Indianapolis rapper, 15, teaches financial literacy along with the beat

Blake McQuire, shown in the music studio’s sound booth, got into rap through his brother and entered a competition through the Boys & Girls Clubs. His efforts yielded a song, ‘Money All That Matters,’ produced in Atlanta by Kevin ‘Khao’ Cates. / Photo provided by the Charles Schwab Foundation.

I need a ladder in my pocket, ’cause my money stay tall,

I’m going to balance out my checks, so my money never fall.

Budget all my money, I don’t get collector’s calls,

Because you can’t rob Peter to go and pay Paul.

- “Money All That Matters”

It began as a partnership: Blake McQuire, a Monrovia High freshman, wrote lines of poetry and turned to his older brother, Robby, to add the beats.

Now Blake, 15, is launching a career as a hip-hop artist — thanks to a boost from winning a financial-literacy contest this spring sponsored by the Boys & Girls Club of America and Charles Schwab Foundation.

Blake wrote his rap, “Money All That Matters,” in just two days. After receiving more than 100,000 online votes in the Money Matters Music Mogul (M4) contest, Blake landed a once-in-a-lifetime gig — recording his winning rap with multiplatinum rap producer Kevin “Khao” Cates at a music studio in Atlanta.

The first-ever financial literacy hip-hop album, featuring Blake and six other artists, is available online for download and streaming. Proceeds from downloads will be added to the M4 Scholarship Fund to benefit teens featured on the album, according to the Schwab Foundation.

Cates said in an email that he was impressed with Blake’s raw talent.

“I honestly feel that if Blake stays focused, he can be successful in any career that he chooses,” he said. “If it’s music, I will give him an opportunity with Bridge DA Gap (his company that creates music videos to communicate key values to youth).

Laced with terms like “IRA,” “401(k),” and “CDs,” Blake’s winning entry is no ordinary rap. The contest was meant to tap into talent and creativity but also spread the word about the importance of personal finance with teens.

Blake first got interested in learning more about money when he was one of several youths who took part in a six-week financial workshop offered at a local Boys & Girls Club. That’s also where he first learned about the rap contest.

Blake said he learned that you need to start saving money early, “so you don’t have to worry about money as an adult.”

“The workshop taught me you can start with nothing and make it into something. It isn’t just about teaching other kids through rap, it’s about teaching me,” Blake said.

Blake is the son of Jack McQuire and Jennifer McQuire. His older brother, Robby Abney, 23, is the one who first introduced him to rap.

“I like all kinds of music, not strictly hip-hop,” Blake said. “But Ludacris was my favorite artist growing up, because Robby listened to him.”

Another lesson Blake has learned through the experience is taking personal responsibility for his actions.

He first attended the Boys & Girls Club through a court-ordered diversion program.

“I’ve known Blake for two years. He got into some trouble and came to the club,” said Marshelle Shelton-Sights, unit director at the Keenan-Stahl Boys & Girls Club, 1949 E. Troy Ave.

Until the start of this year, Blake was a student at Southport High School, located near the club. A $1,000 scholarship that he won as part of the contest includes a matching grant for his home Boys & Girls Club.

“One of the things that strikes me about Blake is that he is concerned about others. When he knew a girl was being bullied, he came to me and I was able to intervene,” Shelton-Sights said.

She also said Blake has taken part in club programs, such as “Passport to Manhood,” about character and leadership development and Teen Talk, a discussion forum about current affairs. He’s also a junior staff member at the club and someone younger children are starting to look up to.

“I can see him being successful as a mentor,” Shelton-Sights said. “Kids just flock to him. And he’s going places with his music.”

A gospel singer herself, Shelton-Sights jokingly offered to help Blake out with his song, but he quickly answered, “You know it’s hip-hop, right?”

So why is he interested in hip-hop?

“A lot of kids are influenced by hip-hop music and older generations may think it’s bad, but I see it as a positive way to help kids memorize important subjects,” Blake said. “I like learning, exploring and writing music. This puts those two things together.”

He can’t release all the details yet, but Blake said he already has plans to turn other subjects into rap. He hopes it may also someday be a new way for students to pass the standardized “end of course” assessment required to graduate.

