Mon, 01/18/2010 - 11:01am - Posted by: jack-in-the-box

TO ALL,

A tenant attorney stated in the REMINDERUSA.NET the following:

"As a result of this use of hotels and motels as the only available “affordable” housing, the distinction between “transient guest” and “tenant” becomes very important be­cause it defines how a person may be put out of a hotel or motel. For example, in the context of an owner’s desire to evict someone because of a nonpayment problem, the action that owner can or must take depends on whether the person is a “transient guest” or is really a “tenant.” “Transient guests” in hotels and motels do not have to be taken to court to be evicted. The hotel owner or operator can lock guests out of their rooms if they don’t pay their bills or if they disturb the peace."

"But, because of the shortage of “affordable” housing, people who have no other place to live and are forced to live in motels or hotels for months or even years at a time may no longer be considered “transient guests.” Rather, they should really be considered “tenants” who are, under New Jersey law, entitled to be evicted only through a court process."

"The courts when dealing with these types of cases are interpreting the law on a case-by-case basis. In one case, a family that lived in a hotel for over two years because they had no other place to live was considered a tenant and could only be evicted through court order under the Anti-Eviction Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:18-61 et seq."

"In another case, a person who lived in a motel for only two months was not considered a tenant and could be locked out of his room without court process."

"In yet another case, the court held that a person who lived in a hotel for three years with no intention of moving to other accommodations was a “tenant,” not a transient “guest,” and that the hotel was the tenant’s permanent home. The tenant in that case was entitled to the protection of the Anti-Eviction Act and had the right to sue for damages after the hotel owner illegally locked him out."

"So, just because you live in a hotel or motel, may not mean that the owner can just lock you out if there’s a problem."

"Whether or not you are protected under the Anti-Eviction Act will depend on your specific facts. If you can show you live in the hotel or motel, or that the owner agreed, or should have known, that you were not just a short-term guest, or that the owner did or said things that made you believe that you were a tenant, then you are protected under the Anti-Eviction Act and cannot just be locked out."

"This legal recognition, that a person living in a hotel or motel is, in fact, a tenant with the same protections as any other tenant, may also be a legal recognition that may apply to people actually living in a campground."

"As you may remember, two weeks ago, I told you about the Camp­ground Facilities Act, which provides for eviction without court process and even arrest and charges as a disorderly person offense."

"However, if a person is actually living in their campground trailer or mobile home and has been living there for years, that person may be entitled to the protection of the Anti-Eviction Act."

"Whether or not you, as a campground resident, are protected under the Anti-Eviction Act will depend on your specific facts."

"If you can show you live in the campground and have for years, or that the owner agreed, or should have known, that you were not just a short-term camper, or that the owner did or said things that made you believe that you could live there, than you should be protected under the Anti-Eviction Act."

"If hotel/motel residents living in the hotel/motel are protected, shouldn’t campground residents who own their own mobile homes or trailers and live there also be protected from being evicted without court process or even being arrested under the Campground Facilities Act?"

"If you are living in a hotel or motel or even a campground and have a problem with the owner or are facing the loss of your home, contact a private attorney or legal services to find out if your situation brings you within the protections of the landlord-tenant laws."

"In the meantime, remember: Protect yourself and your family. Know your responsibilities as well as your rights and how to assert them when you need to."

I say, are you HAPPY?

I AM.

Thu, 12/10/2009 - 11:16pm - Posted by: jack-in-the-box

To "BIG GIRL from 12/04/2009"

You can say whatever you want, the law has been violated knowingly, willingly, and purposefully by elected, trusted, and compensated Borough Mayor by allowing elected, trusted, and compensated councilman-Saduk to vote in violation of special interests.

