JBJ
Full Member
Posts: 101
|
Post by JBJ on Mar 8, 2011 7:49:12 GMT -6
Caroline,
I think you do the participants of this forum a disservice by continuing to allege that the POA board has some kind of secret deal or arrangement with some developer to locate an AFRC or similar on POA property. As I've repeatedly said, no such deal exists. We may be approached at some point and if so --as I've also repeatedly said--we will consider the proposal.
I will refer your concern to our "chief" moderator who is responsible for setting up the forums, threads, etc. But you seem to be insisting on discussing any topic in any thread--the rules suggest otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by carolinegraves on Mar 8, 2011 12:28:04 GMT -6
Bruce please answer the question
"Bruce, Your comments that "I think that the dues payment as a condition of POA membership is a sound concept and should continue if an AFRC or similar facility were to be located on POA property."
Why would anyone want to be a member and pay mandatory dues to the Dauphin Island Property Owners Association, when the POA board is going to build the Town/Developers Military complex.(AFRC) on the property owners property and the property owners would not be able to use it?
|
|
|
Post by carolinegraves on Mar 8, 2011 13:32:21 GMT -6
Why did the POA spend $15,000 on the Vision Plan that was submitted to ADEM and to the State with the following statements "It would also be desirable to provide a hotel that can serve as a military R & R component. The U.S. Coast Guard would like to provide facilities for their retirees and active duty personnel to be able to vacation on Dauphin Island. It is possible that the hotel could be guaranteed a certain number of reservations per year by the Armed Services.” Haven't you personally had some meeting with the Town and talked to Rod Grimm the Town's Lobbyist about this? Didn't the Town get the (PVA) The Pre-project Validation Assessment approval? Bruce, did the Board arbitrary spend $15,000 thousand dollars to submit a plan for the "Vision Plan" for "Economic Development Proposal for Dauphin Island Alabama" without having any facts about what they were doing? I don't understand? Especially, when the Board would not vote for more than $2000 for an audit for the POA books when the members were questioning the $22,000+ thousand dollars the POA paid to Cliff Brady, the POA Attorney to talk to Rod Grimm, the Town Lobbyist. Is all of this related???
|
|
JBJ
Full Member
Posts: 101
|
Post by JBJ on Mar 8, 2011 18:22:21 GMT -6
Yes--we prepared the vision plan to be able to present a high quality representation of what the POA facilities could become --how we could restore the assets to their former grand state --if we were to have the means to do so. So far we have received no infusions from any source but we haven't given up.
And yes--I have participated in meetings with Rod Grimm, Town Council members, etc., to discuss and prepare for the possible AFRC project. We met, e.g., to frame the letter that we sent--the one posted here.
Again--we'll just have to see what the AFRC people propose --if anything. It may be something we like --or it may not be.
|
|
JBJ
Full Member
Posts: 101
|
Post by JBJ on Mar 8, 2011 18:34:23 GMT -6
And again I ask that you cease posting these inaccurate characterizations.
|
|
|
Post by paulas on Mar 9, 2011 11:53:27 GMT -6
And...and so does everyone else. Surely gets old!
|
|
|
Post by carolinegraves on Mar 9, 2011 23:04:55 GMT -6
Bruce, To clear this up these inaccurate characterizations, would you please state for everybody information, that you nor the DIPOA Board of Directors do not have any plans and will not use any of the Mandatory Dues for the Town/Developers Military Hotel (AFRC) and that the Town/Developers Military Hotel (AFRC) will not be built on the Dauphin Island Property Owners Property, Isle Dauphine Club.
|
|
|
Post by carolinegraves on Mar 9, 2011 23:42:37 GMT -6
Bruce, I notice that the POA and the Town has been concentrating on the East end of the Island for the last 4 years was this in preparation for the MILITARY HOTEL (AFRC) and the Town and the private Developers getting the Coast Guard property in exchange?
By the way who else was the "ETC" that also met with you and the Town Council members and Rod Grimm.
