nancy
New Member
Posts: 9
|
Post by nancy on Mar 17, 2011 17:39:33 GMT -6
Could this be another reason for removing the exclusive use clause?
|
|
JBJ
Full Member
Posts: 101
|
Post by JBJ on Mar 18, 2011 16:05:33 GMT -6
Could this be another reason for removing the exclusive use clause? I don't think so--but I've got more work to do to find out just who owns these "paths" and how--i.e. what kind of deed and what restrictions if any. If the POA owns them and there are "member only" restrictions, then we would want to remove the restrictions as the pathways are egress/ingress to and from the now public beach.
|
|
|
Post by Dennis Knizley on Mar 18, 2011 21:24:53 GMT -6
Could this be another reason for removing the exclusive use clause? I don't think so--but I've got more work to do to find out just who owns these "paths" and how--i.e. what kind of deed and what restrictions if any. If the POA owns them and there are "member only" restrictions, then we would want to remove the restrictions as the pathways are egress/ingress to and from the now public beach. I have not seen the parking places on the streets other than the the POA access streets. However, in reviewing the West End Beach property descriptions on the POA website, if that is what in fact was deeded to the Town, the Town only got the Beach itself. No street access or anything else. The parking at all streets seems to be Town street right of way, which may or may not exist. When the Town was created, whether it got county right of way on side streets, or that was POA property, is hopefully something the Board members can readily tell us to answer your question. Otherwise,one may have to research what kind of county, POA or other street right of way used to exist or does today. The Town came into existence long after the POA, and the Board hopefully is aware of who owns and controls what property, accesses, and rights of way now. The "paths" are something totally different. They are, or were, intermittent ten foot easements along the west end for property owners not directly on the beach to get to their deeded access beachfront property. They now are access for the property owners to get to the Town beach, unless the Town fails to get funding for an engineered beach within 7 years of the transfer. Then it will be a POA beach only again. The only significance of the above diatribe to this forum is to illustrate the complexities of ownership of island property, as we propose to change it. It is not as simple as saying "we elected the Board members, let them decide". It is unique and before changing it should be understood by the membership, and clear to the leadership. I am confident the Board has legal counsel that understands and defines where the access and parking places legally belong. This is only one example of the manner in which Island property is so different from most and as so requires the membership to take a good look at what they are voting on before just agreeing to remove deed restrictions. If the deed restriction says members only, as a property owner you probably have significant control over the property by majority vote. Relinquish it, and somebody else does. Let's make sure before we give up any property rights it is clear that there is a benefit in doing so.
|
|
nancy
New Member
Posts: 9
|
Post by nancy on Mar 22, 2011 8:54:36 GMT -6
Bruce, Any clairification on the town using the POA easements on the west end, Sehoy to Mid T streets? Thanks
|
|
JBJ
Full Member
Posts: 101
|
Post by JBJ on Mar 22, 2011 20:12:16 GMT -6
Bruce, Any clairification on the town using the POA easements on the west end, Sehoy to Mid T streets? Thanks Not yet--I'm a bit surprised that no one I've approached knows for sure. We obviously need to know the details of these easements or owned properties and I am pursuing same.
|
|
glen
New Member
Posts: 26
|
Post by glen on Mar 29, 2011 8:22:47 GMT -6
The home page of the POA's Isle Dauphine Golf Club web site contains the following quote attributed to Jeff Collier: “Located just 30 miles south of Mobile on Dauphin Island, Alabama, the Isle Dauphine Golf Club offers golf, tennis, swimming, and dining. Tee time is anytime on our 18-hole links course where each hole offers a splendid view of the Gulf of Mexico. Accuracy is a premium on this 6,000 yard links-style layout where each hole offers a spectacular view of our unique coastal paradise. This scenic island course is perfect for the duffer and the pro alike, and the exclusivity [emphasis added] of the Isle Dauphine Golf Club keeps the greens uncrowded and the pace relaxed.”
