|
Post by carolinegraves on May 1, 2011 21:48:05 GMT -6
2/15/11 Town Council meeting
NEW BUSINESS: Walkover/Access West End Beach
Better access will be established in certain areas of the sand barrier on the west end south side town right-of-way of Bienville Blvd. on an “as need’ basis. This will include drive way installations and selected 10 ft easements.
Does anybody know what this is all about. Notice it says south side of Bienville Blvd. Is this the POA easements between the houses that go down the whole west beach? I guess the POA and the Town might be up to something else. Bruce, could please answer this? ?
|
|
JBJ
Full Member
Posts: 101
|
Post by JBJ on May 2, 2011 9:50:04 GMT -6
Don't know for sure but I think this is about cutting "passes" thru the dune line along Bienville for driveways and walk thrus at or near the walkways.
|
|
|
Post by anemone on May 5, 2011 19:37:28 GMT -6
I sent the following e-mail to the Town Council and the Mayor today:
"Thank you, and also a request, or suggestion--
My husband attended the Town Council meeting night before last, and said that the council voted unanimously to make the new parking spaces on the west end permit only parking, for property owners, renters, and guests. Thank goodness-and Thank you Town Council and Mayor Collier--NOW signs to that effect need to be put up, and permits printed and distributed, and we need it SOON ! My spouse said that one property owner reported that he had called his family who were planning to come for a visit not to come and bring the grandchildren because there were "half naked women" all over the beach. I can relate- had one trespasser [with a big bottom that never should had been in any bikini, much less a string bikini], trespassing [from the new parking spaces], pulling her cart of supplies and beer, right across our yard right next to our deck, on her way to trespass through another yard to get to the beach in front of a neighboring unoccupied house, with her cheeks [and I DON'T mean the cheeks on her face] just flapping in the breeze--hardly any private part was left to the imagination--and this is just one instance [and one of the LESS offensive], of unsatisfactory stuff happening out here on the weekends now-- I hope the town will get the signs up and permits out NOW so enforcement can be put in motion before the renters get here and have to face all this-- it was hard enough to convince the renters to come back out here after the oil spill, and now if this stuff-- rowdy inappropriate dress and behavior by trespassers, some public drunkenness, and "get a room" type behavior flagrantly exhibited by some couples, trashing, loud boom boxes, and dogs running wild -if this is allowed to continue to go on out here on weekends while "the season" is upon us, the renters who rent out here because they love the peace and quiet and FAMILY atmosphere they experienced before----may be so discouraged that they won't want to rent here again next summer--and maybe not EVER--remember--check in time is at 2 PM on SATURDAY, and Saturdays are when the worst of the worst has been happening out here --wonder how they are going to feel when they arrive tired from their drive and ready to relax at the nice beach house they paid good money for ,and remembered from before as being a lovely quiet and peaceful place---and then they see these new unexpected parking spaces right by their rental slap full of cars and trucks and trash and the beach full of , well, all the mess I described above--I just wonder how they are going to feel----so PLEASE -whoever is in charge of getting signs up and permits out --GET THIS done ASAP--June is only 3 weeks away--it was hard enough to get the renters back this year after the oil spill scare last year----PLEASE let's don't disgust or scare our renters away AGAIN ! -Thank you ! PS--if y'all don't mind, would you let me know if you got this and read it? [ I sent an e-mail once to all the council members and Mayor Collier -about a year or so ago [only one I have ever sent y'all ] and heard back only from Sherry Carney-[thanks Sherry] so I don't know who all got it and who didn't- sooo---if you have time, if you could just acknowledge that you received this, I would appreciate it a lot-thanks so much for your time, and for your work for this community."