All the owners need is transparency openness accountability of information like you said that the POA would have.
|
|
|
Post by carolinegraves on Mar 9, 2011 23:57:34 GMT -6
Bruce, I notice that the POA and the Town has been concentrating on the East end of the Island for the last 4 years was this in preparation for the MILITARY HOTEL (AFRC) and the Town and the private Developers getting the Coast Guard property in exchange?
By the way who else was the "ETC" that also met with you and the Town Council members and Rod Grimm.
All the owners need is transparency openness accountability of information like you said that the POA would have.
|
|
JBJ
Full Member
Posts: 101
|
Post by JBJ on Mar 10, 2011 7:41:31 GMT -6
This has been asked and answered repeatedly--but I'll re-post this reply to an earlier version of the question.
Re: Mandatory Dues « Reply #1 on Feb 18, 2011, 6:32am »
|
|
JBJ
Full Member
Posts: 101
|
Post by JBJ on Mar 10, 2011 8:47:42 GMT -6
I have not noticed an undue or inappropriate concentration on any part of the island, at the expense of any other part--by the Town or the POA.
Re. who the "etc." refers to, most meetings included representatives from the Park&Beach Bd, and the Water/Sewer Authority.
|
|
|
Post by carolinegraves on Mar 10, 2011 13:58:14 GMT -6
Please lets us know who was each of the other representatives were and if there were anybody else there. Transparency is important.
I will gather the information together and post it later.
|
|
JBJ
Full Member
Posts: 101
|
Post by JBJ on Mar 10, 2011 17:49:34 GMT -6
I don't have a record of exactly who was there. Maybe just post the names of the various board members--that should cover it.
|
|
|
Post by carolinegraves on Mar 11, 2011 13:44:47 GMT -6
Bruce, Would you please state that you nor the DIPOA Board of Directors do not have any plans and will not use any of the Mandatory Dues for the Town/Developers Military Hotel (AFRC) and that the Town/Developers Military Hotel (AFRC) will not be built on the Dauphin Island Property Owners Property, Isle Dauphine Club.
If you cannot state the above, then the property owners will have to assume that the POA Board of Directors, the Town/Developers Military complex(AFRC) are planning on using the Mandatory Dues for the project, which will be restrictive to Military personnel only and the OWNERS WILL NOT BE ABLE TO USE.
I am asking the DIPOA Board of Directors and the Town to fully disclose all information. You surely do not want the property owners to not be fully informed before voting.
|
|
|
Post by carolinegraves on Mar 11, 2011 13:58:59 GMT -6
So you mean at the meeting that all of the POA Board of Directors, all of the Town Council Members, the Mayor, all of the Water and Sewer and all of The Board of Directors of the Park and Beach Board were there? Weren't there other people at the meeting too?
|
|
JBJ
Full Member
Posts: 101
|
Post by JBJ on Mar 11, 2011 17:23:54 GMT -6
Bruce, Would you please state that you nor the DIPOA Board of Directors do not have any plans and will not use any of the Mandatory Dues for the Town/Developers Military Hotel (AFRC) and that the Town/Developers Military Hotel (AFRC) will not be built on the Dauphin Island Property Owners Property, Isle Dauphine Club. If you cannot state the above, then the property owners will have to assume that the POA Board of Directors, the Town/Developers Military complex(AFRC) are planning on using the Mandatory Dues for the project, which will be restrictive to Military personnel only and the OWNERS WILL NOT BE ABLE TO USE. I am asking the DIPOA Board of Directors and the Town to fully disclose all information. You surely do not want the property owners to not be fully informed before voting. I am a patient person--maybe excessively so . But here it it one more time--please read carefully. Re: Mandatory Dues « Reply #1 on Feb 18, 2011, 6:32am »
|
|
glen
New Member
Posts: 26
|
Post by glen on Mar 11, 2011 21:54:08 GMT -6
Bruce:
I have been monitoring your exchanges with Caroline Graves and have a question regarding your statement made in your March 7 post: "I think that the dues payment as a condition of POA membership is a sound concept and should continue if an AFRC or similar facility were to be located on POA property." In a follow-up March 8 response by Caroline, she asked you why POA members should pay dues if POA property were included in a AFRC facility and they were not able to use that POA property. I did not see where you answered that question which I believe warrants a response.