Jeff Collier, Club Pro & Gen Mgr. Since Jeff signs the quote as Club Pro and Gen Mgr, the quote must reflect current POA beliefs concerning the golf course since he was only promoted to Gen. Mgr. during the last year. I find it very interesting what the POA has to say about the golf course, praising its "exclusivity" as one of its most attractive characteristics used when marketing the course to the general public. Using the POA's on words, if the "exclusivity" of the course is an asset that makes the course attractive to the public, why then does the POA Board want to remove the "exclusive use" language from the course's deed by describing it as a major detriment to the POA. There is a major disconnect in the logic consistency on this issue. I need some help in understanding why the Board is urging the POA membership to vote to remove the very wording contained in the deed that the POA uses to tout the attractiveness of the course to the public. I am not a big believer in conspiracy theories, but I have to wonder if there is something else behind the scenes that has not been fully shared with the membership to date which is driving the push to change the golf course deed language. The extremely weak argument to change the deed that has been advanced by the Board causes me to ask what has happened that resulted in the Board pushing the proposal to change the golf course deed at this time? What do we as members of the POA not know, that we should know, in order to vote in a fully informed fashion?
|
|
JBJ
Full Member
Posts: 101
|
Post by JBJ on Mar 31, 2011 8:43:39 GMT -6
I think that particular promotional message dates back to when we were transitioning from private club to public welcome--and it was attempting to suggest that Isle Dauphine Club is special, unique, etc. Sort of like the Grand Hotel is "exclusive"--even though it's also open to the public. That said, I agree that we could find a better choice of words to tout our course--particularly in light of the current "members only" deed restriction issue that we are addressing.
|
|
|
Post by Dennis Knizley on Mar 31, 2011 20:42:56 GMT -6
I suspect we are a limited few talking among ourselves on this forum, and consequently nobody is going to be persuaded to change their position by any post here. JBJ can take some of the comments back to Board members, consider the sources, and the Board majority will gauge if there is real opposition to their proposals, and proceed accordingly.
The discussions here then only become significant to Board members who are willing to take a second look, or have an open mind, about issues like this "members only" restriction removal. The Board of course has great influence over the membership when it endorses a proposal like this one. With that influence comes responsibility.
I genuinely hope all Board members urging this change have researched, studied and appreciate the original concepts of property ownership on Dauphin Island. Only after doing so, and weighing the unique nature of the concepts, should a Board member consider changes in the ownership concept. Compelling reasons need to exists, and "antiquated, inconsistent with current use" are not such reasons, but simply generalizations.
The POA Constitution and deed structure were developed together to create the ownership concept. Starting with the POA giveaway of the property owners West End Surf Beach in 2007, and now the present "members only" deed restriction removal effort, the Board appears to want to change property ownership characteristics. The benefit to the owners of this is bewildering. The uncertain hope of more commerce to the island is alluded to, but there is no need for this concept change for that tenuous possibility to to explored.
If the Board wants to abandon the original concepts, say so. If somebody said they have to go to get some deal in the making, say so. If there is another reason or reasons, say so. Be open and upfront, letting all members know of the details of all matters being considered that may in any way be a reason the Board supports this deed change.
Otherwise, leave a good thing alone.
|
|
|
Post by carolinegraves on Apr 1, 2011 1:22:45 GMT -6
Bruce you said "Sort of like the Grand Hotel is "exclusive"--even though it's also open to the public."
Were you referring to the Hotel or the Golf Club? What does their Constitution say? I am glad you mention this, I think we need to find out all about that Club, the due structure, the membership, who owns it, especially, how much money it makes and their net profit, how much money it cost to play on the course, who runs it, have there been any assessments, etc. Who pays if a Hurricane destroys the course. If you could do this before you send out to the owners the change in the deed restrictions.
