Removal of "members only" deed restriction

[logicfan]

Your passive-aggressive "I wonder why" questions are obviously intended to accuse somebody of something, but they aren't adding anything of value to the discussion. If you think you have a solution to the POA's problems, perhaps you'd like to share it with the group. If not, know that those of us who truly want to find a workable solution that will satisfy the majority of the POA's members will likely skip over any posts of yours from now on. The schoolyard bickering and bullying needs to stop. This type of childish behavior only takes attention away from solving the problems.

If you attended the POA meeting earlier this month, the issue of a questionnaire was discussed. In order for a questionnaire to have any value, the issues need to be clearly spelled out for the membership so that each member can make an informed choice about which option(s) they prefer.

Sept 17, 2011 20:51:08 GMT -6 cmgraves said:

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.

[cmgraves]

I just sent the following letter to the Town of Dauphin Island.


May 31, 2012

Dear Wanda,

Thank you for sending "DAUPHIN ISLAND BEACH PARKING REGULATIONS" from the Town. Please send copies of this email to the Town Council.

I was very upset to learn of Mayor Jeff Collier's idea to used $6000+ dollars of tax payers money, the Town does not have, to put gravel for parking on the right of ways on the west end of the Island.

I am very upset that Mayor Jeff Collier is once again trying to put parking on the Town's right away on the side streets on the west end with tax payer's dollars. I am putting Mayor Jeff Collier on notice for his actions, which could result in the criminal offence of trespass on private property for which he will have responsibility.

What really upsets me is that Mayor Collier has continually and totally ignored the Town's obligation to repair the side streets on the west end of the island, so that the property owners and their guest/renters can get proper access to their property. Does Mayor Collier think that spending thousands of dollars on gravel on the Town's right away of these side streets, that will wash away, is a better use of the Town's money? Doesn't Mayor Collier think that providing paved streets for people to get to their own homes would be a better use of the Town's money? I am sure that Mayor Collier remembers, in the past that the Town did not provide street access to an owner on Pirates Cove and the Town was sued and I believe, lost $750,000 thousand dollars as a results of the lawsuit.

What is puzzling to me is why Mayor Collier is spending thousands of dollars that the Town does not have, on gravel for parking, instead of opening up the west end beach free so that more people/the public will use these facilities?

Why is Mayor Jeff Collier doing this?

I hope Mayor Collier is not doing this, as a maneuver to devalue all of the properties on the west end. Mayor Collier must have heard of the legal term of inverse condemnation, which is the taking of land by flooding, deprivation of access, a reduction in value to such an extent that it is no longer capable of being economically viable to use and other degradation of property, which he seems to be doing by his past actions.

Since many of the property owners are small business owners on the west end by virtue of renting their property, I am wondering what the material and monetary effect to the properties and to the Town's income will be by Mayor Collier actions. Doesn't the west end pay double property taxes and their taxes as a result of their rental income make up about one quarter or more of the Town's budget?

Please let Mayor Jeff Collier know, as before when he tried to do this, that I will be contacting the property owners and asking them to keep a record of each incidence of the public trespassing on theirs or their neighbor's private property, and any destruction to private property, by video, pictures or notes with dates. Also, I will ask the owners to record any negative comments or monetary effects their property had as a results of Mayor Collier's "DAUPHIN ISLAND BEACH PARKING REGULATIONS"

One other question for the Mayor: Is the paving of the side streets of Bienville Blvd. contained in any of the BP projects that the Town submitted or did Mayor Jeff Collier leave the side streets out, because he is planning to take the properties by eminent domain? Why waste the Town's money for paving of the side streets when I feel Mayor Jeff Collier is trying to illegally take the property in the first place.

Yours truly,

Caroline Graves

cc. Mayor Jeff Collier

[cliff]

If the owners of property on the west end pay "double taxes" as you suggest, why would Mayor Collier be attempting to "devalue" all of the properties on the west end? I would think that he would not want to intentionally decrease the tax base which would result in lower property taxes.