I agree that payment of dues is a reasonable requirement for a property owners association. However, I do not believe Caroline was necessarily questioning that requirement in her post.
I realize at this early stage of efforts by the Dauphin Island community to pursue a AFRC hotel/recreational complex, everyone can only ask questions about hypothetical situations. There is nothing wrong with that approach and it is entirely reasonable as individuals seek to understand how they could be affected by a potential AFRC project if one is located on POA property. As a dues-paying member to the POA, I would like for you to answer a hypothetical question that seeks clarification of what you mean by your entire statement as quoted above.
Use of AFRC facilities are generally restricted to active duty, reserve service, and retired service members; National Guard personnel; current and retired Department of Defence employees; etc. In short, the general public is largely prohibited from using AFRC facilities. Lets assume that an AFRC facility could be located on POA property, with subsequent use of the AFRC facility being limited to certain categories of individuals as noted above. That could prevent a sizable portion of the POA membership from using the POA property as they now can do. If that were the case (which is reasonably within the realm of possibilty based on use policies at existing AFRC facilities), why would anyone think it reasonable for the POA members to continue to pay dues when they were no longer allowed to use the property, or their use was greatly restricted?
I think that is what Caroline was attempting to get at and I think it is a reasonable question. The POA membership is entitled to know if it is possible their use of POA property could be adversely affected if it was included in an AFRC facility. If you and the Town do not presently have that information, someone needs to look into the issue.
I look forward to reading your answer. Thanks
|
|
|
Post by carolinegraves on Mar 11, 2011 22:53:42 GMT -6
Bruce your statement about who was at the meeting you had with the Town Council that "I don't have a record of exactly who was there. Maybe just post the names of the various board members--that should cover it."
Then I ask "So you mean at the meeting that all of the POA Board of Directors, all of the Town Council Members, the Mayor, all of the Water and Sewer and all of The Board of Directors of the Park and Beach Board were there? Weren't there other people at the meeting too?"
What I don't understand why you don't remember, since this was such an important meeting, and you, as President, were representing the Dauphin Island property owners why you wouldn't have kept notes to inform the property owners who you met with and all that was discussed. You need to tell the owners who all was at that meeting and what all was discussed. Maybe if you cannot remember, you could ask Mike Rogers.
|
|
|
Post by carolinegraves on Mar 11, 2011 23:38:40 GMT -6
thowes, Were you one of the ones that drew up the business plan that stated raising the mandatory dues? Didn't you also sign the letter as the chairman of the Park and Beach Board to the Naval Command to put the Military Complex(AFRC) on the Island, too. Bruce said earlier that the mandatory dues will be used for the AFRC. Was that the plan all along, when the business plan was drawn up?
|
|
|
Post by Forum Administrator on Mar 12, 2011 0:10:00 GMT -6
Since the Town/Developers Military complex.(AFRC) is the reason behind everything that the POA is doing, why isn't it a part of the other discussions threads, too. Since you are the moderator for this forum, I hope this isn't a one sided forum. I thought you wanted to be transparent. If not put the Military Complex AFRC back on each thread. Bruce has not moved the threads or posts. I have. The military hotel issue is cross-topic, related to several other topics. Scattering this discussion across numerous other threads defocuses the debate - people have to hop all over the place to read comments related to the hotel, and they will very likely miss something. The military hotel topic has been elevated to its own board where it will have increased visibility: dipoa.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=afrcPlease also see this recent announcement regarding the organization of threads and posts: dipoa.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=16
|
|
|
Post by carolinegraves on Mar 12, 2011 0:27:03 GMT -6
Bruce, .
Above I asked "Bruce, I notice that the POA and the Town has been concentrating on the East end of the Island for the last 4 years was this in preparation for the MILITARY HOTEL (AFRC) and the Town and the private Developers getting the Coast Guard property in exchange?" and you answered "I have not noticed an undue or inappropriate concentration on any part of the island, at the expense of any other part--by the Town or the POA."
The following is part of the information about the POA concentrating on the East End. I am now assuming the Town/Developers Military Complex (AFRC) was planned.