|
|
|
Post by virginiashanahan on May 6, 2011 13:19:54 GMT -6
I sent the following e-mail to the Town Council and the Mayor today: "Thank you, and also a request, or suggestion-- My husband attended the Town Council meeting night before last, and said that the council voted unanimously to make the new parking spaces on the west end permit only parking, for property owners, renters, and guests. Thank goodness-and Thank you Town Council and Mayor Collier--NOW signs to that effect need to be put up, and permits printed and distributed, and we need it SOON ! My spouse said that one property owner reported that he had called his family who were planning to come for a visit not to come and bring the grandchildren because there were "half naked women" all over the beach. I can relate- had one trespasser [with a big bottom that never should had been in any bikini, much less a string bikini], trespassing [from the new parking spaces], pulling her cart of supplies and beer, right across our yard right next to our deck, on her way to trespass through another yard to get to the beach in front of a neighboring unoccupied house, with her cheeks [and I DON'T mean the cheeks on her face] just flapping in the breeze--hardly any private part was left to the imagination--and this is just one instance [and one of the LESS offensive], of unsatisfactory stuff happening out here on the weekends now-- I hope the town will get the signs up and permits out NOW so enforcement can be put in motion before the renters get here and have to face all this-- it was hard enough to convince the renters to come back out here after the oil spill, and now if this stuff-- rowdy inappropriate dress and behavior by trespassers, some public drunkenness, and "get a room" type behavior flagrantly exhibited by some couples, trashing, loud boom boxes, and dogs running wild -if this is allowed to continue to go on out here on weekends while "the season" is upon us, the renters who rent out here because they love the peace and quiet and FAMILY atmosphere they experienced before----may be so discouraged that they won't want to rent here again next summer--and maybe not EVER--remember--check in time is at 2 PM on SATURDAY, and Saturdays are when the worst of the worst has been happening out here --wonder how they are going to feel when they arrive tired from their drive and ready to relax at the nice beach house they paid good money for ,and remembered from before as being a lovely quiet and peaceful place---and then they see these new unexpected parking spaces right by their rental slap full of cars and trucks and trash and the beach full of , well, all the mess I described above--I just wonder how they are going to feel----so PLEASE -whoever is in charge of getting signs up and permits out --GET THIS done ASAP--June is only 3 weeks away--it was hard enough to get the renters back this year after the oil spill scare last year----PLEASE let's don't disgust or scare our renters away AGAIN ! -Thank you ! PS--if y'all don't mind, would you let me know if you got this and read it? [ I sent an e-mail once to all the council members and Mayor Collier -about a year or so ago [only one I have ever sent y'all ] and heard back only from Sherry Carney-[thanks Sherry] so I don't know who all got it and who didn't- sooo---if you have time, if you could just acknowledge that you received this, I would appreciate it a lot-thanks so much for your time, and for your work for this community." Just thought you may want to know that I was at the meeting also and at the end of the meeting the town also made clear they will be enforcing the parking ordinance (I don't know how long your husband stayed and whether or not he was aware of this). Be certain you have enough parking places for yourself and your guests are you will be getting a visit from the building inspector. so dot the "i's" and cross the "t's." This portion of the discussion was brought up by the Mayor. At the agenda meeting when this was brought up I asked which ordinance they were referring to. I was told "Zoning Ordinance 19." Please pass the word and have your friends become familiar with it "just in case."
|
|
|
Post by anemone on May 6, 2011 21:35:49 GMT -6
The new signs are up! Parking by permit only! Thank you so much Mayor Collier, Town Council Members, and Corey for getting it done so quickly. Hats off to y'all ! [ Re the parking spaces at the houses, Virginia, I think I remember that there are supposed to be 1 [or maybe 2 ]parking spaces for each bathroom in the house--will double check, but in either event, we are OK. Thanks for pointing that out.]
|
|
|
Post by carolinegraves on May 9, 2011 13:46:20 GMT -6
Bruce, why would the Town need driveways for walk ways when it is for the POA members on the North side?
The Town sure is spending a lot of money for parking for places for property that doesn't belong to them.
Why are they doing that? Do you know?
|
|
will
New Member
Posts: 22
|
Post by will on May 9, 2011 14:00:31 GMT -6
Least you forget, there are about 1,500 property owners east of Salt Creek that would enjoy going to the Gulf occasionally!
|
|
|
Post by Dennis Knizley on May 15, 2011 13:03:42 GMT -6
The membership spoke clearly by the vote defeating the proposal designed to gauge the the support for removing the "members only" deed restriction. It was soundly defeated, with the membership rejecting the Board endorsement of the proposal. The board had solicited proxies in the official ballot mail out, and even with this advantage to recruit support, a significant voter turnout demonstrated the membership was not in favor of continuing to divest itself of ownership rights deeded to them. The sound rejection of the mandatory dues proposal, also supported and endorsed by the Board, further indicates, at least on these issues the Board brought to be voted on by members, the majority Board's direction is not consistent with membership views.