|
|
|
Post by ambergreen on Apr 1, 2011 12:49:38 GMT -6
Some people use the term "exclusive" to indicate a high-end facility, not necessarily a facility which allows usage only by those who pay an annual membership fee. It’s not an accurate way to use the term, but some people do use it that way. The promotional tidbit for the Isle Dauphine Golf Club is a bit misleading since it emphasizes its exclusivity – stating that it means fewer players, resulting in uncrowded greens. That implies usage only by a limited membership of annual dues-paying members, yet the Isle Dauphine Golf Club is open to the public for daily or one-time usage. It’s not a big deal to use that term to describe our course, but I can see where it might imply to some people that it is a members-only course. More on this in the Golf thread: dipoa.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=golf&thread=18&page=1
|
|
glen
New Member
Posts: 26
|
Post by glen on Apr 3, 2011 7:34:19 GMT -6
The Board has not provided any documentation identifying problems attributed to the existing golf course deed language where efforts to obtain either private or public sector funding for potential improvements to golf course have been hampered. Further, the general public has been welcomed and encouraged to play the golf course alongside POA members for around 30 years with no problems related to the existing deed language. Before POA members allow themselves to be convinced by the current Board into making a decision to remove the "exclusive use" language, property owners should recall the similar press that was made by a prior Board to change the identical language in the West Surf Beach deed in order to convey that property to the Town with the intended purpose being to obtain a Federally funded restored beach. POA members are reminded that the Town now owns that property; the beach has not been restored; and there is little likelihood Federal funding will ever be provided for that purpose. What did the POA and the individual property owners gain from that deed change? The answer is: NOTHING.
Before allowing themselves to again be coerced into making a similar decision regarding the golf course deed based upon only vague assertions with no foundation and the absence of compelling urgency, property owners should demand that Board members fully explain the information they are in possession of that is causing them to push for the deed change at this time. Something concrete must be behind the deed change proposal that the Board has not yet shared with the membership. Surely, the Board just did not "dream up" this proposal without someone or some entity providing them with information of which the property owners are not yet aware. Otherwise, why the rush to change the deed at this time? Changing a real estate deed is too important an action to undertake without firm information being provided to support the change.
|
|
|
Post by carolinegraves on Apr 5, 2011 20:30:08 GMT -6
Has anyone seen any legal documentation that states that the "MEMBERS ONLY" HAS TO BE CHANGED??
|
|
nancy
New Member
Posts: 9
|
Post by nancy on Apr 13, 2011 16:08:44 GMT -6
Bruce, Almost a month ago, March 17th, I brought to your attention that the town is using POA property easement for public use. And opening up streets on the west end that do not have an easement for public parking. Thus inviting people to trespass. As our POA president do you have an answer yet as to why the POA is allowing this?
Thanks
|
|
JBJ
Full Member
Posts: 101
|
Post by JBJ on Apr 13, 2011 17:08:59 GMT -6
Bruce, Almost a month ago, March 17th, I brought to your attention that the town is using POA property easement for public use. And opening up streets on the west end that do not have an easement for public parking. Thus inviting people to trespass. As our POA president do you have an answer yet as to why the POA is allowing this? Thanks As I said at the time, I have no reason to think that the easements are given to the control of the POA--I'm seeking more info re.. this but am not willing to spend a lot of legal time on it. I think the easements are in fact "public"--like the streets. If you have info to the contrary--please share it. But I'll say this--the beach that was deeded the Town is now public and if the easements are in fact POA easements, I would favor opening them to public use to support ingress/egress to the now public beach. Any restriction just wouldn't make sense to me. Can you make a case to the contrary?
|
|
nancy
New Member
Posts: 9
|
Post by nancy on Apr 14, 2011 8:03:19 GMT -6
Yes I do believe I can make a case against opening the POA easements to the public. These POA access points were put in place for the use of POA members and their guests, so that property owners that are not on the gulf would have access to the gulf. These members are property owners and would treat our property like property owners would. The public will and does, leave trash behind (no trash containers in place), relieve themselves under our houses, get out of the rain or sun under our houses, leave bait and fishing lines with hooks in the sand, use our showers to rinse off before heading back to mobile, not park the way the parking is intended ( ie block driveways and street). Yes we have witnessed all of these things so it is a reality. When the city put public parking on Raphael Semmes, I was told that they could because it had a public easement to the water. These other streets on the west end do not have a public easement so it is trespassing. These are some of the reasons why we need to VOTE NO to the change in our POA constitution for public use.
