I'm looking to start an association here on Stanley Pond (S.Hiram) but it will not fly with the usual "democratic" provisions, as many will not vote to make any expenditures. So I'm looking to form one with the benefits of a Statutory RA without the member liability for expenditures. IOW, I want to have my cake (Well sort of) and eat it too. Our voluntary association works about as well as can be expected, a handful will kick in $, a different handful will do some labor, and most couldn't be bothered either way.
I'd like an association that will get past the loan underwriters, and figure a Statutory one should do that. If I modify the bylaws to give any one landowner veto on expenditures, no one should oppose the formation, right? Which leaves us with the current voluntary system, but a Road Association never the less. And that should satisfy the underwriters, unless they really dig into it (and how likely is that?).
Any reason this won't work? How rigid is the Statutory language anyway? Such veto power is eminently fair, equitable, and democratic seems to me, even if it weakens the association's powers.
Thoughts? This is a real concern, as we are looking to sell, and with FHA requiring a RA and some conventional (20%) loans doing the same, marketability/financing could be a deal killer w/o a RA in place.