|
Post by Forum Administrator on Mar 15, 2011 0:53:54 GMT -6
Just a reminder that political references are not allowed on this forum. That includes making derogatory comments about a political party, a national or local politician, and public policy not directly related to Dauphin Island and/or the DIPOA. Thank you.
|
|
JBJ
Full Member
Posts: 101
|
Post by JBJ on Mar 15, 2011 6:34:15 GMT -6
Just a reminder that political references are not allowed on this forum. That includes making derogatory comments about a political party, a national or local politician, and public policy not directly related to Dauphin Island and/or the DIPOA. Thank you. Oops--guilty. Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by Dennis Knizley on Mar 15, 2011 19:38:24 GMT -6
Glen's inquiry regarding any proposed lease or sale of the POA's primary asset that results in the exclusion of use by property owners has merit. For the POA to offer the golf course, pool, clubhouse and only remaining beach for use as an AFRC, if accepted, divests the property owners of any significant assets an owner might use or enjoy as a result of being a POA member. If this AFRC concept excludes non-military people, it also takes away the opportunity for visitors and renters to use these facilities, diminishing the attractiveness of the island to owners and tourists alike.
What is the benefit to the POA and it's membership to do this? If the POA gets a lot of money, what can be done with it to enhance the quality of Island life for property owners, and can whatever that enhancement may be exceed the benefit to owners and their guests having the access and use of the facilities they presently own? The benefit escapes me, and maybe the Board majority can enlighten me and anyone who may share that concern.
After reading the forum posts and looking at some Board proposals on the ballot, I reviewed some of the Board's positions and direction over the past few years. In doing so, it appeared this AFRC concept and the proposed deletion of "members only" deed clause may in fact be related. Some who have been convinced to support it may not realize it.
The POA voted to give away to the Town the West End Surf Beach in 2007. Hotly contested, the majority of the Board supported it and it passed. An unscientific poll on the DIBBS forum later indicated a majority thought that was a mistake. Important to the "members only" deed restriction, however, is the ensuing lawsuit that claimed that restriction prohibited such transfer. That lawsuit was settled and dismissed "without prejudice", leaving the "members only" issue unresolved. The settlement called for a reversion of the property back to the POA if no funds were obtained for an engineered beach by the Town in 7 years. None have been so far.
So, if the POA leadership wants to transfer to whoever the remaining assets of the membership, for whatever reason, they do not want to deal with the deed restriction issue in court again. As opposed to the espoused reasons, though they may have been made unknowingly, somebody for some reason wants to be able to be in a position to freely transfer POA assets. Straighten me out with a logical explanation if that is not the case.
If the POA leadership and majority membership wants to divest these properties and get away from the original concepts of Dauphin Island property ownership, that is their prerogative. On the other hand, with abundant transparency, objective presentation of issues, and total disclosure of all considerations known to leadership, the membership may decide to keep what we have intact.
JBJ, the jobs as POA President and "moderator" here are I am sure for the most part thankless. I do not direct my comments to you personally in any way, but am only trying to use this new medium of communication to increase awareness of views I feel, right or wrong, are beneficial to the Island community.
|
|
gijoe
New Member
Posts: 1
|
Post by gijoe on Mar 17, 2011 4:09:04 GMT -6
Good Lord! Why would anyone want to serve on the POA Board. With such pettiness, and attempted reverse micro management. Let the ELECTED Board Members do their job(s). If you are not happy with their performance, vote them out next election. How many hours of their lives are wasted answering questions from conspiracy theorists? This type of membership, makes me question my own membership.
|
|
|
Post by paulas on Mar 17, 2011 7:36:06 GMT -6
THANK YOU GIJOE!!!!! We are all tired of the same statements and questions about the conspiracy theroists!! Please don't question your membership. We have some excellent board members and they are trying to do the right things for our POA. Only a select few want to keep the pot stirring. Really gets old!
|
|
|
Post by Dennis Knizley on Mar 17, 2011 13:46:36 GMT -6
After reviewing post 63 and 64, I read the purpose statement of the forum. The forum is for "respectful disscussion of DIPOA issues...It allows property owners... to make their voices heard."
We all have differing perceptions, but discussions and opinions about major encumberances on assets worth millions owned by a small association, and modifying real property deed restrictions that impact use of association assets such as the golf course, pool clubhouse, and beaches would not seem to be petty. Decisions about property ownership on the Island are made by considering the availibilty of these assets to present and prospective property owners. Input to Board members regarding these matters, and questions regarding why major changes are being proposed, would seem to be consistent with the stated purpose of the forum. The Board members are part time volunteers making decisions that substantially effect full time residents, owners who have significant other investments, as well as those that may not have such a keen interest in Island property ownership. Constructive information through this forum would hopefully be helpful to the decision maker, and answers to pointed inquiry may reassure property owners the decision maker is fully informed in making decisions.