|
|
nancy
New Member
Posts: 9
|
Post by nancy on Apr 15, 2011 20:40:57 GMT -6
Bruce, do you think I have made a case for not opening up the POA easements? Thanks
|
|
JBJ
Full Member
Posts: 101
|
Post by JBJ on Apr 16, 2011 17:27:53 GMT -6
I think you make a case for not having made the west surf beach public--but that's done, at least for now. But let's stop thinking of and referring to the easements as POA easements until I can find out just "whose" easements they are--see earlier posts.
|
|
nancy
New Member
Posts: 9
|
Post by nancy on Apr 17, 2011 8:43:15 GMT -6
Where are these easements listed or documented? So that we can verify.
|
|
robin
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by robin on Apr 17, 2011 9:29:30 GMT -6
Where are these easements listed or documented? So that we can verify. Nancy... I have only seen the easements on maps. I've researched the deeds held by the DIPOA and can't find anything referencing the easements. We have a zoning map in our office if you would like to stop by.
|
|
|
Post by anemone on Apr 18, 2011 21:38:17 GMT -6
This afternoon we returned from Mobile and saw, right across from our driveway, in the public parking spaces [that were sprung on us with no advance notification, BTW]-- the following trash--a cardboard food carton, a dirty baby diaper, a smashed plastic bottle, and dirty used kleenexes. I took a picture and was going to post it , but don't yet know how to post pictures here. I wish to heck we had never voted to give the POA beach to the town- there are these parallel parking spaces now on all the court streets, they took down the no parking, no beach access signs, put up parallel parking signs--- property owners had no input [at least none that I know were made aware this was going to happen, and even Bruce Jones said HE had no knowledge it was going to happen either,andever since, on weekends, there are 5 cars and trucks parked right across from our driveway and gangs of folks from each car [at least 5 or 6 per car] out on the beach , about 10 of them right in front of our house on the little bit of beach we have left, with radios and beer and cigarettes, throwing butts on the beach, screaming kids, -------the nice quiet beach we THOUGHT we were buying into [and it WAS at the time] when we came down here is no more- the whole west end is now a huge free public beach , noisy and getting trashed and it is not even the peak of the season. We used to look forward to nice, lazy, QUIET Sunday afternoons, and maybe nap off listening to the sound of the waves- now all we hear is screaming and hollering and boom boxes. I am afraid that renters are not going to appreciate having to pay money for a house out here on what is now a crowded public beach--and I fear property values will decline- who wants to buy a house on a public beach with public parking 10 feet from their driveway ?--- I wish I could take my vote back- I had no idea the town was going to spring something like this on us or I never would have voted yes. West End property owners and West End renters apparently mean nothing to the town, but all these freeloaders from across the bridge do,who pay nothing to enjoy our island, while we are the ones who pay taxes and utilities here- the freeloaders pay nothing while taking over and trashing the west end beaches. If you disagree with me, that is of course your prerogative, but we worked long and hard to be able to buy property on what we thought was a nice quiet family oriented beach. Now that has utterly changed, and I would think that anyone, if he or she would imagine being in our shoes, could understand why we are very discouraged and very disheartened that we west end property owning taxpayers seemingly are held in such utter disregard. I would also like to know if the town is going to clean up after these people leave all these "calling cards" on our streets and our property--do they expect us to do it? Thank you for allowing me to vent. If I have offended anyone I apologize.
|
|
|
Post by virginiashanahan on Apr 18, 2011 22:06:30 GMT -6
............ -I wish to heck we had never voted to give the POA beach to the town- there are these parallel parking spaces now on all the court streets, they took down the no parking, no beach access signs, put up parallel parking signs--- property owners had no input [at least none that I know were made aware this was going to happen,and even Bruce Jones said HE had no knowledge it was going to happen either, .............snip for brevity.......... Which begs the question, did the Mayor know?
