano 4. What I and others were not aware of was that only half of the community in manzano 4 would benefit from the shared  area whilst the whole had to pay for it.

I bought an outer quad. We are not allowed to use the car park (which we knew when we bought) But I did not realise I would have to pay for the up keep of it, e.g., the electrical gate, gardens, lighting. Of course we are told we can use the area, what would I used it for? Who wants to sit so close to a car park?( I haven't got a key to enter anyway)

Also my quad is close to a gate! We get the noise from it, the fumes from the cars outside waiting for the gate to open and if we happen to be sitting out you feel as though you are in a fish bowl because of course everyone naturally looks in. Another issue with the gates is the intercome, children shouting to be let in and parents shouting back not realising how loud they are being.

I seem to get all the disadvantages of the walkway and few of the benefits and yet I and others are being asked to pay the same as those who do benefit from use and extra security of this area.

I think you will find that these are the issues that most people are upset about.

This message was last edited by astelle on 29/06/2009.

This message was last edited by astelle on 29/06/2009.

This message was last edited by astelle on 29/06/2009.

Hello Astelle,

I understand that the residents on the outside properties obtained keys to the inner walkway gates as a result of a prevoius Community meeting. If you did not attend or contact Taray for a key, what can I say, most everyone else did.

The inner walkway, as I understand it, is used mostly in the Winter/ Spring as a sitting area especially by those who do not get much sun in their gardens.

As previously stated about the shared car park, all spots are allocated as your own space is allocated to you in your garden. Surely you do not really mean that you should be allowed to park in one of the inside spaces. I don't think you would be willing to let someone park in your allocated space on your driveway which, incidentally, could happen if you were parked in someone else,s place on the inside!

I don't think anyone could have been confused about the parking spaces when they purchased. So far as I am aware everyone was quite clear about the allocated spaces both in the driveways and in the inner shared car park.

You cannot have your cake and eat it!

Davidg,

As you said, we are fortunate that Taray are a reputable company. If they had merely kept to the letter of the law regarding the swimming pool we would have had to wait 5 years for the council to either take up the option to build or let it go to the developer.

Some residents may never have seen a pool there.

This message was last edited by Tollerance on 29/06/2009.

This message was last edited by Tollerance on 29/06/2009.

Tollerance,

From your reply I presume you live in one of the inner quads and benefit from a larger garden as a result of choosing a communal secure car parking space- fair play. However, how can you expect those who have forfeited part of their garden for the 'security' of their vehicle to pay for your larger garden and still securer than their car parking space? I fear it is you who wants your cake and eat it.

The problem doesn't seem to be that people totally object to paying for the up keep of the community, it's based more  around the proportionality of the fee those who can't fully benefit are expected to pay. Would you contribute for an outer quads drive gates to be maintained should the need arise?

It's unfortunate that money can bring about such bad feelings amongst neighbours.

Tollerance

We have an outer Quad on Manzana 4 and have read your posts.  We found your comments condescending to say the least and clearly the cause of some ill feeling which we do not believe is necessary or desired within our 'community'.  We strongly agree with those comments made by tonymartini and astelle.

Unfortunately we were unable to attend the recent meeting, but assigned our proxy vote and opinions to another resident who did attend.

It is apparent that all quad owners are questioning the porportionality of the fees which we find are reasonable concerns.  Where else would you pay for goods or services that you did not use or have access to (except taxes of course). In particular to this case, we cannot  see why we should  pay for the upkeep and repair of the electric gates - it is obvious that these will naturally be frought with expense due to frequent repair by the very nature of their make-up.

We have absolutely no issue with paying towards the upkeep of our community and for it to be kept looking as best as possible as this can clearly only benefit us and everyone else long term, but we feel that the costs allocated to each owner should realistically be allocated! Why should anyone pay for something that they have no benefit of - the car park gates are clearly for the use of the residents of the inner walkway only. 

We're sure that if you are honest to yourself and had an outer Quad you would feel the same. It is most certainly not a case of us wanting our cake and eating it!!!!!

Perhaps another case of people attending and not actually listening.

I heard the interpreter pass on from the administrator that those who parked inside would need to foot the bill for any mechanical repairs to the shared access electric gates.

I know I was not quite the only one that heard this as I had some discussion about it afterwards. Most though were talking and arguing amongst themselves during the time that the administrator was addressing their points so probably did not hear or did not want to hear.