Q:  Frank Longenbach told me I would never have to pay, so why should I?  Doesn't that exempt me?

 

A:  No party can nullify covenants or standing case law relative to this issue with mere spoken word.  If, in fact, a notarized and witnessed document proclaiming exemption could be produced, more than likely, it would not even stand.

 

 

Q:  I used to pay faithfully, but nothing was ever done with my road.  Still it remains the same, am I supposed to pay for that?

 

A:  So many roads in disrepair, so little money.  We are approaching the deplorable road conditions much as a surgeon might address multiple wounds on a patient.  Repair of the main artery (Broadview Drive) must be first in the plan, followed by repair of the other wounds/lacerations in order of acuity.  We must also be mindful of the blood flow (traffic density) as we access project precedence.  Because much of this development is built on hilly terrain, gravity dictates roads on hills will always be eroding away until they are surface stabilized, but even erosion will be lessened, not eliminated.  Roads on hills are major priorties.  But also, property owners who are not paying are also bare the responsibility of inaction.  Property owners are the "insurance policy" for the roads, if payment of dues are not received, the roads will continue to get worse.

 

 

Q:  Why don't we just get the borough to take over the roads?

 

A:  The Jim Thorpe borough will probably never find our roads suitable to "take over" because the developer presented plans to the county that the roads here were never to be paved.  The county accepted this.  All documents that have come before the board indicate this fact.  Our roads will always have turns too tight and hills too steep so there is no reason that the borough would take that on at this time.  Because of the specifications that existed 20+ years ago, it will be almost impossible to bring the roads up to todays standards without spending probably millions of dollars.  Clearly there isn't cash flow enough to have this happen.

 

 

Q:  Isn't there something that can be done about these dirt bikes and ATV's ripping up and down our roads?

 

A:  We are certainly open to suggestions.  Because our roads are private, Jim Thorpe police are not obligated to patrol them.  First and foremost, the roads must be posted with speed limit signs; 25mph is what we had in mind.  We must also consider IF any type of vehicle may be prohibited, then post that as well.  Once roads are posted, then there will be something to enforce--but by whom?  Some of the larger developments employ private security, however, that could be costly to GOE, given our relatively small numbers and lack of cooperation with property owners paying dues, which would be generating the income for said security.

 

 

Q:  Does GOE have a genuine legal right to assess and collect dues?

 

A:  Yes.  We are a legitimate group of property owners within this development who were elected to our positions as board members by a body of our peers.  Elections occured at a general membership meeting held on September 8th, 2001 at the Jim Thorpe High School.  Notification of said meeting was sent to available addresses for all property owners a month prior to the meeting.

Glen Onoko Estates is a non-profit organization incorporated with the state of PA in 2001.  Upon acquisition of road deeds on August 28th, 2002, GOE became sole party with legal right to assess and collect dues or fees for maintenance and upkeep of common (roads) areas.  We are the successor to Pocono Countryside, so we also have the legal right to collect back dues for property owners who have not done so in the past to Pocono Countryside. 

In winter of 2001/2002, prior to GOE even having the right to do so, the board made the decision to plow roads with what little funds had been turned over to GOE from Pocono.  We did so because Pocono had stated emphatically that they would NOT, but mostly because it was the right thing to do for the safety and welfare of the community.  Funny how no one saw fit to ask if GOE had the "right" to do that.

 

 

Q:  How is GOE any different? 

   

A:  For one, we live here, all of us; Pocono Countryside personnel didn't even live in the same county. There's nine of us; there were two of them- yet it seems only one person was facilitating action (if ANY) the last few years. With nine board members there is a system historically proven to provide balance and ensure fair resolution to issues that arise. We were elected, they were family of the developer. We have bylaws, there's no indication PCA had any.

Finally, WE ARE NON-PROFIT! We can't speak for Pocono Countryside...