|
|
|
Post by anemone on Apr 18, 2011 23:22:25 GMT -6
I don't know- I left a message on his answering machine [when just out of the blue all this started happening --I just glanced out my window one day and happened to see a crew putting down gravel, and then taking down the No Parking-No beach access signs and I had no clue why] I asked him to please call me back, and also sent him a message about this on Facebook, but never heard back from him---maybe he never got either message-----so I don't know- I would assume that he knew but I have learned to never assume anything anymore---
|
|
|
Post by Dennis Knizley on Apr 19, 2011 19:22:50 GMT -6
This afternoon we returned from Mobile and saw, right across from our driveway, in the public parking spaces [that were sprung on us with no advance notification, BTW]-- the following trash--a cardboard food carton, a dirty baby diaper, a smashed plastic bottle, and dirty used kleenexes. I took a picture and was going to post it , but don't yet know how to post pictures here. I wish to heck we had never voted to give the POA beach to the town- there are these parallel parking spaces now on all the court streets, they took down the no parking, no beach access signs, put up parallel parking signs--- property owners had no input [at least none that I know were made aware this was going to happen, and even Bruce Jones said HE had no knowledge it was going to happen either,andever since, on weekends, there are 5 cars and trucks parked right across from our driveway and gangs of folks from each car [at least 5 or 6 per car] out on the beach , about 10 of them right in front of our house on the little bit of beach we have left, with radios and beer and cigarettes, throwing butts on the beach, screaming kids, -------the nice quiet beach we THOUGHT we were buying into [and it WAS at the time] when we came down here is no more- the whole west end is now a huge free public beach , noisy and getting trashed and it is not even the peak of the season. We used to look forward to nice, lazy, QUIET Sunday afternoons, and maybe nap off listening to the sound of the waves- now all we hear is screaming and hollering and boom boxes. I am afraid that renters are not going to appreciate having to pay money for a house out here on what is now a crowded public beach--and I fear property values will decline- who wants to buy a house on a public beach with public parking 10 feet from their driveway ?--- I wish I could take my vote back- I had no idea the town was going to spring something like this on us or I never would have voted yes. West End property owners and West End renters apparently mean nothing to the town, but all these freeloaders from across the bridge do,who pay nothing to enjoy our island, while we are the ones who pay taxes and utilities here- the freeloaders pay nothing while taking over and trashing the west end beaches. If you disagree with me, that is of course your prerogative, but we worked long and hard to be able to buy property on what we thought was a nice quiet family oriented beach. Now that has utterly changed, and I would think that anyone, if he or she would imagine being in our shoes, could understand why we are very discouraged and very disheartened that we west end property owning taxpayers seemingly are held in such utter disregard. I would also like to know if the town is going to clean up after these people leave all these "calling cards" on our streets and our property--do they expect us to do it? Thank you for allowing me to vent. If I have offended anyone I apologize. In 2007, a different Board majority adamantly supported the transfer of the property owners West Surf Beach to the Town. It was much more hotly contested than this removal of the "members only" clause. Then, we not only divested ourselves of the members only nature of the West Surf Beach, we gave away the ownership to boot. The concept was that a Federal Government bailout of the West End beach erosion would come. It may, but I would not be inclined to count on it. More likely but also not probably the unexpected BP windfall could come about. To date, we have not seen the Government bailout, and Dr. Douglass' price tag is a high of $72 million to rock bottom 5 year version of $26 million to build a beach. Today's reality of following that Board's recommendation back then is what you described. If by some unlikely chance you were to get a beach in front of your house, it not yours, you do not own it or control it, and it will really fill up with visitors if it happens to get built. Vote to give away more rights and the ten foot walkways between houses that, if you look hard enough on the maps on the POA website, can be found, will be public walkways to the beach. The Board President in an earlier posts said if they are not they should be. You used to own the beach directly in front of your house privately with all POA members only. Now it is public, and the Town owns and controls it. Decide whether you want to tell your renters that. Please consider this property owner's situation when voting on the "members only" removal clause next month.
