If there have been poisonous words or un-neighborly behavior, I agree we can all share the blame. We have had FOA members at HOA meetings pointing fingers and shouting at those voicing different views last year. We have had cheering and applauding mostly “pro purchase” comments at HOA meetings until one resident stood up during a recent meeting and bravely asked for it to stop. To all of our credit: it has stopped.
What apparently has not stopped is the idea that some believe they have the right, or are entitled to determine for others what amount of increase in HOA fee is cheap, and how they should spend their money. Nobody has that right, and definitely nobody should have the right or is entitled to suggest that if I do not agree to financially support the golf club and do not agree to void basic agreements made when purchasing a home in AC, that I should not live here. ArrowCreek is a community built around a private, non-residential entity, the golf courses. Property owners agree to pay HOA dues and have a right to expect reasonable raises in HOA dues as outlined in the CC&Rs, not increases of 50% or more.
The problem with the whole process regarding the acquisition of the golf courses is that freedom of speech has been suppressed, unnecessarily inciting volatility within our community. This site is the only forum where we all have the same rights to voice opinions. At the board meetings people with opposing views can only speak for three minutes during the public comment section while the board’s selected speakers seemingly have unlimited time and opportunity to present any and all ways and reasons to promote and rationalize the purchase of the golf courses. Unless I missed it, there has been no presentation of any independent evaluation of the pros AND cons regarding the acquisition of the GC, or the option of doing nothing. We have not heard of any objective financial analysis with worst case scenario considerations that any business would conduct before committing itself. Without that we would need to trust an all-volunteer board when making a decision with significant consequences.
The fact finding process or “due diligence” conducted by the board and its committees has been qualified by their goal. I would argue that it’s not so much the different interpretation of the facts that have been presented by the board and its presenters, as suggested by Mr. Meyer, but rather the lack of unbiased, comparative specific facts that is deplorable. We are about one year down the road since this issue was first brought to the attention of the homeowners and an additional 8-10 months of this issue being worked on behind closed doors with managing partners of the FOA prior to that. What do we really know at this point?
Bringing “the golf club and the HOA together some way” as suggested, has excluded the non-purchase option. I have not heard an official explanation as to why the ArrowCreek golfers are not considering following the example of the Montreux golfers who own their golf club. Leaving the golf courses in the hands of the FOA or another owner/buyer is the only option that would preserve freedom of choice for ALL homeowners. HOA ownership of the AC golf club would force those opposed to the purchase to become co-owners and share the burden of financial and legal liability. According to updates provided during the latest HOA meeting, forced social club membership is being put aside for now. The club committee is now looking into ways of funding the club while limiting the HOA fee to $300, and finding someone to lease the golf club and assume part or all of the financial responsibility. Somehow, homeowners will not shoulder any “open ended” financial commitment. With these options, may be no vote will be required to subsidize the club. More details to follow. It looks like fitting a square peg into a round hole is not too much of an effort to make to hammer out a deal with the FOA. Forced ownership or mandatory financial subsidy, is undemocratic, and those favoring these options disrespect other people’s rights and opinions about the benefits of owning or supporting a golf club, and are in that sense selfish as Mr. Krachun feels. Give me another word, and I will use it.
In pursuit of the golf course purchase there has been lack of transparency, denying homeowners the opportunity to provide input regarding important decisions. The HOA board started negotiating with the FOA early in 2014 when the golf course owner filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy, signed a non-disclosure agreement with the FOA and Arnold Palmer before the August 2014 HOA meeting outlining the options regarding the golf course purchase, and signed a brief at the bankruptcy hearing supporting the FOA as a bidder all without consensus from the AC homeowners. A letter of intent was signed late in 2014, at a time when there was growing evidence that not all homeowners agreed with the purchase of the golf courses. It appears unless one has unlimited time to attend every committee or HOA meeting, the average resident is only made aware of decisions at the time of their ratification or when reading the AC Newsletter. This may be all right for the day-to-day HOA business, but crucial decisions entailing fundamental changes to our community should all be made after obtaining public consensus. A complaint regarding the decision making process is being investigated. The board has not openly discussed several other complaints of violations of NRS regulations brought before them, specifically the one that would violate the 2/3rds vote requirement in our Articles of Incorporation should our community be changed from a non-profit to a for profit community. Instead, the board used its power and our financial resources to hire a lawyer to find out how we can purchase the club, change the CC&R’s, and avoid having to recognize our Articles of Incorporation in the voting process.
Many adjectives would easily come to mind describing this way of conducting the HOA’s business, but not open, fair, or neutral.
Let’s have a town hall meeting.