After reading a lot about this fund, I have come to believe that it is something we probably need. Regardless of how we prepare or don’t prepare for the projects it would cover, we, as property owners, are no doubt going to pay for it. The only question is do we prepare for it in a business-like manner or just try to scare up the money when we have to.
There are only two ways to get the money. One is the fee imposed at the sale of a house or lot, the other is by some form of assessment, such as we are now paying for the current round of improvements.
Having lived here a few years, I am concerned about the ever-increasing monthly assessment. This is making life harder for those of us on fixed incomes, but, as one of our board members stated, this isn’t really a concern for them and those of us who are less affluent need to move.
I have seen some concerns about a 1% fee being the ruin of resales in BC. The fact is, this is probably going to be paid by the selling property owner but will also no doubt be reflected in the selling price. If you think about the last time you sold a house, the offer you accepted was probably more than 1% less than the asking price. To me, a bigger detriment to selling in BC is the outrageous commission rate being charged.
I could only vote for the proposal if the following questions are answered and incorporated in the documents:
1. The board has demonstrated that it cannot be trusted to manage our finances. One only has to look at the most recent amenity project and the false statements concerning the Sconti rebuild. Will this fund be subject to stringent and meaningful restrictions on its use?
2. Will the property owners would get to vote on the proposed projects, individually, rather than as a complete package as we did before.
3. Will all projects be subject to a competitive bidding process. If the Sconti deal had gone on in a city or county, there would be a huge hue and cry from the ethics watchdogs.
4. Will we have an assurance that all amenities will be operated on a break-even basis and fees not be increased to provide additional funding or supplements to losing operations. For example, not that the marina has produced a profit in excess of $60,000 per year yet rates continue to increase for slips and canoe racks. A review of the financials indicates that this is not a unique situation.
5. Is there an assurance that the same fees will be applied to all developer-sold properties, without exception?
Other posters have also posted some very good questions which should be answered. I’m afraid I don’t have much confidence in the white papers since the writers have shown a continuing capacity for supporting anything the developer wants and we have no reason to think that this would be any different.
For those who are concerned about the number of houses for sale, I am aware of quite a few that have been on the market for several years at what are obviously infllated prices. I have known several people who have sold houses in the last year or so at very reasonable prices and in reasonable time frames, less than 6 months.
Personally, I had rather deal with the 1% fee if and when I sell rather than a significantly increased monthly assessment. As I see it, we are going to be making this investment in our infrastructure whether we vote for the fund or not. The only question is timing. Would you rather pay it now or pay it later?
2 users commented in " Like the fund idea, afraid of the lack of controls "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackI agree with you. But until all of the questions on this Web site are answered, my vote will be an absolute NO.
The POA Board President Bob Crouch promised the users of this Web site that he would answer the property owners’ questions posted here. Should we have believed him?
Answering questions from disgruntled property owners is not how this board plays the game. We are dealing with a corporation board, not an association board; we have a Big Canoe POC, not a POA.
The Big Canoe POC will operate under their rules as a corporation, and not ours as an association. They will engage us on their grounds, not ours.
Since the Big Canoe POC won’t address major community issues on their very own Forum, why should anyone think that they would respond to this open Internet Forum?
As POA Board Director John Seferian said in his White Paper No. 1, the communication process for informing the property owners about the CIF will be 5 “white papers” between now and the 4/26 Town Hall meeting. In addition, a second set of FAQs will be published and a “hot line” established.
– Note that there is no timetable given for the second set of FAQs or that they will answer any or all of the questions from this web site. –
As I have learned in the past, a corporate board’s attorney will always suggest that his client delay answering the questions until the very last moment to minimize the impact of any of their answers (don’t plan to see answers to “all” of the questions listed on the Web site anytime soon, if at all).
Again, as I have pointed out on many occasions to others, at Big Canoe, we are dealing with a corporation - a POC not a POA.
It is a shame, but only by shaming the POC Board Directors in a public forum, will you even have a small possibility of getting answers to important questions (truthful or otherwise).
Why not add this Web site’s Internet address to the Big Canoe POA Forum? All Big Canoe property owners should have access to its CIF questions.
Just to clarify, Bob Crouch agreed to pass along the questions from http://4kfee.com to the LTFC. Also, while I understand that some residents are disgruntled, I would kindly ask that there is no shaming or flaming of anyone on this site. If you’ve got a complaint, by all means register it, just please register is respectfully. Last, thanks for the good comments!