YOUR HELP IS NEEDED NOW, MORE THAN EVER!
We have been advised by Attorneys with expertise in HOA and private club operation that the Lake Naomi Club (“LNC”) Board of Trustees (BOT) lacks authority to:
-
Impose ANY limitations on Temporary Memberships (duration, timing, or number)
-
Require us to have Full Memberships to sponsor Temporary Memberships
As such, we (Lake Naomi For All (LNFA) filed a lawsuit in Monroe County court in March 2024 to reinstate and protect the rights of all HOA members. Our goal is to restore our 50+ year right to sponsor TMs without restriction on number, length, or timing.
Extensive analysis of all founding charters, land transfers, bylaws, and 50+ years of deeds by our attorneys, Carl Weiner and Steve Lupin from the firm Hamburg, Rubin, Mullin, Maxwell and Lupin, PC. https://www.hrmml.com/ reveal that ANY guest (paid or gratuitous) of a home in Lake Naomi is entitled to temporary membership in the LNC. LNC has engaged Steve Sugarman (https://suglaw.com/attorneys/steven-l-sugarman/) to defend their illegal action and his response to our court claim is expected shortly.
It is important to note:
​
-
On the advice of our legal counsel, we established an LLC of PPCA and LNC members called Lake Naomi for All (LNFA), to restore Logan Steele’s vision that unlimited LNC TMs are essential to promote the community and home values
-
Paradoxically, while homeowners are restricted, guests of Mountaintop Lodge (owned and managed by LNC) are solicited with the promise of TMs of any duration or timing.
-
ALL LNVHHA MEMBERS WHO SEEK TO OFFER THEIR HOMES TO PAID OR GRATUITOUS GUESTS WILL BENEFIT FROM THIS ACTION.
To date, we have spent over $20,000 but LNC is aggressively defending their position and we need a financial commitment from each LNVHHA and LNFA MEMBER!
Please send FUNDS before May 31, 2024:
Checks (no service fees!): made out to “Lake Naomi for All”
Lake Naomi for All
c/o Wendy New Manley
415 Ellis Woods Rd.
Pottstown, PA 19465
Zelle (no service fees!) payments can be made to: Bruce@upenn.edu
Go Fund Me is https://gofund.me/55dce4c8 (there is a service fee ☹)
Please share, spread the word, and get involved.
Our suggested contribution is $500-$1000 per rental property.
27.9 Million
Visitors
per year
​
$282
Million
in State & Local Taxes Alone
per year
$3.3 Billion
Travel Spending
per year
​
$$$
%%%
Lodging: 43%, Food: 19%, Rec: 16%, Retail: 14%
35,201 Jobs
24.5% of all Pocono Jobs
​
62%
$$$
Tourism to
Local Taxes
1. No, it has not been a problem for me
2. No, Lake Naomi has always been a vacation community (2nd home)
3. No, the Poconos were born through short-term rentals
4. No, I know of a responsible Vacation Home Hosting Alliance that is helping educate hosts to have better guests and address concerns raised (PPCA)
5. No, there is about to be a Tobyhanna township ordinance that will help regulate short-term rentals and give the township to penalize irresponsible renting owners (TTCA) Coolbaugh has already established a successful ordinance and actively enforces the regulations
6. No, I know that having rentals in the community helps the local economy (through millions in tax dollars collected) and supports mom and pop businesses (jubilee, Junction etc).
7. No, our property rights should not be restricted.
8. No, with restrictions, property values will be adversely impacted.
1. No, it has not been a problem for me
2. No, Lake Naomi has always been a vacation community (2nd home)
3. No, the Poconos were born through short-term rentals
4. No, I know of a responsible Vacation Home Hosting Alliance that is helping educate hosts to have better guests and address concerns raised (PPCA)
5. No, there is about to be a Tobyhanna township ordinance that will help regulate short-term rentals and give the township to penalize irresponsible renting owners (TTCA) Coolbaugh has already established a successful ordinance and actively enforces the regulations
6. No, I know that having rentals in the community helps the local economy (through millions in tax dollars collected) and supports mom and pop businesses (jubilee, Junction etc).
7. No, our property rights should not be restricted.
8. No, with restrictions, property values will be adversely impacted.
1. No, it has not been a problem for me.
2. No, Lake Naomi has always been a vacation community (2nd home).
3. No, the Poconos were born through short-term rentals.
4. No, I know of a responsible Vacation Home Hosting Alliance that is helping educate hosts to have better guests and address concerns raised (PPCA).
5. No, there is about to be a Tobyhanna township ordinance that will help regulate short-term rentals and give the township to penalize irresponsible renting owners (TTCA). Coolbaugh has already established a successful ordinance and actively enforces the regulations.