ALL OF THIS WAS HAPPENING WHEN YOU WERE ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND ALOT OF THE WEST END PROPERTY OWNERS PROPERTY WAS UNDER WATER!!!!
The following are excerpts from the POA Minutes that prove the POA was only working for the East end, since 2007.
July 5, 2007 POA Minutes D. Coastal Impact Assistance Program, State of Alabama proposal Bill Harper and others expediently prepared a grant request under this program which may entitle Dauphin Island to considerable moneys for restoration of the EAST END from the jetties to Audubon Place. A decision on the grant requests from the State of Alabama is expected soon.
August 11, 2007 POA Minutes Bill Harper reported that the Mobile Press Register gave a favorable report on our efforts to secure CIAP funds for the of the EAST END Island.
September 6, 2007 POA Minutes CIAP meeting, August 30, report by Bill Harper 17 Dauphin Island residents attended the meeting at Five Rivers Center, along with Town, DIPOA Officials, legislators, County and State representatives. Our proposal for EAST END beach restoration was not accepted by the administrators of the CIAP Fund, some of the reasons cited for the decision were 1) The property is involved in litigation, 2) Deemed to be privately owned, 3) The off shore wells in question were located off the continental shelf.
November 3, 2007 POA Minutes A. CIAP Funding Update The State of Alabama has reconsidered and will now offer Dauphin Island 2 million dollars to fund restoration of the EAST END coastal area when an appropriate plan for the project is presented. The extraordinary efforts of those involved in this remarkable turn around were applauded. PresidentHarper said it would be useful if a fund for political action and lobbying could be established usinga portion of the dues contributions.
February 9, 2008 POA Minutes CIAP Funding and Beach Restoration Update Mr. Harper reported the funds requested by the DIPOA for EAST END beach restoration were not granted. The Town Of Dauphin Island may receive as much as 2 million dollars to develop a working harbor
Political Action Committee formation and funding Bill Harper discussed the need for the DIPOA to be more politically connected and in that regard entertained a motion to create a Political Action Committee to award funds to the campaigns of certain County, State, Federal political candidates. The funds would be generated by voluntary donations by members of the DIPOA. The motion was made by Phil Fuselier, seconded by Bruce Jones and approved with one dissenting vote.
March 20, 2008 The following is a part of a letter from Bill Harper POA President
Dear property owners and friends, The Dauphin Island Property Owners Association is working with the Town of Dauphin Island, as well as our other entities and organizations here on the island, to effect solutions to our long-standing problems with beach erosion. The Town has engaged a consultant in Washington, DC to search for and guide legislation through our legislative system that will offer aid to our island. In a short time he has been quite successful in getting our two Alabama senators and our local congressman to sponsor legislation that will help stabilize our beaches…………. The first step in this process is a bill for $11.5 million dollars for restoration of our EAST END beach front, where needed, from Ft Gaines to the Dauphin Island pier, some three miles of beachfront. This section of the island was chosen first because of its importance to our overall infrastructure, our water supply, as well as providing protection to vital historical and environmental sites. Public access and no legal entanglements was also a consideration. Yours truly, William (Bill) Harper President
July 10, 2008 POA Minutes It was announced that the town’s lobbyist has gotten Senators Shelby and Sessions to appropriate$750,000.00 to be used for an engineering study by NOAA to determine the specifics for beach restoration on the EAST END of the island.
November 8, 2008 POA Minutes Coastal Restoration East End William Harper and Jeff Collier met with Jo Bonner, with a positive outcome from the meeting. Bonner is working with them on securing federal funding for an engineering study of the EAST END and possibly the West, as to how to best restore our coasts.
March 12, 2009 POA Minutes Bill Harper……. He also announced that the East End of Dauphin Island had been awarded a $400,000.00 grant to study restoration of the coast of that part of the Island.
June 19, 2009 POA Minutes Progress Updates on Coastline Restoration – Four different efforts are underway in an effort to seek a beach restoration project(s): • NOAA $5.3 million Stimulus Grant for EAST END of Island – Bill Harper reported that we are still awaiting the results of the NOAA decision on the Town’s grant request. • NOAA $400,000 grant – Bill reported that the Town has submitted an application to receive these funds that were earmarked in a FY 2009 appropriations bill. The Town is awaiting NOAA approval of the grant request.