As a result, can the members hear from the present Board through this forum whether a redirection of the Board's approach as to divesting or further diluting ownership rights will take place? Will future concepts for POA property uses now place a primary consideration on property owners maintaining, in principle and practice, current use and possession rights belonging to owners? Or does the Board have a different assessment of the voting results?
|
|
will
New Member
Posts: 22
|
Post by will on May 16, 2011 6:00:51 GMT -6
My fear this that someone will question what we are doing now, which is not according to the our constitution, filing a complaint that will result in our going back to an even more complicated system of allowing off island guests of motels, condo's, beach houses or even just friends of property owners use of DIPOA facilities. I have no idea how we would address the Gulfview Grill customers and people using the newly refurbished pool area.
It was complicated and burdensome back in the 60's and 70's and I don't think we had anywhere near the beach houses being rented by the general public. Let's hope that no one challenges what we are doing now.
|
|
|
Post by Dennis Knizley on May 16, 2011 19:16:40 GMT -6
Your concern is a reasonable one, that being what does the retention of the "members only" or actually the "exclusive use" clause of the Constitution mean as to the real use of POA property. A review of the constitutional provision provides, as you alluded to, the "exclusive use" is for "members and their guests". Clearly renters of homes are guests, and the divested POA West End Beach was for use of all property owners and guests or renters. Without use of it, the rental homes had far less appeal. Now, the appeal is diminished by the beach being Town owned and shared with the public, but it is still usable.
As to the golf course, pool, grill, clubhouse and beach at the clubhouse, the "guests" aspect of the provision could arguably allow invited golfers, as we now beg for anybody to play, invited grill customers, pool, beach and clubhouse guests who are willing to pay, thus staying within the constitutional authority. To remove the clause would have have sacrificed all property owner control and given the majority Board free rein to offer use the POA properties to whom they please. The control then shifts from the many to the few, and without any further discussion of how and why, it suffices to say problems could loom large on the future horizons. Best that the owners kept control and let the Board come to them if they want a particular use of the property, such as this military AFRC deal that has been vaguely described.
|
|
cliff
New Member
Posts: 14
|
Post by cliff on May 16, 2011 20:38:48 GMT -6
As I understand the discussion, we are talking about the restrictive language in the Deed to the Property Owners Beach. There is no mention of "guests" in the Deed.
|
|
|
Post by Dennis Knizley on May 17, 2011 4:53:54 GMT -6
You are correct that the issue on the ballot dealt with the deed restriction of members only use. The constitution mandates the exclusive use for members and guests. Had the deed restriction removal of the "members only" clause been supported, the constitutional issue would have still remained.
|
|
will
New Member
Posts: 22
|
Post by will on May 17, 2011 6:53:36 GMT -6
Wow, so the constitution is in violation of the deed to the Property Owners Beach, and we have been in violation of the deed since the Club and golf course was built in the mid 50's! This is frighting, so now when people say vote no on changing the deed restriction, and the golf course is a loser, let's sell it; all this is a major contradiction.
|
|
|
Post by Dennis Knizley on May 17, 2011 19:57:15 GMT -6
Wow, so the constitution is in violation of the deed to the Property Owners Beach, and we have been in violation of the deed since the Club and golf course was built in the mid 50's! This is frighting, so now when people say vote no on changing the deed restriction, and the golf course is a loser, let's sell it; all this is a major contradiction. The "members only" deed provision and the "exclusive use" constitutional clause both contemplated property owner control of POA assets. The "guests" term in the constitution is not necessarily offensive to the deed language. The present day defeated effort to remove the deed restriction was a continuation of the Board trend to attempt to change the nature of POA property ownership and give more Board discretion, and less owner control, to use and disposition of assets. Many owners only want to know "how does this affect me?". The 2007 divestment of POA member ownership of the West Surf Beach has only had a detrimental effect on owners, and without some identifiable benefit to further forfeiture of property rights, the owners see no reason to do it. The deed restrictions and constitutional provisions play a role in keeping the control of these very valuable assets with the owners, as opposed to a few board members. That is a good thing and it should stay that way. The Board has to get a grip on association finances, quit losing money, and manage the golf course. Enough damage was done by tampering with assets when the beach was given away. The Board needs to concentrate on managing the budget first.
|
|
|
Post by carolinegraves on May 17, 2011 22:03:03 GMT -6
Will,
I guess that the public will have to use the Park and Beach Board Beaches on the East end that have 3500 front feet of beach. By the way why does the Campgrounds have a private beach. This is very curious, when the Town just got $5,000,000 dollars CIAP money for these beaches and there does not seem to be very much public access. Maybe the Town needs to spend some of the money for a road with lots of parking on it for the East end beaches.