If thorough, reasonable, and courteous discussion of such issues is not appropriate here, then the purpose and existence of the forum would seem to be much less significant to property owners.
|
|
glen
New Member
Posts: 26
|
Post by glen on Mar 17, 2011 22:13:19 GMT -6
I don't know who you are LLL, but "you get it". You appear to understand the reasons some of the questions are being asked. We are at a crossroads on this Island, not only as it relates to the financial viability of the POA, but more importantly how the immediate Board proposals could influence the quality of life on the Island and property values. The information being sought should help POA members decide how to vote on these proposals in the coming weeks. I appreciated reading your post.
|
|
|
Post by carolinegraves on Mar 18, 2011 1:10:01 GMT -6
If everybody thinks this is a conspiracy theory, it can be solved quickly. Please go to the DIPOA Board meeting this Saturday and get each board member to sign a simple statement that says that they will not vote for the Town/Developers Military Complex (AFRC) to built on the Isle Dauphine Club or any of the other POA properties.
|
|
JBJ
Full Member
Posts: 101
|
Post by JBJ on Mar 18, 2011 15:57:41 GMT -6
If everybody thinks this is a conspiracy theory, it can be solved quickly. Please go to the DIPOA Board meeting this Saturday and get each board member to sign a simple statement that says that they will not vote for the Town/Developers Military Complex (AFRC) to built on the Isle Dauphine Club or any of the other POA properties. I can't speak for the other board members, but I hope you know from my previous posts that I will want to see what is proposed--if anything, consider whether it is good for the POA, and then decide whether to support it or not. I would hope that other board members would do likewise.
|
|
|
Post by whistlingdixie on Mar 19, 2011 19:38:42 GMT -6
"PROPOSED" is the operative word in this thread.
...I can't speak for the other board members, but I hope you know from my previous posts that I will want to see what is proposed--if anything, consider whether it is good for the POA, and then decide whether to support it or not. I would hope that other board members would do likewise. [/quote]
|
|
|
Post by carolinegraves on Mar 19, 2011 21:54:51 GMT -6
Bruce,
Since you will not sign that you will not vote for the Military Complex, I now know that you will vote for it. Please explain how a military complex on the Island would be good for the Property owners. By the way, when you say "good for the POA," aren't the Properties owners on Dauphin Island the POA? I personally don't understand how you can think something would be good for the property owners to take away their use of the Isle Dauphine Golf club and give it to the Town for the Town/Developers Military Complex. It look like to me, the only one that will come out a head is the millions of dollars that the Developers will make, and they will not even have to use their money. The Developers will be using the BP money. Isn't that about $50,000,000 million dollars? Maybe it is time to follow the money.
By the way, what are the Town and the Developers going to put on the Coast Guard property that they will get in exchange for putting the Military complex on the Island. What special "Zoning preference which the Town of Dauphin Island cam provide"?
|
|
|
Post by whistlingdixie on Mar 20, 2011 7:54:49 GMT -6
The first thing I can think of is that the island will get visitors.....more specifically military, retired and active....and the revenue they will generate. Military retirees have disposable income....I know that for sure. In the meeting yesterday Bruce said that the POA members would have to vote for or against any development on its property.
|
|
JBJ
Full Member
Posts: 101
|
Post by JBJ on Mar 20, 2011 8:28:36 GMT -6
Bruce, Since you will not sign that you will not vote for the Military Complex, I now know that you will vote for it. Please explain how a military complex on the Island would be good for the Property owners. By the way, when you say "good for the POA," aren't the Properties owners on Dauphin Island the POA? I personally don't understand how you can think something would be good for the property owners to take away their use of the Isle Dauphine Golf club and give it to the Town for the Town/Developers Military Complex. It look like to me, the only one that will come out a head is the millions of dollars that the Developers will make, and they will not even have to use their money. The Developers will be using the BP money. Isn't that about $50,000,000 million dollars? Maybe it is time to follow the money. By the way, what are the Town and the Developers going to put on the Coast Guard property that they will get in exchange for putting the Military complex on the Island. What special "Zoning preference which the Town of Dauphin Island cam provide"? "It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so." Will Rogers
|
|
|
Post by whistlingdixie on Mar 20, 2011 15:08:04 GMT -6
Actually, you would be able to use it in some instances. For example, if I were to use my military I.D. and reserve a block of rooms, I could invite, as my guests, anyone I pleased. The person with the card must be present at check in time, and guests are bound to observe rules and are asked to leave if they don't, but the people who frequent these facilities are well behaved. I have been on at least 20 throughout the country and am working my way through the book....so to say the property owners would not have access to the facility is not entirely accurate. 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? 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.