My grandparent has known for DECADES that the remaining years of the 99-year lease (A LEGAL CONTRACT) states "no permanent habitation". I do not understand your point? Nothing has ever been disclosed about the 21-day rule per month from November 1 to April 1 where it states up to ten (10) days a resident can not reside there. The problem is that my grandparent blames the resort owners for not being honest and by LEADING tenants to BELIEVE they could stay there year-round without interruption. My grandparent had spent almost all of her money into her mobile home which is nearly 800 square feet of living space.

The "creepy guy" at the meeting who I have heard is disabled - perhaps his unsightly presence might help explain why he is disabled. Perhaps you should blame President Franklin D, Roosevelt and his 1935 United States Congress for erecting the Social Security System. Perhaps YOU with YOUR POWER and YOUR INFLUENCE can bring-down the entire Social Security Administration (SSA).

You are wrong about the two (2) lawyers - actually there are several more working on my grandparent's case.

Concerning your comments to Deputy Dog on 12/04/2009, it only takes seven (7) plantiffs for a Civil Class Action Lawsuit. Are you happy now? This is the Law of State of New Jersey.

I am happy.

By the way, legal action has been taken against the resorts owner's for daily inspections. My grandparent is not a idiot. She is just waiting for a violation by the resort owners of her tenant rights (e.g., eviction, liens, $100 per day, disorderly offense). She is equipped with a video camera that can downloaded to her computer directly to her lawyers within seconds.

I am happy.

Thu, 12/10/2009 - 11:10pm - Posted by: jack-in-the-box

To "ZERO from 12/04/2009"

The remaining years of a 99-year lease is a LEGAL CONTRACT (current year minus 1979 determines the number of years remaining in the lease). It is not a life-long commitment.

I admittedly disagree with you.The resort owners have NOT run a very nice place. The resort owners house and property located on 33 Fremont street is, of course, very nice, but have you ever driven through the resort park? Have you ever counted the number of muddy pot holes, seen the poor resort sign (at the entrance) so small you would not see it if you had not been looking for it, seen residents allowed to pile leaves at the end of their streets, seen residents allowed on perimeter lots to construct semi-permanent sheds and semi-permanent structures beyond their site size, seen the awful laundry room, seen the poor condition of the pool, seen the poor condition of the club house, seen the poor disorganized condition of the common area near Beckies Lane (two (2) truck vans: one (1) blue and one (1) white, one (1) Cadillac Eldorado having a storage trailer, eight (8) boats with engines all potentially leaking engine, transmission, and anti-freeze hazardous fluids into our water system (talk about the Pinelands Act?), and no wonder the resort owners never disclosed the water test results to their residents even though the residents have paid for it through maintenance fees), seen the poor condition of the street signs, seen unsavory types of rental residents allowed to reside in the resort especially without being checked and gone unmonitored where many are known with criminal records, seen some mobile homes allowed to appear to be sinking into the muddy ground, etc...I would love for the State Board of Health to inspect this place.

The parasites that you have mentioned are reliable year-round maintenance paying and tax paying senior citizens and\or disabled, veterans of foreign wars, and individuals near or in poverty. My grandparent contributes to the $400,000 per year in maintenance fees and contributes to the $104,000 in taxes to the borough. Remember of the $104,000 dollars in property taxes, she is glad that $60,000 goes to education and the school system. My grandparent has never been a problem. She asks for no hand-outs. She is self-sufficient and requires nothing from anyone. She is an advocate in the Woodbine community.

I am supporting my grandparent with TENANT LAW under the State of New Jersey. The laws which you and your parasite friends allowed to become law.

In the event there is a fire from any source, such as, a forest fire or electric problem, my grandparent and her friends have insurance on their property and home and would LOVE to collect THEIR MONEY, then BE GONE for good! They are not stupid.

My grandmother just wants it "the way it was" before she passes away.