July 29, 2009 POA Minutes NOAA $5.3 million Stimulus Grant for East End of Island – Bill Harper reported that NOAA had rejected the Town’s grant request. NOAA $400,000 grant – Bill also reported that NOAA has not yet approved the Town’s application to receive the $400,000 grant that was included as an “earmark” in a FY 2009 appropriations bill. The Town plans to utilize these funds to conduct a feasibility study to restore the EAST END beaches. In addition, Congressman Bonner is supporting an additional $1.5 million NOAA grant for FY 2010 to also be used for an engineering feasibility study. In anticipation of these grants, the Town has recently hired Dr. Scott Douglas to serve as its Project Manager to guide the feasibility study work. August 2009 POA Minutes NOAA $400,000 grant – No report was provided on the status of the Town’s application for the “earmarked” FY 2009 NOAA grant.
October 14, 2009 POA Minutes “Legal Fees: Jackie Gaines opened the discussion by providing a handout (Attachment 2) showing that the POA paid $183,412.21 in legal expenses for the period January 2007 through August 2008. Assuming the average cost trend of $5,700/month continues unabated through the final four months of 2009, the legal costs could eventually increase to over $206,000 as shown in Attachment 2. These costs do not reflect the costs to settle the ongoing Corps lawsuit that are estimated by the Plaintiff Attorneys to be in the range of $140,000. Jackie concluded that the Board needs to pursue actions to control legal expenses.
Glen Coffee then provided the attached 9-page spreadsheet that lists Board Counsel charges received over the period January 2008 through August 2009. Excluded from the spreadsheet are charges performed during this period for POA activities that were clearly of a legal nature and required an attorney to perform. For organizational purposes, the included charges were assigned to one of five categories: (1) efforts seeking public funding - $407.00; (2) contacts with Congressman Bonner’s office - $2,368.00; (3) contacts with Town of Dauphin Island lobbyist Rodd Grimm - $22,172.77 (a portion of those charges occurred in connection with multiple activities performed on some of the 75 days in which contacts were reported); (4) activities which appear to have been related to the Town and should not have been charged to the POA - $7,751.50; and (5) activities performed in connection with the Corps lawsuit - $12,644.50. The cumulative charges totaled to $45,343.77. The discussion that ensued questioned whether it was appropriate for the POA Counsel to have been involved in many of these activities and whether the actions could have been performed by a member of the Board. In addition, the question was raised as to whether specific charges should have been made at all for certain activities that could have been accomplished as an interested member of the POA which Board Counsel also is (i.e. contacts with Congressman Bonner, specific activities for the Town, etc.). It was also questioned why the POA was incurring costs from the POA Counsel when a specific group of attorneys had been retained to serve as Plaintiff Counsel in the Corps lawsuit. In an effort to control future legal expenses and to assure that future Board Counsel work is appropriately directed, Glen offered Attachment 3 which contains seven specific recommendations for consideration by the Board. The Board agreed to consider the information and discuss it at the November meeting. ……. Under the current system, Board members do not approve invoices when they are received and checks are signed by the POA accountant, with no Board member approving the checks for payment.”