What do you think? Don't you think that was a waste of federal money to put more money into beaches that do not have public access?
|
|
|
Post by Dennis Knizley on May 21, 2011 19:49:32 GMT -6
The membership spoke clearly by the vote defeating the proposal designed to gauge the the support for removing the "members only" deed restriction. It was soundly defeated, with the membership rejecting the Board endorsement of the proposal. The board had solicited proxies in the official ballot mail out, and even with this advantage to recruit support, a significant voter turnout demonstrated the membership was not in favor of continuing to divest itself of ownership rights deeded to them. The sound rejection of the mandatory dues proposal, also supported and endorsed by the Board, further indicates, at least on these issues the Board brought to be voted on by members, the majority Board's direction is not consistent with membership views. As a result, can the members hear from the present Board through this forum whether a redirection of the Board's approach as to divesting or further diluting ownership rights will take place? Will future concepts for POA property uses now place a primary consideration on property owners maintaining, in principle and practice, current use and possession rights belonging to owners? Or does the Board have a different assessment of the voting results? Former President Bruce Jones embraced the concept of this forum and responded to the posts here, to the extent they were reasonable enough to deserve a response. The Board got stung and and probably surprised by the rejection of the "members only" deed clause removal and the mandantory dues proposal that were both endorsed by the majority Board. If this forum has a purpose, as outgoing President Jones stated it did and encouraged participation in at the last Board meeting, forum participitants need to hear from a Board representation. Again, what direction does the Board leadership intend to take regarding divesting owners deeded rights and constitutional protections as to limited use of POA properties?
|
|
|
Post by ambergreen on May 21, 2011 22:10:10 GMT -6
Thanks to Bruce Jones for supporting this forum, and for responding to so many posts. Like LLL, I do hope more Board Members will participate here. For those members/property owners who cannot attend the meetings on the island, this forum is their only meeting place to hash out the issues and hear arguments on all sides.
|
|
|
Post by cmgraves on Sept 2, 2011 18:18:13 GMT -6
Does anybody know why the Board is trying to change the deed again. Didn't the Board spend $12,000 dollars to Do the Secret ballot that no one was to question and
NOW THE BOARD JUST 3 MONTHS LATER, DOESN'T WANT TO LISTEN TO WHAT THE MEMBERS WANT AND THEY ARE GOING TO DO IT AGAIN?
DO YOU THINK IT IS TO GET THE DEED TO GO AWAY, SO THE TOWN AND THE DEVELOPERS CAN REZONE THE WHOLE ISLAND?
There is a lot more to come. I hope all owner will start questioning instead of following blindly.
Remember Bernie Madoff was a good friend and Godfather to his friends children at the same time he took every dime they had.
|
|
JBJ
Full Member
Posts: 101
|
Post by JBJ on Sept 4, 2011 7:22:14 GMT -6
First let me say that I don't speak for the POA board and what I post here is my own opinion--it may or may not be shared by a majority of the board. But here's why I think we need to begin now to "uncomplicate" to the extent practical the process that would need to be followed to get us to a long term lease with a desirable party who would operate the golf course and possibly our other facilities including the main clubhouse, pool, beach access, tennis courts, etc. The first question is do we the members want to pursue this course of action. While not absolutely sure, I think there is support for doing so given our questionable ability to continue to operate the facilities in-house, as well as the possibility of needed improvements coming through out-sourcing. I am aware that some members would rather see the golf course shut down and the property transformed into a nature preserve of some kind. Nothing wrong with that opinion--but I think more want to explore how to make the golf course, etc. viable.
The newsletter mentions three areas that would likely need revision if we are to pursue an outsourcing arrangement that would involve a sell or lease of the property: the deed, the constitution, and the zoning. Taking these one at a time we have: Deed--the deed restricts the property to be used exclusively by POA members. So if you are, say , the State, or the RSA, or Marriott--looking at an open to the public operation-- would you not be concerned by that restriction? Might it even be a "show-stopper"? I don't know for sure and don't think anyone does but I do think reasonable people would think..."yes, that is a concern". It's been suggested that a court would likely declare the restriction unenforceable as we have ignored it for 30+ yrs, but why not find a way to remove it --in advance--so as to remove one possible hurdle? Keep in mind, we would only remove the requirement that the property be "members only"--we would still be able to make it so if we chose. To me this seems a sensible, low risk, course of action.