Mon, 12/07/2009 - 7:01pm - Posted by: spitfire

Lets see......BIG GIRL obviously has a problem with Councilman Ryan, Watkins and Murray
along with Solicitor, Mr. Baldini.......quit trying to blame everyone else for your mistakes....and take a hard look at what your are doing to your campground. You knew this group of people were living there for 30 years, and you knew they were not seasonals, but it was o.k. why you collected their money. You have reaped benefits for years for your campground thru your husband being on Council......self serving wouldn't you say. You interviewed them, so if they were so bad... why did you accept them?
The meeting on December 3 was well scripted by either people who are seasonal or who are going to be removed with everyone else.....and don't even realize it. Zero needs to realize you don't need someone to hold your hand.....you are perfectly capable of denying the truth and turning it around to your advantage. You have been manipulating and hurting people for years.
P.S. As long as your husband has been on Council, I would think he should know when he can participate in a self serving adgenda and when he can't. I don't think Mr. Baldini needs to tell him......this is not kindergarten.
P.S.S. The Solicitor YOU brought to the December 3rd meeting has also been employed by the Borough of Woodbine at one time or another.......while Mr. Benson sat and read over the lawsuit during the meeting.....you seem to have some conflict issues........don't you?

Mon, 12/07/2009 - 3:40pm - Posted by: ZER0

longtimecitizen, please read parragraph 4 in the above article. It states that the new proposal would allow them to receive additional benefit of trash removal. Was the new proposal written by the owners or by the council or by the residents? Just a question that arrises.

Mon, 12/07/2009 - 1:24pm - Posted by: Big Girl

I know what I am talking about I signed a lease at Carol Lynn, it says in bold underlined print that the site cannot be used for "permanent habitation" and it is in the rules right above where you sign. These people circumvented the law because no one was enforcing it and nothing has changed no one intends to enforce it. It is stated in the rules because everyone said they didn't know, now they do. If they wanted a Mobile Home park they should have bought there. I want a campground, that is what I paid for and what I want it to remain. This so called Carol Lynn HOme Owners Assoc. is less that 1% of the people in Carol Lynn.

PS-It was Solicitor Bladini who told Councilman Saduk that he could remain seated but he was not allowed to comment.

Mon, 12/07/2009 - 9:48am - Posted by: longtimecitizen

As stated previously, they do have trash pick, paid for by their Maintenance Fees. If anyone is trying to get the Borough to provide for the trash pick up then it would have to be the owners of the resort/campground.

Mon, 12/07/2009 - 8:18am - Posted by: ZER0

Bull Frogs jump! I'm a 70 year old Nam Vet myself and I've lived in this area all my life! I'm not supporting the owners of the "campground" other than to say, I've been there to look around and in my opinion it was a well kept "campground." What i do know is that I would not have signed any extended lease without close inspection and the advice of a legal servant. The local ordinance was on the books for a long time and a good legal advisor would have/should have been able to council about this. You point out that some of these people have lived there for many years and that was their good fortune. Yet now that the legal turmoil has developed you see already they want to attach trash pick-up to their area. How long before(if this is permitted to go on) will it be before every campground in Cape May County wants trash pick-up. How long before the need for city water and sewer is requested. If Woodbine sees fit to establish the area as a low cost housing project then I don't see a problem. Just end the campground designation. If that can't be done then tese few(year rounders) will be dictating higher costs to everyone in the county.
The car lease reference doesn't fit this senario unless you let me also establish that ignorance of the law is not a valid defence. I might sign a stupid 3 or4 year lease on a car using my own judgement but never a 99year lease that is subject to townshih,state and maybe even federal laws. Senior citizens should not and in my opinion do not always equate to "buffoon"..........But.............a 99 year lease?