“I’m always writing lyrics on my phone. I listen to music all day,” he said.

“I can definitely see a rap coming out about ancient history, including several wars and world leaders like Martin Luther King.”

Written By: T.J. Banes Publish Date: April 24, 2013 Publish Site: www.indystar.com/article/20130423/LIFE/304230044/Indianapolis-rapper-15-teaches-financial-literacy-along-beat

HOA Doesn’t Have Authority to Restrict Lot Usage

Estates at Desert Ridge Trails Homeowners’ Association v. Vazquez, Nos. 30, 944; 31,590 (N.M. Ct. App. Feb. 8, 2013)

Powers of the Association: In a case of first impression, a New Mexico appeals court affirmed a ruling that, unless the declaration provides otherwise, an association has limited ability to restrict the use or occupancy of individual units or the behavior within those units.

In 2006, David Vazquez purchased a lot in Estates at Desert Ridge Trails subdivision in Albuquerque, N.M.. The development is subject to a declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions recorded in 2004. The subdivision is managed and maintained by Estates at Desert Ridge Homeowners’ Association (association). Rules prohibiting owners from renting their homes for less than a 30-day term were adopted by the association in 2007 to supplement the declaration.

In 2010, Vazquez began renting his home on a short-term basis and advertised that the home had a three-night rental minimum. The association notified him that the short-term rentals violated the declaration and requested that he cease his short-term rental activity. When he refused, the association sought and received a temporary restraining order and sued for a permanent order barring him from renting his home on a short-term basis.

The trial court ruled in Vazquez’s favor, finding that the declaration did not prohibit short-term rentals. The trial court also found that the 2007 rules were not enforceable because they constituted an unreasonable interference with owners’ use and enjoyment of their property. The trial court dissolved the temporary restraining order and denied the association’s request for permanent relief. The association appealed.

The association board resolved to amend the declaration to prohibit rentals for less than 90 days. A vote was held at an association special meeting in January 2011, and at least two-thirds of the association members voted to approve the amendment. The board considered the vote of two-thirds of the association members sufficient to approve the amendment under the declaration provisions.

After the amendment was recorded, the association sued Vazquez, again seeking to prevent him from engaging in short-term rentals as prohibited by the amended declaration. The trial court concluded, however, that a valid amendment to the declaration required the unanimous agreement of the lot owners, which the association did not have. Consequently, the trial court denied the association’s claims, finding that all of the alleged violations fell under the amendment provisions. The trial court concluded that the amendment was void, and the association appealed.

The appeals court considered both cases together, first examining whether Vazquez’s use violated the original declaration’s terms. The association argued that the declaration prohibited short-term rentals by providing that “[n]o Lot or any portion thereof shall be used except for single-family residential purposes.” The association drew a distinction between short- and long-term rentals, arguing that while long-term rentals were permissible, short-term rentals, by the nature of their duration, were more akin to business or commercial uses such as a hotel or lodging facility.

The appeals court observed that in a restrictive covenant, the phrases “residential use” or “residential purposes”—when not followed by further limiting language—have routinely been interpreted as the intent to use a unit for “living purposes, or a dwelling, or a place of abode.” Once the appeals court established that the home was a proper dwelling, it declined to attach any requirement regarding a resident’s permanency or length of stay. The fact that the homeowner derives an economic benefit from renting the home does not, by itself, constitute an impermissible business or commercial activity under the “residential purposes” restriction.

The appeals court found that the general interpretation for restrictive covenants compelled the conclusion that Vazquez’s short-term rentals did not violate the declaration. The appeals court refused to interpret that the declaration had a distinction between long- and short-term rentals by implication. Rather, if a restrictive covenant is to preclude short-term rentals, it must be stated with sufficient specificity in the covenant.