|
|
|
Post by davidmeyer on Apr 19, 2011 20:09:52 GMT -6
This afternoon we returned from Mobile and saw, right across from our driveway, in the public parking spaces [that were sprung on us with no advance notification, BTW]-- the following trash--a cardboard food carton, a dirty baby diaper, a smashed plastic bottle, and dirty used kleenexes. I took a picture and was going to post it , but don't yet know how to post pictures here. I wish to heck we had never voted to give the POA beach to the town- there are these parallel parking spaces now on all the court streets, they took down the no parking, no beach access signs, put up parallel parking signs--- property owners had no input [at least none that I know were made aware this was going to happen, and even Bruce Jones said HE had no knowledge it was going to happen either,andever since, on weekends, there are 5 cars and trucks parked right across from our driveway and gangs of folks from each car [at least 5 or 6 per car] out on the beach , about 10 of them right in front of our house on the little bit of beach we have left, with radios and beer and cigarettes, throwing butts on the beach, screaming kids, -------the nice quiet beach we THOUGHT we were buying into [and it WAS at the time] when we came down here is no more- the whole west end is now a huge free public beach , noisy and getting trashed and it is not even the peak of the season. We used to look forward to nice, lazy, QUIET Sunday afternoons, and maybe nap off listening to the sound of the waves- now all we hear is screaming and hollering and boom boxes. I am afraid that renters are not going to appreciate having to pay money for a house out here on what is now a crowded public beach--and I fear property values will decline- who wants to buy a house on a public beach with public parking 10 feet from their driveway ?--- I wish I could take my vote back- I had no idea the town was going to spring something like this on us or I never would have voted yes. West End property owners and West End renters apparently mean nothing to the town, but all these freeloaders from across the bridge do,who pay nothing to enjoy our island, while we are the ones who pay taxes and utilities here- the freeloaders pay nothing while taking over and trashing the west end beaches. If you disagree with me, that is of course your prerogative, but we worked long and hard to be able to buy property on what we thought was a nice quiet family oriented beach. Now that has utterly changed, and I would think that anyone, if he or she would imagine being in our shoes, could understand why we are very discouraged and very disheartened that we west end property owning taxpayers seemingly are held in such utter disregard. I would also like to know if the town is going to clean up after these people leave all these "calling cards" on our streets and our property--do they expect us to do it? Thank you for allowing me to vent. If I have offended anyone I apologize. I went to the Town Council meeting a few weeks ago and raised this very issue. Unfortunately, there were only about 5 or 6 other folks in attendance, and just one owned property on the West End. Basically, the Town is trying to live up to an obligation to provide public access to the beach; unfortunately, the way they have chosen is not legal and was poorly thought-out. There is no way for the public to access the beach on these streets without trespassing on private property, so by "opening" these streets for public parking, the Town is encouraging people to trespass on private property. The only exceptions to this are on Raphael Semmes, St. Stephens, Sehoy and Sam Houston, which do have a legitimate public access to the beach. (I own a house on Raphael Semmes, for what it's worth). The situation on the "finger" streets, however, is different. in that it encourages the public to trespass onto private property. There are a few ways to rectify this issue. The most reasonable, in my opinion, is to get a number of affected homeowners together to contact the Mayor and Town Council and let them know why this is not a viable solution and that we, as homeowners, cannot let this continue, and insist that they "cure" the situation. This would be even more effective if the DIPOA would also support the affected homeowners, and let the Town know that this issue is a serious concern that is affecting hundreds of homeowners. Now, a shameless plug: I am running for a seat on the DIPOA Board. It is my belief that the DIPOA needs to return to its roots of being a service organization to property owners, and support them in matters just like this. I believe that we need to become more of an advocate for our 3,000 property owners, many of whom do not have a vote or a voice on the Island.