|
|
JBJ
Full Member
Posts: 101
|
Post by JBJ on Mar 12, 2011 8:28:30 GMT -6
Bruce: I have been monitoring your exchanges with Caroline Graves and have a question regarding your statement made in your March 7 post: "I think that the dues payment as a condition of POA membership is a sound concept and should continue if an AFRC or similar facility were to be located on POA property." In a follow-up March 8 response by Caroline, she asked you why POA members should pay dues if POA property were included in a AFRC facility and they were not able to use that POA property. I did not see where you answered that question which I believe warrants a response. I agree that payment of dues is a reasonable requirement for a property owners association. However, I do not believe Caroline was necessarily questioning that requirement in her post. I realize at this early stage of efforts by the Dauphin Island community to pursue a AFRC hotel/recreational complex, everyone can only ask questions about hypothetical situations. There is nothing wrong with that approach and it is entirely reasonable as individuals seek to understand how they could be affected by a potential AFRC project if one is located on POA property. As a dues-paying member to the POA, I would like for you to answer a hypothetical question that seeks clarification of what you mean by your entire statement as quoted above. Use of AFRC facilities are generally restricted to active duty, reserve service, and retired service members; National Guard personnel; current and retired Department of Defence employees; etc. In short, the general public is largely prohibited from using AFRC facilities. Lets assume that an AFRC facility could be located on POA property, with subsequent use of the AFRC facility being limited to certain categories of individuals as noted above. That could prevent a sizable portion of the POA membership from using the POA property as they now can do. If that were the case (which is reasonably within the realm of possibilty based on use policies at existing AFRC facilities), why would anyone think it reasonable for the POA members to continue to pay dues when they were no longer allowed to use the property, or their use was greatly restricted? I think that is what Caroline was attempting to get at and I think it is a reasonable question. The POA membership is entitled to know if it is possible their use of POA property could be adversely affected if it was included in an AFRC facility. If you and the Town do not presently have that information, someone needs to look into the issue. I look forward to reading your answer. Thanks Re. the question..."why would members continue to pay dues if.....", I frankly considered that a rhetorical question regarding a hypothetical scenario. But here's an important point to consider--if POA property is sold or leased for this or any other project, the membership will have to first amend the constitution, and then approve the sale, lease, or encumbrance. So if the "deal" were sufficiently attractive to result in the board's recommending it and the membership's accepting it, then one would think a substantial number of members would continue to be supporting, dues paying members. And if such an outcome were to occur, those that were against it could choose not to pay dues ( and if the amendment passes, cease to be POA members)
|
|
glen
New Member
Posts: 26
|
Post by glen on Mar 12, 2011 9:16:13 GMT -6
Bruce:
I'm sorry, but your response still does not answer the question.
To put the hypothetical question more succinctly:
If POA property (i.e. the golf course, pool, and associated beach) was to be included in a AFRC hotel/recreational facility that would prevent POA members (i.e. those property owners that pay dues) from using that POA property (which is typical of current AFRC restrictive use policies), why would dues-paying POA members want to continue to pay dues to the POA if they are prevented from using that POA property?
This is a reasonable question to ask. Can you please give an equally succinct answer to the question.
Thanks
|
|
JBJ
Full Member
Posts: 101
|
Post by JBJ on Mar 12, 2011 14:02:38 GMT -6
There are just to many "what if's". To me it makes more sense to see what kind of proposal we receive--if any--and then deal with the specifics of it, rather than speculating on how we might deal with numerous possible offerings.
Again I suggest that the most important consideration is that the membership will have to approve any encumbrance of POA property. So if it comes to it, we'll get what most of us approve---and we won't get what most of us don't approve. This of course won't make everyone happy--but I don't think that's possible.
|
|
|
Post by carolinegraves on Mar 12, 2011 16:13:07 GMT -6