Comments re. the Constitution and Zoning to follow in another post.
|
|
|
Post by clifffill on Sept 4, 2011 13:30:08 GMT -6
I’m not sure under which topic this is best placed so I hope that this one is appropriate.
I realize that I am stepping into a field of landmines that has been cultivated over many years but hope that you kind people will forgive my innocence and lack of knowledge as I ask a few questions to become better informed on what seems to be a very critical moment in the history of Dauphin Island.
My wife and I fell in love with the island years ago, purchased a lot and are in the process of getting ready to break ground and build a home which will be our permanent full time abode.
I am posting this note as I do not understand what the mission of the DIPOA is. We love the island for its laid back nature, its natural beauty, its beautiful beaches and the wonderful people that we have met who live there. We have family who live in bustling beach centers such as Myrtle Beach and Panama City and understand the dynamics of those types of environments.
If I understand correctly the main financial drain is the golf course complex. I have played the golf course and find it very lovely and wish that it was more popular but without hotels and other support amenities it will never be able to support itself.
So what is the DIPOA’s mission? People come to the island for the same reason we come to the island and shouldn’t that be what the DIPOA should nurture, protect and maintain? Is it the mission of the DIPOA to develop businesses and a setting where the rental of homes is greater? If rentals occur and businesses prosper that is great but I don’t see how that could be the DIPOA’s mission I can see it being the mission of the Chamber of Commerce but a property owners association? If the golf course is a drain what is wrong in closing it down and letting nature take it over. After the recent fire at the bird sanctuary another beautiful natural sanctuary wouldn’t be all bad.
Dauphin Island can’t be just a little like Panama City, Myrtle Beach or Gulf Shores. Even if there is a nicer golf course it will not sustain itself unless you have some nicer hotels which will demand more restaurants and then putt putt courses and a movie theater, a supermarket, large beach shops, other night time entertainment, etc., etc., etc.. I am not saying that is a bad thing if that is what people want but I don’t hear that being part of the debate.
So please help us understand…what is the mission of the DIPOA? What do you want Dauphin Island to be? I believe once that is established and agreed upon then decisions can be made and a course set.
|
|
|
Post by cmgraves on Sept 4, 2011 19:18:14 GMT -6
Cliffill,
Thank you for the beautifully descriptive reply about the Island. Like you we only bought on the Island only a few years ago right during the big boom in Real Estate in 2003. It is the most wonderful place in the World and you will find the people on the Island are brilliant and wonderful people.
I knew the Island could not last the way it was, because the Big Developer have been standing on the other side of the Bridge trying to take over, as one of the older Islander said.
The problem is on this Island I was told, and I think it is true, that the POA Deed is connected to all properties on the Island. Under the POA deeds restriction and covenants are the zoning on the Island that the Town has to adhere to for their own zoning.
Ask Bruce as a Board member or ask the Board of Directors to the have POA Attorney disclose the affects of the POA Deed change on the whole island, the full consequences of this action that the Board is taking and how it will affect the property owner's own property in the FUTURE. Also, ask the POA Attorney to disclose how it will affect the zoning of all property on the Island and what other parts of the Island will be open to the public, like the easements between the house all over the Island.
|
|
|
Post by ambergreen on Sept 5, 2011 8:48:11 GMT -6
Statements from the Board posted here seem to assume that the members-only deed restriction must be removed before the State or the RSA or any other entity will express serious interest in buying or leasing the golf course (and/or all the Isle Dauphine facilities) and that is simply not true.
Since when does private property have to be made "public" (in a manner of speaking) before a buyer or lessee will make an offer or consider a deal?
If an entity is seriously interested, you get a tenative deal drawn up, THEN you go to the members and say, "This is what we are being offered," and THEN the members vote on the deal, which would include removing the members-only deed restriction to the Isle Dauphine facilities ONLY -- not to ALL the POA properties, such as the easements between houses.