|
|
|
Post by whistlingdixie on Apr 19, 2011 20:27:10 GMT -6
Good luck to all the POA candidates! This afternoon we returned from Mobile and saw, right across from our driveway, in the public parking spaces [that were sprung on us with no advance notification, BTW]-- the following trash--a cardboard food carton, a dirty baby diaper, a smashed plastic bottle, and dirty used kleenexes. I took a picture and was going to post it , but don't yet know how to post pictures here. I wish to heck we had never voted to give the POA beach to the town- there are these parallel parking spaces now on all the court streets, they took down the no parking, no beach access signs, put up parallel parking signs--- property owners had no input [at least none that I know were made aware this was going to happen, and even Bruce Jones said HE had no knowledge it was going to happen either,andever since, on weekends, there are 5 cars and trucks parked right across from our driveway and gangs of folks from each car [at least 5 or 6 per car] out on the beach , about 10 of them right in front of our house on the little bit of beach we have left, with radios and beer and cigarettes, throwing butts on the beach, screaming kids, -------the nice quiet beach we THOUGHT we were buying into [and it WAS at the time] when we came down here is no more- the whole west end is now a huge free public beach , noisy and getting trashed and it is not even the peak of the season. We used to look forward to nice, lazy, QUIET Sunday afternoons, and maybe nap off listening to the sound of the waves- now all we hear is screaming and hollering and boom boxes. I am afraid that renters are not going to appreciate having to pay money for a house out here on what is now a crowded public beach--and I fear property values will decline- who wants to buy a house on a public beach with public parking 10 feet from their driveway ?--- I wish I could take my vote back- I had no idea the town was going to spring something like this on us or I never would have voted yes. West End property owners and West End renters apparently mean nothing to the town, but all these freeloaders from across the bridge do,who pay nothing to enjoy our island, while we are the ones who pay taxes and utilities here- the freeloaders pay nothing while taking over and trashing the west end beaches. If you disagree with me, that is of course your prerogative, but we worked long and hard to be able to buy property on what we thought was a nice quiet family oriented beach. Now that has utterly changed, and I would think that anyone, if he or she would imagine being in our shoes, could understand why we are very discouraged and very disheartened that we west end property owning taxpayers seemingly are held in such utter disregard. I would also like to know if the town is going to clean up after these people leave all these "calling cards" on our streets and our property--do they expect us to do it? Thank you for allowing me to vent. If I have offended anyone I apologize. In 2007, a different Board majority adamantly supported the transfer of the property owners West Surf Beach to the Town. It was much more hotly contested than this removal of the "members only" clause. Then, we not only divested ourselves of the members only nature of the West Surf Beach, we gave away the ownership to boot. The concept was that a Federal Government bailout of the West End beach erosion would come. It may, but I would not be inclined to count on it. More likely but also not probably the unexpected BP windfall could come about. To date, we have not seen the Government bailout, and Dr. Douglass' price tag is a high of $72 million to rock bottom 5 year version of $26 million to build a beach. Today's reality of following that Board's recommendation back then is what you described. If by some unlikely chance you were to get a beach in front of your house, it not yours, you do not own it or control it, and it will really fill up with visitors if it happens to get built. Vote to give away more rights and the ten foot walkways between houses that, if you look hard enough on the maps on the POA website, can be found, will be public walkways to the beach. The Board President in an earlier posts said if they are not they should be. You used to own the beach directly in front of your house privately with all POA members only. Now it is public, and the Town owns and controls it. Decide whether you want to tell your renters that. Please consider this property owner's situation when voting on the "members only" removal clause next month.
|
|
|
Post by anemone on Apr 20, 2011 6:01:42 GMT -6
Bruce-- re an exchange between you and Nancy--you said: "It's my understanding that those easements are part of the west surf beach property that was deeded to the town--and therefore they are now "town" easements, not "POA" easements. But I'll confess that I'm not 100% sure of that--I'll check further. NANCY: Could this be another reason for removing the exclusive use clause? BRUCE: "I don't think so--but I've got more work to do to find out just who owns these "paths" and how--i.e. what kind of deed and what restrictions if any. IF THE POA OWNS THEM AND THERE ARE "MEMBER ONLY RESTRICTIONS THEN WE WOULD WANT TO REMOVE THEM as the pathways are egress/ingress to and from the nw public beach."