Bruce, why are POA and the Town of Dauphin Island concentrating on the EAST END of the Island when there are property owners on the West end that have lost their property? Bruce, in your reply----Re: Proposed Military Hotel/Complex« Reply #40 on Mar 10, 2011, 8:47am » When you said "I have not noticed an undue or inappropriate concentration on any part of the island, at the expense of any other part--by the Town or the POA." This is the next segment of the POA and the Town of Dauphin only concentrating on the East end of the Island since 2007 Isn’t this the same Lobbyist, Rod Grimm, who looking for the BP money that You talked to about the TOWN/DEVELOPER’S MILITARY COMPLEX (AFRC) being put on POA Property and Dauphin Island. FROM MY LAST SEGIMENT #50 ABOVE, DIDN’T THE DIPOA BOARD OF DIRECTORS PAY THE POA ATTORNEY $22,000+ DOLLARS TO TALK TO ROD GRIMM, THE TOWN’S LOBBYIST? The Town hired Federal lobbyist Monterey Consulting Associates, Incorporated, RODMAN D. GRIMM and has paid him over $240,000 Dollars to only lobby and concentrating the EAST END for the last 3 years. The following are Mr. Grimm’s reports filed under Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 Each report states, 2008-March of 2010-- “Assist the Town of Dauphin Island in its efforts to obtain federal funding to restore (construct an engineered beach) the Gulf of Mexico shoreline dunes and bench on the EASTERN END OF DAUPHIN ISLAND from the fishing pier near the public beach to Fort Gaines at the eastern tip of the island - in the fiscal year 2009 appropriations process.” March 2010 –“Assist the Town of Dauphin Island in its efforts to obtain federal funding to restore (construct an engineered beach) on the Gulf of Mexico shoreline dunes and bench on Dauphin Island - in the fiscal year 2011 appropriations process; and assist the Town of Dauphin Island in its efforts to obtain funding from BP and the federal government for damages caused by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.” 2008 soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=getFilingDetails&filingID=5B9F9884-1BE3-495F-99B3-7BFBC59DFED1soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=getFilingDetails&filingID=61DD7574-A360-424C-AC82-3D6E4C00E7F1soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=getFilingDetails&filingID=9043EDE2-CBD2-4106-AA3F-E88CFD9495C7soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=getFilingDetails&filingID=9C794029-4D63-4FBE-8C71-8FDEAD6FBD9D2009 soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=getFilingDetails&filingID=E5EB3BE8-4EA1-46E0-8E01-E0F2F213A272 soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=getFilingDetails&filingID=8468E081-CAF8-462E-8947-407347CE4878soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=getFilingDetails&filingID=D9487E4E-0C4A-4A41-8503-B0B51C872131soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=getFilingDetails&filingID=D9487E4E-0C4A-4A41-8503-B0B51C8721312010 soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=getFilingDetails&filingID=0FA03989-58EC-4071-BEDD-8C0E2C715ADAsoprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=getFilingDetails&filingID=0C1EEAB5-4DB2-4C8E-9DD2-D454864E6AC4soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=getFilingDetails&filingID=E4149E50-05EF-441E-99DD-C3DEC729CFCEsoprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=getFilingDetails&filingID=BA657116-2A81-4754-817F-E86FF037C813
|
|
glen
New Member
Posts: 26
|
Post by glen on Mar 13, 2011 19:25:20 GMT -6
Bruce:
Let me try again to see if I can phrase the question in such a manner that you can provide an answer to help me decide how I will vote on the "mandatory dues" proposal and the proposal to remove the "members only" provision from the golf course deed.
In your March 7 posting you made a very clear declarative statement expressing your opinion "I think that the dues payment as a condition of POA membership is a sound concept and should continue if an AFRC or similar facility were to be located on POA property."
I'll try to state my question more briefly and clearly: Why do you believe POA members should continue to pay dues if a AFRC or similar facility were to be located on POA property, if such a facility restricted or prevented some POA members from using the POA property?
As explained in my March 11 post, AFRC facilities are not intended for use by the general public (i.e., users must have a connection to the Department of Defense in some manner). Therefore, what recreational benefits would POA members receive if we are restricted from using POA property included in a AFRC facility that would convince us that continuing to pay dues is in our best interest?
The answer to this question could have a material bearing on how property owners view voting for the mandatory dues proposal and the proposal to change the golf course deed.
As you know, our Island presently depends greatly upon the influx of "snowbirds" each year who not only rent condo units and homes, but also play golf. If a large segment of our existing "snowbird" community would no longer be able to play golf or use other POA property included in a AFRC facility because they do not meet the qualifications criteria as explained in my March 11 post, this could cause them to seek alternative winter destinations along the Gulf Coast in the future. This could adversely affect property owners that now rent to "snowbirds". This is something for everyone to think about.