|
|
|
Post by whistlingdixie on Mar 20, 2011 17:14:03 GMT -6
Could I also point out that technically there is no such thing as "mandatory dues"....you pay or you don't. You might be denied certain privileges if you don't and you might receive certain privileges if you do...but nobody can make you pay dues. It is just like any other bill you have.....pay it or don't, and accept the outcome. The POA is not going to build anything on DI.....it doesn't have the money. And Bruce has explained that he is only for consideration of any offer that might come our way.....he has never said he would vote for anything. Just because he says he won't sign a statement that he wouldn't vote for a facility does not mean he would......he said he would look at offers and consider them and how they might be advantageous or detrimental to this island. If I got three offers on my house, I would consider them all and accept the one that was to my best advantage, or I would reject them all if they didn't suit my fancy. There are a lot of negative words in this post....nots and won'ts and I hope I have used the words correctly.....no double negatives or anything.
|
|
|
Post by carolinegraves on Mar 23, 2011 13:37:08 GMT -6
Whistlingdixie, Do you understand how a Military Complex(AFRC) is built? Do you know where the Town/Developers are getting the Money to build the Complex. I think maybe you have not been told the whole the process, and what has already been completed. There is plenty money out there and thats why the Military Complex is being considered.
What I was so shocked to hear is that Rod Grimm showed up for the POA meeting. I wonder who asked him to come to the POA meeting. Why would the Town fly him down from Virginia to go to a POA meeting if the Town/Developers and the POA were not considering putting a Military Complex on the Island?
|
|
JBJ
Full Member
Posts: 101
|
Post by JBJ on Mar 23, 2011 16:14:26 GMT -6
Rod Grimm was in town the week of our meeting in connection with the visit of Mr. Rich Gorman of the AFRC, who was here to get a first hand look at DI. It turned out that Rod was staying over the weekend and I arranged with him to come to our meeting on Sat to brief the board and others present directly. We had only a sparse turnout so our Q&A re. the ballot issues--and the AFRC project--was not particularly successful. The board, however, benefited from Rod's presence. We might need to change our meeting schedule so as to avoid Saturdays.
|
|
|
Post by Dennis Knizley on Mar 23, 2011 21:39:08 GMT -6
Post #4 to " golf course is breaking POA" may also be of interest in this thread.
|
|
JBJ
Full Member
Posts: 101
|
Post by JBJ on Mar 24, 2011 7:05:49 GMT -6
We indeed don't know what proposal--if any--we will receive from the AFRC, but I can't imagine a scenario that would include the golf course's being taken over for exclusive use by the AFRC. I don't think that would be proposed, and if it were, I don't think it would be accepted. ( but to paraphrase Yogi Berra....I can predict anything except the future ) Much more likely--and in my view much more attractive--would be a housing unit of some kind ( 100-150 room hotel e.g.) maybe with a private beach/pool--but with the "big" amenities ( golf course, marina, etc.) shared. So we would get a significant increase in play, thereby helping our bottom line. The AFRC (or developer as the case my be) might want to see the course improved and number of carts, say, doubled--and be willing to contribute to that in exchange for a special fee structure, etc. Those are the kinds of details I expect to face--not an offer to acquire the POA property. But again, we don't know---and until we do, this is all speculation. ( I'll post this on the AFRC thread also--probably fits best there)
|
|
|
Post by Dennis Knizley on Mar 24, 2011 11:38:40 GMT -6
Your post certainly clarifies the unofficial position of the Board on this AFRC. As I had read posts 43, 46, 52, 55 and 73, the contention that the AFRC would generally exclude non-military did not seemed to be challenged. Consequently, I thought that was the type concept being considered.
If such a substantially "military only" facility is not imagined, nor expected to be proposed or accepted, and "big amenities" sharing is contemplated, there is no harm in seeing what they may have to say.
|
|
JBJ
Full Member
Posts: 101
|
Post by JBJ on Mar 24, 2011 12:36:10 GMT -6
It's my understanding that the AFRC does basically two types of projects--the ones that they own and operate, and others done as a public private partnership. I think it's true that the first type are "military only" while the second type can be mixed usage. This is an over simplification I'm sure but I've heard enough to know that there are alternative concepts and it's not just a one size only. We'll just have to see what they came up with.
|
|
|
Post by carolinegraves on Mar 25, 2011 0:36:39 GMT -6
Bruce, since you have been meeting with them, please tell the property owners the whole story.