Next, the appeals court examined whether the 2007 rule that prohibited leases for less than 30 days was valid. Noting that the association’s permissible scope for rulemaking is a matter of first impression (a legal issue that has never been decided by an appeals court and, therefore, there is no precedent for the court to follow) in New Mexico, the appeals court elected to follow the approach described in Section 6.7 of the Restatement (Third) of Property (Servitudes), which provides that an association has the implied power to adopt reasonable rules to:

(a) “govern the use of the common property” (§ 6.7(1)(a));

(b) “govern the use of individually owned property to protect the common property” (§ 6.7(1)(b)); and

(c) “protect community members from unreasonable interference in the enjoyment of their individual lots or units and the common property caused by the use of other individually owned lots or units” (§ 6.7(2)(a)).

The comments to the Restatement note that Section 6.7(2)(a) is limited to preventing “nuisance-like activities” because the homeowners have a reasonable expectation that they will be protected “from neighborhood nuisances by adoption of preventative rules.” The appeals court held that, unless specific authorization is granted to the association by the declaration, an association has no authority to “restrict the use or occupancy of, or behavior within, individually owned lots or units” beyond those rules permissible under Restatement Section 6.7(1)-(2).

The appeals court could find no evidence or authority that short-term rentals constitute a nuisance or unreasonable interference to the subdivision’s common property or neighboring properties. As such, the association had no authority to adopt the rules that restricted short-term leasing, and the appeals court declared those rules unenforceable.

Finally, the appeals court examined whether the 2011 amendment was valid. The declaration did not contain general amendment provisions. Rather, the declaration only contained a duration clause, which provided that the covenants would run with and bind the land for an initial term of 25 years, after which the declaration would automatically be extended for successive periods of 10 years each unless a supplemental declaration that amended, modified or terminated the declaration was approved by two-thirds of the then-owners and recorded in the land records.

The appeals court held that—where the declaration provides an initial duration period, like the 25-year term here—amendments to the declaration during that initial period are void unless the unanimous consent of all property owners is obtained, provided the declaration doesn’t have provisions stating otherwise.

For the foregoing reasons, the appeals court affirmed the trial court’s denial of the association’s request for an injunction against Vazquez.

Published Site: newsmanager.commpartners.com/cailaw/issues/2013-04-18.html#2

Take the Stress Out of Your Move

Take the stress out of your move!

Between packing boxes, hiring movers, and unpacking everything in your new house, you have enough on your mind when you’re moving. You don’t want to have to worry about minor annoyances like remembering all the places you need to change your address or more serious concerns like dealing with moving fraud. These tips from USA.gov can help take some of the stress out of your move.

Use this moving checklist from the U.S. Department of Transportation so you won’t miss anything important like checking out your movers with the Better Business Bureau and making an inventory of what’s in your boxes, so you make sure everything gets delivered.

Know your rights before you select a mover and understand any documentation you might be asked to sign. That way you’ll know what to do if there’s a problem like your possessions getting lost or damaged. If you’re moving between states, you may be eligible for liability options from your movers to ensure that your property stays safe.

Find all the forms in one place on USA.gov that you’ll need to report your change of address to continue getting your mail and any government benefits you receive. You’ll find the post office change of address form, along with additional forms you might need for the Social Security Administration, Veteran’s Administration, the IRS and your state’s voter registration office.

Learn if you can claim your moving expenses on your tax forms. If you moved for a job or because you started a new business, you may be able to deduct some of your moving expenses. Find out if you meet the qualifications from the IRS.

Server Down for Maintenance

Our server will be down for maintenance between 5 p.m. Friday April 19 and 12:00 noon Saturday April 20. Thank you for your patience while we perform maintenance!

Prepare for Severe Weather

Learn how to prepare for floods, earthquakes, fires, hurricanes, tornadoes, and other severe weather.

Weather emergencies, such as tornadoes, floods, and lightning, can occur without a lot of warning. However, you can prepare for different types of severe weather.

One of the basic recommendations to help you prepare for any emergency is to assemble a disaster supplies kit, which includes water, food, a first-aid kit, and many other items.

Knowing what to do in different circumstances may save your life and the lives of others.