Removing the deed restriction for ALL of the POA properties prior to any deal or discussions is absolutely unnecessary and has far-reaching ramifications that are not desired. If the amendment was worded to include ONLY the Isle Dauphine facilities, that would be better. But again, if an entity is truly interested, this is not a show stopper. They would make an offer, contingent obviously, upon member approval.
Then, depending on the tentative proposed deal from the entity, the members would vote on either:
(a) Selling the Isle Dauphine to the entity, and if approved, the deed restriction issue for that property becomes absolutely moot,
or
(b) Leasing the Isle Dauphine to the entity, and if approved, the removal of the deed restriction could be included as part of the proposal. Members could vote on both issues AT THE SAME TIME, as part of the same proposal.
If it's a lease deal, the ballot could say this:
I would like to remove the members-only deed restriction for the Isle Dauphine Club property ONLY (golf course, clubhouse, POA beach, etc.*). ___yes ___no
(* except don't say "etc" - actually spell out each and every property and building affected)
...or this:
I would like to remove the members-only deed restriction for the Isle Dauphine Club property ONLY (golf course, clubhouse, POA beach, etc.) as part of a proposed deal to lease the property to [entity**]. ___yes ___no
(** state which entity)
I prefer the latter of the two because it gives the members a say in to whom the property is leased. If we vote to remove the restriction only, would the Board then be able to lease the property to whomever it wanted? Some of us would vote in favor of leasing the property to the State or to the RSA, but not to the Town (because many of us believe the Town does not have the finances to support it properly) and not to the DOD for a military hotel. I think the members should have a say in who the lessee is.
|
|
JBJ
Full Member
Posts: 101
|
Post by JBJ on Sept 5, 2011 10:41:40 GMT -6
This in response to Ambergreen's post earlier today. It covered lots of ground and I'll try to take it a bite at a time.
From Ambergreen:Statements from the Board posted here seem to assume that the members-only deed restriction must be removed before the State or the RSA or any other entity will express serious interest in buying or leasing the golf course (and/or all the Isle Dauphine facilities) and that is simply not true. Since when does private property have to be made "public" (in a manner of speaking) before a buyer or lessee will make an offer or consider a deal?
Response: I think I may be the only POA board member who has posted an opinion re. this--at least recently. And again I say I don't speak for the board nor do I claim to represent a majority view. I know one board member who openly disagrees with the removal of the restriction. These thoughts are just my own. So to start let me say that I've never intended to suggest that the removal of the exclusive use restriction is a necessary condition for some entity to express interest--I've opined that the removal-or the rendering unenforceable--is necessary for a conclusion of a deal. Private property doesn't have to be made public--and removal of the restriction would not make ours so--it would simply allow us to make it public--or better, non-private. But a "usage" restriction does present a hurdle that makes the the deal a bit more complicated. For example if you own piece of commercial property that contains a restriction that it will be perpetually used as a place of worship, and you want to sell it to K-Mart, you may be well advised to deal with that restriction in advance. To be sure--we may be able to do just as you suggest--i.e. get a conditional deal and then get the deed, constitution, etc. changed. But a think that in this buyer's market, the fewer hurdles we present the better. And if we could find a way to remove this restriction in advance it would be a low risk preparation that would make a deal easier and hence more likely to come about.
More to follow.
|
|
JBJ
Full Member
Posts: 101
|
Post by JBJ on Sept 5, 2011 11:06:41 GMT -6
More response to Ambergreen's post:
From Ambergreen: If an entity is seriously interested, you get a tenative deal drawn up, THEN you go to the members and say, "This is what we are being offered," and THEN the members vote on the deal, which would include removing the members-only deed restriction to the Isle Dauphine facilities ONLY -- not to ALL the POA properties, such as the easements between houses.
Removing the deed restriction for ALL of the POA properties prior to any deal or discussions is absolutely unnecessary and has far-reaching ramifications that are not desired. If the amendment was worded to include ONLY the Isle Dauphine facilities, that would be better. But again, if an entity is truly interested, this is not a show stopper. They would make an offer, contingent obviously, upon member approval.
Response: The..."what property are we talking about..." question is indeed important. The property in question--which contains the "members only" restriction--is known as the Property Owners' Beach and includes the golf course, beach, clubhouse, pool, etc--i.e. all the contiguous property at our main site. The pocket parks, cemetery, and random subdivision lots have separate deeds. And the walkways are separate still--I don't think we have "deeds" per se but rather they are dedicated to the POA via the recording of various subdivision plats. So pocket parks and walkways are not part of this issue.