Mon, 12/07/2009 - 1:13am - Posted by: spitfire

Well.....jack-in-the-box.......GLAD TO SEE SOMEONE UNDERSTANDS AND CARES ABOUT PEOPLE......Thank you

Thu, 12/10/2009 - 10:58pm - Posted by: jack-in-the-box

If our seniors and\or disabled, veterans, and people in or near poverty (who are trapped economically), were told honestly with full-disclosure and transparency by the resort owners that there had been an ordinance stating that you can NOT live in your high-priced mobile home up to 10-days per month from November 1 to April 1 amounting to fourty-six (46) days per year ---- I GUARANTEE YOU, with my very last dollar, that NO one would have purchased any site in their resort. It had been dishonesty and nondisclosure made by the resort owners which led residents to BELIEVE they could live there year-round without interruption. These resort owners encouraged, acknowledged, and welcomed year-round maintenance fees freely and willingly for decades. The resort has been allowed to have grown into 240 mobile homes (I admit four (4) of which are actually trailers and need to be removed by the resort management), but tenants have LEGAL RIGHTS (the remaining years of the 99-year lease - A LEGAL CONTRACT) according to New Jersey State Law. If you do NOT like this, then blame yourself for allowing the state to legalize tenant rights.

The resort owners need to implement immediate compassion for the seniors who are veterans. Had it not been for the veterans of foreign wars in Korea and Vietnam, the resort owners may never have become financially well off as you may have seen them now.

As an outsider, I do not care about the resort owners and their assets. However, I will use all legal means necessary to protect my grandparent, the seniors and\or disabled, and people in or near poverty.

In addition to the resort owners, I also STRONGLY urge South Jersey Legal Services, Inc. to take all LEGAL ACTION against the Borough of Woodbine and the Campground Facilities Act of the State of New Jersey for ALLOWING since 1979 (for the past 30-years) to LEAD the most vulnerable citizens into BELIEVING they could reside there uninterrupted.

Thu, 12/10/2009 - 11:04pm - Posted by: jack-in-the-box

Disregard "BIG GIRL" and "ZERO" because they are incorrect.

Councilman-Saduk and the Mayor of Woodbine willingly, knowingly, or should have known that they had violated the law on December 3rd. A councilman can not vote (abstain) which is a conflict of his own special interests. DO NOT EVER VOTE FOR EITHER OF THEM AGAIN. Let these politicians, as they will, TAKE your hard earned tax dollars (that we as taxpayers have allowed to happen) in LIFELONG PENSIONS and LIFELONG HEALTH CARE BENEFITS. I encourage everyone to take LEGAL ACTION against councilman-Saduk and the Woodbine Mayor in allowing councilman-Saduk to vote.

As an outsider, I wonder what any normal caring and loving person would feel and\or do if you had a loved one who had purchased the remaining of a 99-year lease (A LEGAL CONTRACT) in a resort who had not disclosed an extremely powerful and pertinent ordinance because the owners are greedy and purposefully allowed people to sign knowing that the ordinance had been hidden deep in the borough code book - to be used when resort owners would be in a position to "plow back" or reinvest large sums of money into a thirty(30) year old infrastructure known as E.O.L. or end-of-life. If this ordinance would have been disclosed by the resort owners, then NO ONE would have invested in their community. Being alerted, out of no where, on or about October 30, 2009, your loved one is now being threatened by same resort owners with eviction, disorderly persons offense, a $100 per day fine, and a lien against their homes. What would you do as a caring and loving person for your family member? If you disagree with me, let's suppose YOU, yes YOURSELF, buy a new $40,000 car having a six-year lease (A LEGAL CONTRACT), giving a $4,000 in cash as deposit, and then within the second-year (less than one-third of the lease - A LEGAL CONTRACT) after you have been diligent in paying all of your monthly lease payments of $400, and then being alerted, out of no where, you are contacted by the lease-holder\bank instructing that you must return the car up to 10-days per month from November 1 to April 1, losing half of your down payment of $4,000, all of the twenty-four (24) $400 payments amounting to $9,600, and face criminal charges? How would you feel? What would you do? Would you return the car? Or would you seek help? Remember that you, like my grandparent, have been forced into this position which you, and she, did not ask for nor deserve.