Basic Disaster Supplies Kit

A basic emergency supply kit could include the following recommended items:

• Water, one gallon of water per person per day for at least three days, for drinking and sanitation
• Food, at least a three-day supply of non-perishable food
• Battery-powered or hand crank radio and a NOAA Weather Radio with tone alert and extra batteries for both
• Flashlight and extra batteries
• First aid kit
• Whistle to signal for help
• Dust mask to help filter contaminated air and plastic sheeting and duct tape to shelter-in-place
• Moist towelettes, garbage bags and plastic ties for personal sanitation
• Wrench or pliers to turn off utilities
• Manual can opener for food
• Local maps
• Cell phone with chargers, inverter or solar charger

Looking for a Spring Family Activity? Plant a Garden

Pinwheels for Prevention Takes Over Times Square

There’s one basic question Matt Feldman of Prevent Child Abuse America wants us all to think about — as a society, how do we want to raise our kids?

On April 16, 2013, Prevent Child Abuse America will bring thousands of people together for an event in Times Square — the heart of New York City — to raise awareness about child abuse and neglect prevention. Pinwheels for Prevention — an advocacy campaign focused on educating people about child abuse — will be handing out thousands of pinwheels in honor of celebrating a society of happy and healthy children. Why pinwheels? Like the pink ribbon for breast cancer, PCAA wants the pinwheel to remind people that children are the future. Matt explained in an interview last week that the concept began with the Florida, Georgia, and Ohio chapters of Prevent Child Abuse America. “[They] wanted a symbol for child abuse prevention and came up with ‘Pinwheels for Prevention.’ In 2008, there was so much success at the grassroots level with the image that we decided to take pinwheels national, and we’ve been going nonstop ever since,” said Matt. Specifically, the pinwheel represents the innocence of children and reminds people everywhere that a child’s early life should be filled with fun.

Pinwheels for Prevention rings the Nasdaq bell on April 2, 2013.

The Pinwheels for Prevention campaign wants to create a national conversation about child abuse. The world has been gripped by powerful stories of children suffering terrible tragedies and Matt believes there’s no better time than now to illuminate the importance of supporting healthy and happy childhoods. “We all play a role in raising kids because each child is our child. There’s an enormous impact on society when abuse is not prevented early on. When kids are abused in life, they are likely to be abusers as well. So we are responsible for the future of these children.”

During the April 16th event, hundreds of volunteers will hand out pinwheels to people, creating a dynamic cascade of pinwheels with Times Square as the backdrop. To get the word out, PCAA has teamed up with celebrities, athletes, and Miss America. But a recent strategy has been the use of social media as a vehicle to spark a larger connection. Along with Facebook and Twitter pages, they’ve harnessed the power of Causes.com communities to help spread the word about their work. Pinwheels for Prevention recently launched a fundraiser that gives people the opportunity to sponsor pinwheels in Times Square.

Even if you’re not in New York City on April 16, here are ways you can participate:

• “Sponsor” a portion of the Big Pinwheel Garden by donating on Causes.com
• Purchase a tie from the Pinwheels for Prevention Collection at www.ties.com; ties endorsed by NBA Stars Chris Paul, Chris Bosh, Kevin Love and Ronny Turiaf, and Pro Football Player Lawrence Jackson
• Volunteer for your state chapter of Prevent Child Abuse America
• Visit www.preventchildabuse.org to learn more

Go to Prevent Child Abuse America’s cause to join, comment, and let PCAA know how you’re helping prevent child abuse.

Written By: Alejandro De La Cruz Publish Date: April 02, 2013 Publish Site: blog.causes.com/2013/04/pinwheels-for-prevention-takes-over-times-square/

The Twin Towers of the World Trade Center: 40 Years Ago

The Twin Towers of the World Trade Center officially opened 40 years ago on April 4, 1973. At the time of their completion they were the tallest buildings in the world.

These photos, taken shortly after the World Trade Center was completed in the early 1970s, are part of the DOCUMERICA series, a program sponsored by the Environmental Protection Agency to photographically document subjects of environmental concern in America during the 1970s.

Find more images from DOCUMERICA at “Searching for the Seventies: The DOCUMERICA Photography Project,” now open at the National Archives in Washington, DC.