So--if a given investment/operation partner is really interested, then the advance work may not be necessary. But if we're struggling to find a deal--which I predict we will be --then the advance "uncomplicating" may pay off. Keep in mind, the removal of the deed restriction is separate from a constitutional amendment to enable such a deal to go forward. In other words, even if there was no issue at all with the deed, the constitution expressly prohibits the conveying or encumbering of the property. I.e. no sale or long term lease allowed --period. Hence the need to amend the constitution.
|
|
JBJ
Full Member
Posts: 101
|
Post by JBJ on Sept 5, 2011 11:21:33 GMT -6
More response to Ambergreen.
Ambergreen stated:Then, depending on the tentative proposed deal from the entity, the members would vote on either: (a) Selling the Isle Dauphine to the entity, and if approved, the deed restriction issue for that property becomes absolutely moot,
or
(b) Leasing the Isle Dauphine to the entity, and if approved, the removal of the deed restriction could be included as part of the proposal. Members could vote on both issues AT THE SAME TIME, as part of the same proposal.
If it's a lease deal, the ballot could say this:
I would like to remove the members-only deed restriction for the Isle Dauphine Club property ONLY (golf course, clubhouse, POA beach, etc.*). ___yes ___no
(* except don't say "etc" - actually spell out each and every property and building affected)
...or this:
I would like to remove the members-only deed restriction for the Isle Dauphine Club property ONLY (golf course, clubhouse, POA beach, etc.) as part of a proposed deal to lease the property to [entity**]. ___yes ___no
(** state which entity)
I prefer the latter of the two because it gives the members a say in to whom the property is leased. If we vote to remove the restriction only, would the Board then be able to lease the property to whomever it wanted? Some of us would vote in favor of leasing the property to the State or to the RSA, but not to the Town (because many of us believe the Town does not have the finances to support it properly) and not to the DOD for a military hotel. I think the members should have a say in who the lessee is.
Response: Only a couple more points. You mention selling--there seems to be a strong aversion among board members to selling. I am not averse to selling under the right arrangement. But even if we sell--I disagree that the restriction becomes moot. That's for the buyer to decide--and it at best clouds the title until adjudicated. My guess is that a serious buyer would not accept the title with that restriction unless such buyer intended to make the facility available only to POA members--which , of course, is not likely. I'll not comment on all your wording suggestions but will readily agree that the wording is important and must be crystal clear.
Hope these posts help to explain why I'm suggesting what I am. But I don't claim to have all the answers or to have everything exactly right--that's why we need to share ideas, perspectives, experiences, etc.
|
|
|
Post by cmgraves on Sept 5, 2011 12:17:00 GMT -6
Does the Board members know the consequences of the changing of the Deed will have on the owners property or the zoning changes on the Island?
If not, they have a responsibility to the owners to find out. The Board didn't even know two years ago that the POA voting procedures were not being followed, until I told the board.
They need to ask Cliff Brady to give you copies of all of his past opinions and all of his research on the changing of the Deed?
This is a corporation with multi-millions dollars of assets, the Board and the owners should had full knowledge of all cause and effects of the Deed change before the Board proceeds.