[tombowden]

I and several others joined the DIPOA Future Use Committee at the Sept 2013 open Board meeting following a discussion of putting a waterpark/drive-in movie theater on Parcel "A". This idea engendered a vision of asphalt covering our lovely dunes and golf course property - for me at least. Later discussion included some disagreement among the 2013 Board as to what would be required to get grant a long term lease and/or get rid of the "exclusive use" provision on Parcel "A" with at least one Board member expressing the view that because the Chamber of Commerce gave the property to the DIPOA as opposed to property owners, just a simple 50% majority vote of the Board would suffice. Other members of the Board said a 2/3 majority vote of the membership would be required, while still others said a 50% majority vote might be enough. Surprisingly, there was no discussion (that I heard) of the 2011 Board's proposal to get rid of the "exclusive use" deed provision which was defeated in a membership vote, so I began a rather protracted series of email conversations with members of the Future Use Committee and the Board on this issue. I only became aware of this ProBoard discussion and of the 2011 vote when I recently moved the email conversation to the ProBoard.

Notwithstanding the membership rejection of the 2011 Board's proposal and the 2011 Board's preliminary explanation that they did not want to spend money on an attorney unless the membership approved the removal of the "exclusive use" provision, the 2013 Board apparently paid an attorney in early 2013 to draft an amendment to the deed to get rid of the "exclusive use" provision on Parcel "A". That proposed amendment can be found in the DIPOA Archives under "Legal". The Board is currently interviewing local attorneys, presumably in part at least, to get new advice on removing the "exclusive use" provision on Parcel "A". The Future Use Committee's ideas for alternative means to earn money seem to be falling on deaf ears. It certainly appears that some on the current Board are very intent on getting rid of the "exclusive use" provision on Parcel "A". Inasmuch as the removal of the "exclusive use" provision from the deed to Parcel "A" is very likely to once again appear at the 2014 annual members meeting in May, we should all read both ProBoard topics: the Constitution By-Laws Removal-Members-deed-Restriction topic and the new Parcel "A" + Exclusive Use/Deed Restriction topic.

Inasmuch as the Constitution By-Laws discussion is so long, I have attached the introduction to the topic and one post which follows the membership vote for a preliminary understanding:


2011 Post Introducing Board's Proposal:


May 15, 2011 at 2:03pmFeb 17, 2011 at 11:53am
Quote

Post by JBJ on Feb 17, 2011 at 11:53am
Last evening at the POA board meeting a number of items were approved, one pertaining to the removal of this deed restriction. The first step in the process will be to ask the membership to vote for or against the initiative. Should the membership vote "yes", we will proceed to determine exactly how to accomplish the effective removal--be it a newly issued deed, a "friendly" lawsuit seeking judicial declaration, or some other way. We just didn't want to spend the money for legal fees until we hear from the members.

Here is what will be on the ballot mailing:



[Deed Restriction


The common property owned and operated by the POA was originally deeded to the POA by the Mobile Chamber of Commerce in the 1950’s. The Deed which conveyed the property to the POA contained language that the property was to be kept and maintained forever as a recreational area for the exclusive use and enjoyment of those persons who shall be and remain members of the POA. As most are aware, the facilities were operated as a “members only” club for many years, but this was changed in the aftermath of Hurricane Frederic when the facilities were opened to the public. A majority of the Board believes that it is in the best interest of the POA to remove or eliminate the enforceability of this language for two reasons—to adjust our governing document to conform to our current reality; and to remove or have declared unenforceable what could be a barrier to receiving public or quasi-public funding/investment for improvements to our property. The removal of the restriction could possibly be accomplished by several means, however, prior to incurring the legal expense for determining exactly how to accomplish it, the board wishes to have a vote of the members indicating support or opposition to the initiative. Accordingly, we ask that you indicate your preference by voting “for” or “against” pursuing this change:


I am _____in favor of

_____opposed to

pursuing a removal of the “members only” deed restriction





2011 Post Following the Membership Vote:

Quote

Post by LLL on May 15, 2011 at 2:03pm
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?