I am so glad you have finally mention the word DEVELOPER. Please tell the owners who is going to make the money from this project and how much money will be made.
|
|
JBJ
Full Member
Posts: 101
|
Post by JBJ on Mar 25, 2011 7:39:35 GMT -6
Bruce, since you have been meeting with them, please tell the property owners the whole story. I am so glad you have finally mention the word DEVELOPER. Please tell the owners who is going to make the money from this project and how much money will be made. Before those questions can be answered we'll have to let the process proceed a bit longer. At this point we are waiting to see what the APRC proposes--if anything. I did have a chance to meet with Mr. Gorman and my sense is that he liked what he saw on DI. So the vetting process continues and I hope we'll hear something soon. Stay tuned.
|
|
|
Post by carolinegraves on Mar 26, 2011 1:04:39 GMT -6
Come on Bruce, tell the owners about the meetings and the Park and Beach Board involvement and all the others that are involved. The story is already going around. Don't you want to show transparency and tell everybody before they hear it from someone else. You surely don't want the owners to think you are trying to cover it up before the election, especially since you will be running for re-election.
|
|
|
Post by carolinegraves on Mar 26, 2011 17:12:04 GMT -6
It was stated in post #78, "Much more likely--and in my view much more attractive--would be a housing unit of some kind (100-150 room hotel e.g.) maybe with a private beach/pool--but with the "big" amenities ( golf course, marina, etc.) shared."
I am extremely, worried about the statements---- the Private beach/pool. That shows that the POA Board knows that the Town/Developer's Military complex AFRC, has to have a private beach/pool. Whose private beach/pool? Whose golf course? Whose marina?
From the AFRC Military complex documentation there are a great deal of Military stipulations involved with the golf course and with the marina.
|
|
|
Post by ambergreen on Apr 1, 2011 13:19:40 GMT -6
I think the best location for a military hotel on the island would be on the old Coast Guard property. This would allow military personnel to have their own private beach right there in front of the hotel. The DOD could put some money into restoring that beachhead there, and maybe also donate funds to restore the Audubon Bird Sanctuary Beach right next door. Then the military personnel could have their exclusive-use hotel and beach (and build their own pool on that property if they want restricted access to a pool). And they could use the Isle Dauphine Club for golfing, non-exclusively, like anyone else. That way, island property owners would not be restricted from utilizing any POA properties and amenities they use now.
|
|
|
Post by carolinegraves on Apr 5, 2011 20:05:02 GMT -6
I don't know if you noticed that in the Town Crier under AFRC, it stated "A recreational facility could be something as simple as campsites, cottages, CONDOS, a hotel or anything in between."
There is a new word CONDOS in the description of the AFRC.
Could this MEAN CONDOS on the Isle Dauphine property?? There was talk about putting condos at the Campgrounds.
What I do not understand is why the Town/Developers and the POA is not disclosing all the information to the owners of property on the Island.
What about the CRBS and the Beach studies, are they all connected??
|
|
will
New Member
Posts: 22
|
Post by will on Apr 13, 2011 6:57:06 GMT -6
I understand that the condo phrase in the Town Crier is the possibility of AFRC leasing the unsold condo's in the Holiday Isle for a period of time to test the waters as to the viability of a long term facility. If there is a demand, then AFRC can proceed with a more permenent facility. Sounds like a smart move to me. Still a win for Dauphin Island and the DIPOA golf course and club.
|
|
|
Post by carolinegraves on Apr 13, 2011 23:04:14 GMT -6
Bruce states in the Mandatory dues thread, "The board--as far as I'm aware--has no preference for this method ( P/P partnership) vs. other methods ( all public, all private, etc.) --just that the arrangement--whatever it may be--is good for the island in general and the POA in particular. And again--for the benefit of new readers--there is no..."part on POA property..." It's possible that we ( POA) may be approached re. making property available under some arrangement but this has not yet happened".
bruce, I think the "ALL PUBLIC" is now the truth is coming out!!! Lets hear the whole story. I would like to see any documentation that supports your statement that giving away the POA property "is good for the island in general and the POA in particular"
And please don't say "all private" since you will be voting to removing the "exclusive use" from the Deed.
|
|
|
Post by carolinegraves on Apr 13, 2011 23:33:15 GMT -6
Will,
Thanks for the information about the AFRC leasing the unsold condo's in the Holiday Isle. Do you know how much of the AFRC will be located there?
I thought the Holiday Isle was supposed to part of the Hotel/Convention Center that the Town has been trying to buy for years according to the Town Council minutes? I believe that that there was some mention about the Park and Beach Board, was going to vote to give the Town all of the Park and Beach Board property and that a Hotel has been mention to be built on the Public Beach property. I was assuming that the hotel was part of the Hotel/Convention Center at the Holiday Isle. Have you heard anything about that?
|
|