|
|
JBJ
Full Member
Posts: 101
|
Post by JBJ on Sept 5, 2011 12:17:19 GMT -6
I’m not sure under which topic this is best placed so I hope that this one is appropriate. I realize that I am stepping into a field of landmines that has been cultivated over many years but hope that you kind people will forgive my innocence and lack of knowledge as I ask a few questions to become better informed on what seems to be a very critical moment in the history of Dauphin Island. My wife and I fell in love with the island years ago, purchased a lot and are in the process of getting ready to break ground and build a home which will be our permanent full time abode. I am posting this note as I do not understand what the mission of the DIPOA is. We love the island for its laid back nature, its natural beauty, its beautiful beaches and the wonderful people that we have met who live there. We have family who live in bustling beach centers such as Myrtle Beach and Panama City and understand the dynamics of those types of environments. If I understand correctly the main financial drain is the golf course complex. I have played the golf course and find it very lovely and wish that it was more popular but without hotels and other support amenities it will never be able to support itself. So what is the DIPOA’s mission? People come to the island for the same reason we come to the island and shouldn’t that be what the DIPOA should nurture, protect and maintain? Is it the mission of the DIPOA to develop businesses and a setting where the rental of homes is greater? If rentals occur and businesses prosper that is great but I don’t see how that could be the DIPOA’s mission I can see it being the mission of the Chamber of Commerce but a property owners association? If the golf course is a drain what is wrong in closing it down and letting nature take it over. After the recent fire at the bird sanctuary another beautiful natural sanctuary wouldn’t be all bad. Dauphin Island can’t be just a little like Panama City, Myrtle Beach or Gulf Shores. Even if there is a nicer golf course it will not sustain itself unless you have some nicer hotels which will demand more restaurants and then putt putt courses and a movie theater, a supermarket, large beach shops, other night time entertainment, etc., etc., etc.. I am not saying that is a bad thing if that is what people want but I don’t hear that being part of the debate. So please help us understand…what is the mission of the DIPOA? What do you want Dauphin Island to be? I believe once that is established and agreed upon then decisions can be made and a course set. Here is what I will describe as a preliminary mission statement for the POA board--We're in the process of sending it out to the membership with a questionnaire. So it could change some as a result but it should help to answer your question re. the POA mission. Also, the POA constitution which can be found on the POA website contains a statement of purpose --can be thought of as "mission" --for the association. Mission Statement:
The Mission of the POA Board of Directors is to serve and represent the Property Owners of Dauphin Island, the protection of their property rights, and the undertaking of actions necessary for the betterment of POA common property for the use and enjoyment of the entire membership; to effectively and efficiently manage the financial, physical and real properties of the POA for the common good of all members, to uphold the Constitution and to conduct all Association business with transparency. The Board of Directors will provide timely and effective communications and information so that all POA members can understand the events and issues that affect them.
It is also our mission to maintain a viable and beneficial working relationship with the Town of Dauphin Island, the Mayor and Town Council, the Dauphin Island Park and Beach Board, and the Dauphin Island Water and Sewer Authority to further the development and betterment of Dauphin Island, and to contribute to the vitality of the community and the relationships among all property owners.
|
|
|
Post by cmgraves on Sept 5, 2011 12:24:48 GMT -6
Do the Board members know the consequences of the changing of the Deed will have on the owners property or the zoning changes on the Island?
If not,The Board has a responsibility to the owners to find out. The Board didn't even know two years ago that the POA voting procedures were not being followed, until I told the board.
They need to ask Cliff Brady to give you copies of all of his past opinions and all of his research on the changing of the Deed?
This is a corporation with multi-millions dollars of assets, the Board and the owners should had full knowledge of all cause and effects of the Deed change before the Board proceeds.
|
|
|
Post by logicfan on Sept 8, 2011 10:33:10 GMT -6
I don't mean to be rude, jbj, but how could you or anyone possible know this? Has there been an outreach or poll of the membership to find out? Certainly the property owners who live elsewhere much of the time would not be able to attend the POA meetings on a regular basis and even many residents may not be able to attend due to other responsibilities. I know that nobody has ever asked me or my spouse. It seems to me that before the Board takes such significant action as changing the deed or amending the Constitution, that they really ought to find out what the majority of the property owners want, rather than guess. The membership voted this down last spring. I don't recall the exact numbers (if I ever knew them), but I seem to recall that it was voted down by a significant percentage of the voting membership. I am a strong supporter of the POA and am eager to see a plan to save it, but it seems wrong to me to just ignore the vote of the membership and go ahead with removing the deed restriction despite the vote. but I think more want to explore how to make the golf course, etc. viable.
|
|
|
Post by cmgraves on Sept 17, 2011 20:51:08 GMT -6
What happen to the questionnaire that the Board members has been putting off sending to the owners for over a year? They could spend money to send the dues letter out, but for some reason they didn't think it important enough include the questionnaire with the letter, to find out what the owner really want, I wonder why that is?
I was quite shock to see the new mission statement quoted above, when the Board will not vote on it. I wonder why? Wasn't both of the mission statement and questionnaire present to the Board over a year ago? Did the Board think it was more important to pay over what I heard $12,000 to get someone to count the secret Ballots and other fees than to send out a questionnaire to find out what the owners really want?
I feel it is strange, too, that the Board alway has money to send out dues letters (thousands of dollars) and what they want, but would only spend, what was it, $2000 to $3000 dollars to do an audit of the books and find out where the money is being spent.
|
|