On December 3rd, the Mayor of Woodbine said his community is at risk by allowing the thirty (30) year-old ordinance to be purged. What has been the risk in the past thirty (30) years? What is the current risk? The resort owners, Borough of Woodbine, Cape May County, and State of New Jersey have profited from the resort and have known about the resort's year-round occupancy since its inception in 1979. The resort has been 95% self-sufficient by its monthly maintenance fees of approximately $400,000 per year. The tenants pay for their own trash removal, pay for their own snow removal, pay for their own sewage, pay for their own water supply, pay for water treatment testing (although we have never received a report since its inception in September 2006)), pay for electric of common areas and facilities, and pay for maintaining infrastructure and roads in the park as well as common areas. As a result, the tenants are requesting from the $104,000 that they pay each year to the borough in taxes to provide emergency support services including the New Jersey State Police, the fire department, the Emergency Medical Technicians, the United Parcel Service (to deliver medicine), fuel, contractor services, and water testers.

Sat, 12/05/2009 - 10:56pm - Posted by: noddanow

Is Boro Solicitor Baldini bias? Well I know he is honest. While Benson was solicitor he billed the borough well over $100K a year while Baldini is only about $60K a year. Was Benson over charging or something else. How do you explain the HUGE difference in bills Mr. Mayor?? When the mayor runs next year for re-election everyone should ask him about his pretrial Intervention file down at the prosecutors office. Woodbine has plenty of dirty laundry to spread around!

Sat, 12/05/2009 - 9:24pm - Posted by: spitfire

Maybe Deputy Dog should seek a Councilman position........he seems to know the truth.......

Sat, 12/05/2009 - 9:19pm - Posted by: spitfire

Hey BIG GIRL..........Your temper is out of control........relax.........before you fire Ryan, Watkins, and Murray, you should know......Rodriguez is already fired., he lost the election in June.
I believe you need to grow up......and quit calling people names like they are beneath you.
Money and power do not make you anyone special......
Calling Mr. Baldini biased and incompetent is your opinion......but my opinion is.........you don't know anything about Mr. Baldini.........You only know Mr. Benson who was biased and incompetent for the Mayor and his yes men for the last 20 years.
Now......Lets set the record straight...... you want to leave people homeless who you believe are scumbags.......IMPRESSIVE!!!.
.I believe you, Councilman Saduk, the Mayor, Councilman Ortiz, Mr. Benson, Mr. Sturm. and Mr. Graham need to leave town.......all your dirty deeds are beginning to show their ugly faces.......and the people and thugs know it.........

Sat, 12/05/2009 - 9:56am - Posted by: Big Girl

Boro Solicitor Baldini was hired by councilmen Ryan, Rodriguez, Watkins & Murray. He is so biased or so imcompetent, he tried to say the ordinance passed when it didn't. Time to get rid of Baldini and those who hired him. Way to go Herald for getting it right and shame on The Press of AC for not

Fri, 12/04/2009 - 4:31pm - Posted by: Big Girl

Deputy Dog has no idea what he is talking about. There are over 230 sites and less than a dozen are objecting! I bet he is one of the stupid campers whose lease reads" not allowed for permanent habitation" and subject to all federal state & local laws, The signed it and now her wants to change it.The Woodbine ordinance has been on the books for 30 years. He should have listened to the overwhelmingmajority of campers that have been here for over 20 years. They are smart enough to kknow what they signed.

Fri, 12/04/2009 - 3:25pm - Posted by: DEPUTY DOG

"THE LITTLE BOROUGH OF WOODBINE" Once upon a time there was this little borough that was ran by a crooked ,MAYOR & HIS SIDE-KICK.. They did as they pleased for 20+ years to change ordinances,get variances,side-step laws to benefit themselves.. The last 2 meetings,I've been told, that Smokey stayed present at the council meetings,while the issue of his park [ordinance]was voted on & discussed... I'm no lawyer,but I'm told thats not kosher..I feel as a tax payer in the borough,now that the ordinance was voted down,now us as tax payers in the borough will be paying for the legal issues created by the owners of the park & the Mayor.. That ordinance Paragraph should have been written in them folks leases from the start, & it would have been crystal clear.. I've seen this coming for years. It's amazing how the mayor & the owners of the park claim they didn't know folks were living there .. It's about time somebody took them down,it's ashame it has to be at the borough's expense, for the greediness of 2 borough people..They should be relieved of their duties...