|
|
JBJ
Full Member
Posts: 101
|
Post by JBJ on Mar 13, 2011 21:29:19 GMT -6
OK--I'll make another run at it--it's a slow night on the forum We've got two different considerations here. One is: is the proposed change re. making dues payment a requirement of membership desirable. And the other is: Why would we approve an arrangement resulting in an AFRC on POA property if it would prevent POA members from using the property or facilities. So --to me the dues payment as a condition of membership change is indeed desirable and I consider it a better system of POA governance--regardless of how the AFRC possibility develops. Hence my answer to that question in an earlier post. The second part--why we would approve of an AFRC on POA property....is not so easy to answer because it just depends on what we're offered. I could probably put together a list of possible deals that I think the members would approve--and a list of deals that the membership would likely reject. But I'm for waiting to see what is offered--if anything. So--back to how this would likely affect how the members view dues. Whatever we end up with --if anything--will necessarily be approved by a majority of the members voting with a super quorum. So presumably these members would be satisfied and would want to remain members and pay dues. Others may be dissatisfied and choose not to be members. Still others may be dissatisfied and choose to remain members so they can continue to have a say. But as I read your post again, I see that you may be asking--what if the golf course, clubhouse, pool, beach, etc. were sold or leased and members could no longer use them ,why would anyone want to be a member and pay dues. In my mind that's so unlikely as to not merit much attention, but it would depend upon why people join and pay. Some probably think of their dues payment as buying a service or an amenity and would drop out if such went away, others perhaps appreciate having the POA to administer the restrictive covenants, etc. and would remain members. Hope this helps.
|
|
glen
New Member
Posts: 26
|
Post by glen on Mar 14, 2011 7:39:23 GMT -6
Bruce:
I give up. It's obvious that no matter how many times I try to get an answer to a legitimate question that should be of interest to most of the POA membership, golfers, and our property owners that rent to "snowbirds" that you are not going to answer the question.
Instead, the responses that you continue to give are similar to Nancy Pelosi's statement made before Congress was asked to vote on the ObamaCare Health Bill: "POA members will have to first vote to on the mandatory dues proposal and the proposal to change the golf course deed before they can find out what the ramifications of their votes will be on them as property owners if a AFRC facility is eventually located on POA property". That approach is doing a disservice to what I thought was the intended purpose of this Forum which the Board is using in lieu of open public information meetings to discuss/debate the pros and cons of the three ballot initiatives.
I will ask you no more questions.
|
|
JBJ
Full Member
Posts: 101
|
Post by JBJ on Mar 14, 2011 8:52:13 GMT -6
Well that's disappointing--I thought I was speaking directly to the question you--and cgraves--raised.. Maybe some others on the forum will weigh in.
Keep in mind, though, we'll have a Q&A re. these issues at the March board meeting that takes place this Saturday at 9:00 AM. Hope you can be there--maybe one of the other board members can give you more of a tea party and less of a Pelosi answer. ;D
|
|
|
Post by carolinegraves on Mar 14, 2011 23:52:19 GMT -6
What I don't understand is, why would following people, Tom Howes, the new Chairman of the Park and Beach Board, Mary Thompson, a Town Council Member, and Bruce Jones, POA president DIPOA, sign a letter that says "Concurrent with the spirit, long term vision, and strategic plan for the island, members of the Dauphin Island Town Council, the Dauphin Island Property Owners' Association, the Dauphin Island Park and Beach Board and the Dauphin Island Water and Sewer Authority have agreed that our community would support a military hotel/recreation Complex having all or some of the following components."
Why didn't the POA Board ask the members before committing the POA property to a MILITARY COMPLEX even in a letter? Why are they even considering the offer? Why doesn't the POA Board of Directors, the Town, and The Park and Beach Board tell the whole story.
What is starting to bother me is, that Mary Thompson signed this letter, and her husband Bruce Thompson is on the POA Board of Directors? Tom Howes was one of the ones that put together the Business plan for the Club and golf course. The Mayor put Tom Howes up for the Park and Beach Board. I believe that someone told me that Tom Howes' wife is running for the POA Board of Directors? This is getting a little too cozy for me. It seems to me that they are in the process of arranging themselves in order to achieve the MILITARY COMPLEX, whether any body else on the Island wants it or not. Personally, I don't like what is going on. What is the motivation behind this? The Military Complex is too serious of situation taking place.
I believe the Park and Beach Board is going to vote to give their property to the Town, I wonder what is going on that property now?
WHY ARE THE ORGANIZATIONS EVEN CONSIDERING PUTING THE TOWN/DEVELOPER'S MILITARY COMPLEX (AFRC) ON DAUPHIN ISLAND?
|
|