Comic Relief - Did we ban the use of cars

JohnC73 (Massachusetts)
Posts: 344

Posted:

Our association in NH has a series of "usage regulations" and one of them defines the vehicles allowed in the park. Lots of discussion around the use of e-bikes and LSV's recently inspired me to take a closer look at the use regulation and I think I uncovered something very funny.

I believe this use regulation as poorly written bans ALL types of 4-wheel motorized vehicles and that would include automobiles. Do you agree? Perhaps any writing experts will chime in, but I believe the "ATV" in parenthesis is nonessential and a throw away remark. So, the use reg really says 2,3 or 4-wheel motorized vehicles may not be operated.

Here is the regulation.

3. Motorcycles with fully operational muffler systems are allowed in the Park for ingress and egress only at the discretion of the Manager. Other motorcycles, mopeds, minibikes and other two-, three- or four-wheeled motorized vehicles (ATV's), except those specifically designed for the handicapped , may not be operated within the confines of the Campground. Golf carts may not be operated within the confines of the Campground except by the Manager and employees of the Manager.

Thanks

CathyA3 (Ohio)
Posts: 6,299

Posted:

Quote:

"Other motorcycles, mopeds, minibikes and other two-, three- or four-wheeled motorized vehicles (ATV's), except those specifically designed for the handicapped, may not be operated within the confines of the Campground. Golf carts may not be operated within the confines of the Campground except by the Manager and employees of the Manager."

IANAL, but I think the entire sentence, especially the qualifying part in parenthesis (ATV's), makes it clear that this applies to a specific type of motorized vehicle and not to automobiles. On the other hand, if you want automobiles to be banned in the campground, it should say so because people do dumb stuff (see all of those detailed warnings/instructions that product manufacturers include with their items based on advice from their attorneys).

WendyM5 (North Carolina)
Posts: 1,522

Posted:

obviously only bands ATVs' not cars. but someone could make the case that 4 wheeled drive trucks are considered all terrain vehicles.

vis ta vie

JohnC73 (Massachusetts)
Posts: 344

Posted:

I totally understand the "intent", is most likely to prevent the use of ATV's, but the rule was written in 1985 and we have to go by what is written and not intent.

I spoke with two teachers that told me that the (ATV's) in parens is nonessential and doesn't add meaning and is just a throw away. Essentially they told me that ATV's should NOT have been in parenthesis, if the intent was to ban only ATV's.

I was just asking the question from a grammer perspective. I'm not trying to ban cars- lol

Thanks

ElleN (Idaho)
Posts: 4,420

Posted:

You do hafta go by what's written and this includes reading the document as a whole. Ask some attorneys if they think the ATVs in parentheses doesn't add meaning and is just a throw away.

JohnC73 (Massachusetts)
Posts: 344

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By ElleN on 12/16/2022 3:59 PM
You do hafta go by what's written and this includes reading the document as a whole. Ask some attorneys if they think the ATVs in parentheses doesn't add meaning and is just a throw away.

Thanks Ellen,

I already know how that conversation would go. The association attorney would agree with the BOD and say it the rule was written for ATV's. Then I could ask an attorney that might say otherwise. Then we have a stale mate that I lose unless I take legal action. I don't want any of this, just wondering if the grammer used accidently banned cars.

I will just get a 6-wheel quad so there is no conflict -lol

Thanks

JohnC73 (Massachusetts)
Posts: 344

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By ElleN on 12/16/2022 3:59 PM
You do hafta go by what's written and this includes reading the document as a whole. Ask some attorneys if they think the ATVs in parentheses doesn't add meaning and is just a throw away.

I guess an interesting part is that the association is using this very regulation to ban e-bikes. I argued and now I believe incorrectly that the (ATV's) in parens was a qualifier and that since ebikes ARE NOT ATV's that they are allowed.

If the rule is specific to ATV's then one could reason that ebikes are allowed since they are not an ATV.

If the (ATV's) in the rule is a throw away then cars aren't allowed.

ElleN (Idaho)
Posts: 4,420

Posted:

I can see how some would argue ebikes are ATVs. It isn't my belief; I still think the bylaw is ambiguous on account of ebikes not having existed when the bylaws were written. Ambiguities are interpreted against a HOA's desire to restrict. The bigger source of your internal turmoil is maybe not appreciating that the board rules the roost meaning that spinning your wheels on issues like this is wastefully sapping your energy. Your and others' time is almost guaranteed to be better spent hatching a plan to take over the board at the next election.

JohnC73 (Massachusetts)
Posts: 344

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By ElleN on 12/16/2022 4:36 PM
I can see how some would argue ebikes are ATVs. It isn't my belief; I still think the bylaw is ambiguous on account of ebikes not having existed when the bylaws were written. Ambiguities are interpreted against a HOA's desire to restrict. The bigger source of your internal turmoil is maybe not appreciating that the board rules the roost meaning that spinning your wheels on issues like this is wastefully sapping your energy. Your and others' time is almost guaranteed to be better spent hatching a plan to take over the board at the next election.

Thanks Ellen,

I have no inner turmoil and don't want an LSV or ebike. I just happen to be the person from our hoa that comes to this page for impartial feedback when arguments take places at our HOA and most of these are on CrackBook(also known as Facebook). The others just argue, so I come here for an unbiased opinion and accept it either way.

I did run for the bod 2 months ago and lost by around 20 votes. I won't run again until our election process changes and owners have the option to either vote absentee or via a directed proxy. Hopefully that is coming in the near future.

I'm still curious over the grammer and will ask my nephew his thoughts as he is a lawyer.

John

WendyM5 (North Carolina)
Posts: 1,522

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By JohnC73 on 12/16/2022 5:10 PM

Posted By ElleN on 12/16/2022 4:36 PM
I can see how some would argue ebikes are ATVs. It isn't my belief; I still think the bylaw is ambiguous on account of ebikes not having existed when the bylaws were written. Ambiguities are interpreted against a HOA's desire to restrict. The bigger source of your internal turmoil is maybe not appreciating that the board rules the roost meaning that spinning your wheels on issues like this is wastefully sapping your energy. Your and others' time is almost guaranteed to be better spent hatching a plan to take over the board at the next election.

Thanks Ellen,

I have no inner turmoil and don't want an LSV or ebike. I just happen to be the person from our hoa that comes to this page for impartial feedback when arguments take places at our HOA and most of these are on CrackBook(also known as Facebook). The others just argue, so I come here for an unbiased opinion and accept it either way.

I did run for the bod 2 months ago and lost by around 20 votes. I won't run again until our election process changes and owners have the option to either vote absentee or via a directed proxy. Hopefully that is coming in the near future.

I'm still curious over the grammer and will ask my nephew his thoughts as he is a lawyer.

John

i agree with you, if ATV refers to ebikes then it also refers to cars.
board is just trying to have it bboth ways which is not logical.

vis ta vie

JohnC73 (Massachusetts)
Posts: 344

Posted:

Thanks Wendy,

Exactly, I was just trying to point out the hypocracy.

The association denies the use of "Big Wheels" because they are a 3-wheel motorized vehicle. Big wheels are NOT an ATV,they are just a toy for toddlers. An ATV isn't just a general term, you have to meet the definition to be an ATV and a big wheel doesn't.

So, my conclusion is that they denied big-wheels because they are a 3-wheel motorized vehicles. So,cars should not be allowed either.

And I'm not here to remove cars - lol.