Fri, 12/04/2009 - 1:43pm - Posted by: Big Girl

Creepy guy doesn't work, our tax dollars take care of him and paid for two FREE (paid for with our tax dollars) lawyers to attend last night's meeting.

Fri, 12/04/2009 - 12:48pm - Posted by: fredwager

creepy lookin guy in the picture. i ask where does he work?

Fri, 12/04/2009 - 12:23pm - Posted by: longtimecitizen

The leases are 99 year leases of which most of them have approx. 75 years left.

Fri, 12/04/2009 - 10:55am - Posted by: ZER0

Most are seniors but their spokesman who was pictured in the paper was listed at 49 years old. That doesn't even qualify him for a AARP card as yet. You may be right that I don't know what I'm talking about but the AC Press report about the woman's lease is still able to be read on line as I type this. A lease is a "time-related" document and I believe that as such can be changed at the expiration of such document. People in Florida have signed leases for apartments that when the time of lease has been completed the entire complex has converted to a condiminium and therefore those who could not afford to buy were required to move. People in a senior park were required to move at the completion of their lease as the land owner wanted to sell his property to a developement company. 154 homes were moved in less than 3 months. A lease has a begining date and an ending date. If the ending date has arrived then move on and move out. If you didn't plan for the future don't try to make everyone else pay for your stupidity. I may not know much but I do see where these parasites are suing the township they live in and the owners of the land they have leased for all these years because they think they should get a "free" ride. It was a lease; not a "til death do us part" marriage license! Leases expire and these parasites' law suits should as well!
It's a campground! Come and camp a few months and then go "Home"!

Fri, 12/04/2009 - 9:09am - Posted by: Big Girl

The first word in every lease at Carol Lynn Resorts is "CAMPGROUND" get your facts right. These people skirted the law and they know they signed the lease that states clearly they cannot live there and now they want to blame the owners. The Saduks are the real victims

Fri, 12/04/2009 - 9:07am - Posted by: Big Girl

Majority of 5 Councilmen present is not 2. The Herald got it right! Five voted 2 in favor, 2 absteintions and 1 dissent.

Fri, 12/04/2009 - 8:52am - Posted by: alpovideo

Zero, you do not know what you are talking about, These parasites you are talking about are senior citizens on a limited bubget, to which they were lied to when they signed the first lease that stated it was a year round trailer park, now that the owners built a new park they want to call it a campgroud.

Fri, 12/04/2009 - 8:17am - Posted by: ZER0

What a bunch of balony! One lady is complaning that when her lease ran out they wanted her to sign a new lease which would comply with the statues. And now she feels threatened by the owners of the property.....Did her origional lease state it was a lifetime committment? I doubt it! The owners have run a very nice place for years and this group of parasites now want to throw them under the bus! No! That would be incorrect! They want to sue the owners to get back enough so they can live free forever. And to think our very own Jeff Vandrew jumped in to help them gain a foothold.
Stand by folks because if the state is right about the electric and one of those trailers goes up in smoke due to a surge then the same people will sue the owners for not maintaining a constant current. Also if a forrest fire should errupt and burn the campground out, these same parasites will be standing with their hands out looking for someone to pay their way once again.
It's a campground folks! Respect the state statues and move out when required instead of trying to re-write and re-read everything to benefit your selfish ways!
Stop blaming others for your own stupidity! mummers go be mummers! Children go be children! Parasites go be parasite! And finally let the campers be campers!

Fri, 12/04/2009 - 8:14am - Posted by: Hemisphere Dancer

The Press of AC is saying that it was approved, while the Herald is stating it wasn't approved. Which is it?