With all due respect, I would like to ask who are the "WE" who "would want" these POA restrictions removed ?? I personally don't know any property owners on the west end "WHO WOULD WANT TO REMOVE THEM"--and weren't you elected to represent property owners ? Who is this mysterious "WE" who wants to remove the property owner restrictions on walkways to and from their properties and the beach? Who are you, who was elected to represent property owners interests, grouping yourself with and representing in this quote from you? The Town? The non-property owning Public? I would hope that you would instead group yourself with and represent we property owners who are affected [and NOT in a good way], by what has been done, unannounced] on the west end to allow public trespass on ,soiling of, and unauthorized use of, privately owned properties . No one even respected we property owners out here enough to even let us know what was going to be done, much less allow us to express any concerns or ask any questions such as are being asked now, beforehand--so---again-- I would like to know who is this "WE" that you are apparently aligning yourself with in your stated view on this issue:" WE SHOULD WANT TO REMOVE THEM"--? I am not trying to be belligerent or anything- I just am confused here-----
|
|
JBJ
Full Member
Posts: 101
|
Post by JBJ on Apr 20, 2011 14:29:50 GMT -6
Here's an update re. the beach access walkways. We've researched the ownership issue and determined that the walkways are POA property --platted as such when the property was subdivided and not affected by the west surf beach transfer. Some of the walkways (the larger number) are routed from Bienville Blvd to the now public beach, and some (a smaller number in the S and T streets--can't say right now exactly which) are routed from the end of the side street to the now public beach. As best I know the first group ( the ones from Bienville) are/were rarely used-- even when we had many more houses. They are grown up and not marked as walkways. I think it's accurate to say that most POA members don't know that they're there. Instead, users walk down the streets, cross someone's lot, and go on to the beach. I occasionally hear of some end of the street owner blocking the way or confronting the beach goer but I don't think that happens much. Now the walkways at the ends of the streets are used because that is the natural ingress/egress method. I don't know why some are one way and some another--maybe just set up at different times by different developers. If anyone has knowledge to the contrary re. the usage of these walkways please share it--I would particularly want to know if any get used routinely.
This doesn't speak to the question of whether they should be "public" or POA only, it's just some background re. what we're discussing and I'm stopping here to keep a post from becoming an essay. I will share my thinking re. the public vs. POA only issue soon.
|
|
|
Post by carolinegraves on Apr 21, 2011 22:53:23 GMT -6
Bruce,
Personally, I do not understand your use of the word issue. In corporations and business associations law, issue can refer to areas involving stocks. In evidence as well as civil and criminal procedure, there are issues of fact. Issues of fact are rhetorically presented by statements of fact which are each put to a test: Is the statement true or false?
I feel that you are working for Public or the Town instead of the property owners if you have some issue deciding between Public vs Private use of private property. You have a fiduciary duty as the DIOPA President. You are entrusted with the protection of the members Property. And after last nights Board of Directors meeting, I feel the majority of the Board of Directors have another agenda than the protection the property owners property and rights. I was shocked that the POA architectural committee, Charles Gaba and Robin Linn, has to study the issue, too. I wonder what there is to study?
Either keep the POA easements private or disclose the true agenda of the DIPOA Board of Directors.
Please do not even think about being selective with the easements.
|
|
JBJ
Full Member
Posts: 101
|
Post by JBJ on Apr 22, 2011 7:46:15 GMT -6
Sorry the use of the term "issue" in this context is confusing to you. I'm simply referring to a subject upon which there are different points of view which should and must be considered prior to reaching a resolution --or I 'll say --outcome. But as explained at the meeting, we just recently determined that the walkways are "dedicated" to the POA--and not the Town. But the question of how they should be used is what the architectural committee will consider.
|
|
|
Post by anemone on Apr 22, 2011 20:23:52 GMT -6
Sorry the use of the term "issue" in this context is confusing to you. I'm simply referring to a subject upon which there are different points of view which should and must be considered prior to reaching a resolution --or I 'll say --outcome. But as explained at the meeting, we just recently determined that the walkways are "dedicated" to the POA--and not the Town. But the question of how they should be used is what the architectural committee will consider. What points of view, other than the affected property owners' points of view "should be considered", and WHY, by the architectural committee of a board which PROPERTY OWNERS elected TO REPRESENT PROPERTY OWNERS? It seems simple and right to me that a property owner's association and it's board members should protect property owners interests---and I doubt that you will find many, if any, who desire that their POA easements be turned over to the non-property owning public, or to the town. So what gives ???? I don't understand why there IS any "issue"--it seems pretty simple and logical to me that the PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION should represent PROPERTY OWNERS, not the non-property owning public, or the town---am I missing something here ??? I'm just saying----
|
|