Article Source: blog.usa.gov/post/47471976659/image-description-from-the-national-archives

Ferruginous Hawks Enjoy A Spring Day

Board’s Mismanagement Is Insufficient Reason to Annul Owners’ Assessment Obligation

CSL Community Association, Inc. v. Meador, 973 N.E.2d 597 (Ind. Ct. App. Aug. 13, 2012)

Assessments/Covenants Enforcement: An Indiana appeals court ruled that a homeowner was obligated to pay assessments, even though the association’s financial mismanagement led to a failure to maintain improvements and amenities in the community.

Country Squire Lakes Community in North Vernon, Ind., was established as a gated residential community in the 1970s. It includes approximately 4000 lots, more than 30 miles of paved roads, and many recreational facilities, including a swimming pool, tennis courts, playgrounds, clubhouses, picnic areas, a marina, lakes, beaches and a campground. The community is governed by CSL Community Association, Inc. (association).

Clarence Meador purchased two lots in the community, subject to restrictive covenants contained in the deeds. The covenants provide that each lot owner is a mandatory member of the association and must pay assessments to help maintain the common amenities, regardless as to whether or not the owner uses the facilities.

As years passed and the economy fluctuated, many investment buyers purchased lots in the community. As the community shifted from owner-occupied properties to renter-occupied properties, owners frequently stopped paying their assessments, leaving the association with a $3–$4 million revenue shortfall. As a result, assessments were used to only cover the essentials, leaving insufficient funds to maintain the recreational amenities. The swimming pools were empty and needed repair; the surface of the tennis court was rubble, and the court had no net; the lake was contaminated with raw sewage; the boathouse was saturated with mildew; and there was just one tire swing on the children’s playground. Residents could no longer use the clubhouses, and arsonists had burned down the pavilion. There was no longer a full-time security force, and the security gates had been removed.

In addition to demographical changes, the association suffered from years of financial mismanagement and money had not been placed in a reserve fund, as required by the covenants.

Meador, who had lived in the community for 15 years and regularly paid his assessments, tried to influence the association’s budgetary decisions but was rebuffed by the board. Eventually, he stopped paying assessments for one of his lots and was not allowed to vote at the 2009 annual meeting. Thereafter, he sued the association, seeking a declaration as to whether he was a member of the association and whether he had been illegally denied his right to vote. He also asked the court to annul his obligation to pay assessments because the association had not maintained the common areas and amenities.

The court found that community’s changes were so radical that the original purpose of the deed restrictions had long been defeated. Therefore, it terminated Meador’s obligation to pay assessments and ruled that Meador could still vote at association meetings. The association appealed.

A restrictive covenant is an express contract (a contract in which all elements and terms are specifically stated) between the grantor and the grantee that restrains the grantee’s use of his land. Although the law does not favor restrictive covenants, the contractual nature of these restrictions has led courts to enforce them in equity as long as they are not against public policy. However, public policy requires restrictive covenants to become invalidated when changes in the property’s character are so radical as to destroy the agreement’s essential purposes.

Although the appeals court acknowledged that significant changes in the property’s character had occurred, it held nonetheless that the requirement to pay assessments was for the benefit of all property owners, and that the property owners were still in a position to benefit from those payments. The court concluded that the trial court erred in annulling Meador’s obligation to pay assessments.

The court recognized that the association’s financial mismanagement and a change in the community’s demographics had led to the association’s inability to maintain the community’s amenities. It appreciated the trial court’s attempt to provide relief following the untenable circumstances; however, the relief was not one afforded under Indiana law.

Because the evidence did not support the trial court’s conclusion—that changes in the community were so radical from the community’s original purpose that the deed restrictions was destroyed—the appeals court reversed the trial court’s ruling.

In a dissenting opinion, Judge Crone stated that in his view, the relevant facts overwhelmingly proved that changes had occurred in the community over the past decade or so that were far more radical than a mere lack of recreational amenities. He noted that “[r]eal estate speculators have turned what once was a well-appointed, well-financed, well-maintained, and well-patrolled retirement and recreational community into an economically and infrastructurally devastated eyesore.” As such, he believed the trial court did not err in annulling Meador’s obligation to pay dues and assessments under the covenants. However, because a lot owner’s ability to vote was contingent upon his payment of dues and assessments, he reversed the trial court’s ruling so that Meador would retain his voting rights.

©2013 Community Associations Institute. All rights reserved.