6. No, I know that having rentals in the community helps the local economy (through millions in tax dollars collected) and supports Mom and Pop businesses (Jubilee, Junction etc).
7. No, our property rights should not be restricted.
8. No, with restrictions, property values will be adversely impacted.
1. No, I welcome all types of people into our community
2. No, diversity should be welcomed in our wonderful lake community
3. No, if we can share our community to people of different backgrounds we are being more inclusive
1. No, I welcome all types of people into our community
2. No, diversity should be welcomed in our wonderful lake community
3. No, if we can share our community to people of different backgrounds we are being more inclusive.
1. No, I welcome all types of people into our community
2. No, diversity should be welcomed in our wonderful lake community
3. No, if we can share our community to people of different backgrounds we are being more inclusive.
1. No, why are we trying to fix something that isn’t broken?
2. No, I do not believe our property rights should be restricted.
3. No, By enacting policies of restricted days/number of times you are effectively devaluing our properties.
4. No, any property that has more stringent use restrictions will be less valuable compared to an comparable unrestricted property (our home values will be diminished)
5. No, each property owner has different life circumstances that may change over time.
6. No, restricting their ability to rent their home might force them to sell/not make repairs
1. No, why are we trying to fix something that isn’t broken?
2. No, I do not believe our property rights should be restricted.
3. No, By enacting policies of restricted days/number of times you are effectively devaluing our properties.
4. No, any property that has more stringent use restrictions will be less valuable compared to an comparable unrestricted property (our home values will be diminished)
5. No, each property owner has different life circumstances that may change over time.
6. No, restricting their ability to rent their home might force them to sell/not make repairs
1. No, why are we trying to fix something that isn’t broken?
2. No, I do not believe our property rights should be restricted.
3. No, By enacting policies of restricted days/number of times you are effectively devaluing our properties.
4. No, any property that has more stringent use restrictions will be less valuable compared to an comparable unrestricted property (our home values will be diminished).
5. No, each property owner has different life circumstances that may change over time.
6. No, restricting their ability to rent their home might force them to sell/not make repairs.
1. No, it’s purely discriminatory. Limiting the minimum rental period can eliminate certain socio-economic classes of people due to vacation/time-off constraints
2. No, homeowners who choose to rent without minimum rental periods provides for more flexibility for their own family’s use.
3. No, let responsible homeowners who choose to rent their homes out set appropriate minimums that allow them to the greatest flexibility
1. No, it’s purely discriminatory. Limiting the minimum rental period can eliminate certain socio-economic classes of people due to vacation/time-off constraints
2. No, homeowners who choose to rent without minimum rental periods provides for more flexibility for their own family’s use.
3. No, let responsible homeowners who choose to rent their homes out set appropriate minimums that allow them to the greatest flexibility
1. No, it’s purely discriminatory. Limiting the minimum rental period can eliminate certain socio-economic classes of people due to vacation/time-off constraints.
2. No, homeowners who choose to rent without minimum rental periods provides for more flexibility for their own family’s use.
3. No, let responsible homeowners who choose to rent their homes out set appropriate minimums that allow them to the greatest flexibility.
1. No, so many homeowners that wish to cover their costs by renting would not be able to keep their homes.
1. No, so many homeowners that wish to cover their costs by renting would not be able to keep their homes.
1. No, so many homeowners that wish to cover their costs by renting would not be able to keep their homes.
1. No, why are we trying to fix something that isn’t broken?
2. No, I do not believe our property rights should be restricted.
3. No, By enacting policies of restricted days/number of times you are effectively devaluing our properties.
4. No, any property that has more stringent use restrictions will be less valuable compared to an comparable unrestricted property (our home values will be diminished)
5. No, each property owner has different life circumstances that may change over time
6. No, restricting their ability to rent their home might force them to sell/not make repairs
1. No, why are we trying to fix something that isn’t broken?
2. No, I do not believe our property rights should be restricted.
3. No, By enacting policies of restricted days/number of times you are effectively devaluing our properties.
4. No, any property that has more stringent use restrictions will be less valuable compared to an comparable unrestricted property (our home values will be diminished)
5. No, each property owner has different life circumstances that may change over time
6. No, restricting their ability to rent their home might force them to sell/not make repairs
1. No, why are we trying to fix something that isn’t broken?
2. No, I do not believe our property rights should be restricted.
3. No, By enacting policies of restricted days/number of times you are effectively devaluing our properties.
4. No, any property that has more stringent use restrictions will be less valuable compared to an comparable unrestricted property (our home values will be diminished).
5. No, each property owner has different life circumstances that may change over time.
6. No, restricting their ability to rent their home might force them to sell/not make repairs.