Alliance for a Better Community Initial Meeting, Jan. 29, 6 pm

Home Forums Diamondhead Country Club and Property Owners Assoc POA Board of Directors Alliance for a Better Community Initial Meeting, Jan. 29, 6 pm

This topic contains 17 replies, has 430 voices, and was last updated by  pdutton 2 years, 6 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 18 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #9233

    pdutton
    Member

    Diamondhead is changing along with the rest of the 21st century world, but too many elected and appointed officials remain stuck in the past, unresponsive and unaccountable, treating citizens as if they are the least instead of most important part of the community.

    If this bothers you, if you think it should change, your ideas and energy are needed to start making it happen. Please come to the organizational meeting of the Alliance for a Better Community, Thursday, January 29, at 6 pm in the meeting room at the library.

    Whether we can go forward with this effort or can only sit around complaining about how bad things are will depend on your involvement. If you can’t come but want to be involved, or if you need further information, contact Peggy Dutton at alliance4bc@gmail.com.

    #9232

    vsimons
    Participant

    Peggy, I’ll be there.

    FYI: One of the Old Guard’s chief spies is already busy watching us on DNOL and reporting to his RatKing masters.

    #9239

    Squaredeal
    Member

    I’ll be there also..and ready to do “whatever” it takes.

    #9242

    pdutton
    Member

    Poor ferret, working its heart out for other weasels. Sad little lives. They might have used what gifts they were given to become admirable, upright people, but they chose another path instead.

    It might be a good thing if some came to the meeting. Who knows what improvement might occur if they rubbed shoulders with decent society for a change.

    #9258

    rohboat
    Participant

    Mr. Lloyd Ramirez in a distorted letter in the Sea coast echo gives a credible display of how if you present information in a sufficiently biased manner you could prove almost anything.
    The truth is that there were a number of POA board members and some associates that put on an aggressive concerted effort to bring about the incorporation. They put together a well rehearsed party line that they repeated over and over to anyone they could get to listen. If you contradicted any of their foolish points they would immediately jump to the next item in their litany of misinformation.
    They covered all bases. They convinced many that the city of Bay St. Louis was on the verge of taking over Diamondhead. Financially we were going to benefit through federal grants. While city taxes might go up a little POA dues would go down considerably. They promised an active police force to all those people who were fearful of emerging crime.
    They had aggressive meetings with arm twisting warning everyone to do the right thing. Even with all that, there was still a third of the residents who would not approve. Once they pulled it off many in their group could now play politics and the gold ring was going to be a truck stop casino.
    The golf course debacle is so convoluted that it would take a very long response.
    This has been a boondoggle from the get go. What we have now is two governing bodies neither of which is responsive to what the residents want. Ask current residents if they are pleased and feel that they have a good connection to the leaders.
    I would love to dismantle Mr. Ramirez’s litany of twisted logic but I am sure I will not be able to get enough space.

    sent this response to letter by Ramirez letter. Probably wasted effort. Needed a lot more space to cover his long voyage into imaginary world.

    #9259

    RogerSmith
    Member

    Ramirez a former poa leader was the architect of incorporation. He comissioned the first study of incorporation vs. Annexation. Even though the bay never wanted to annex diamondhead. Also much of the poa planning and promoting of incorporation was indeed done while keeping dues paying members in the dark. I am with you rohboat. It is hardly worth sending a rebuttal to the ramirez letter as his letter is so misleading. The funniest part of the letter is where ramirez says the golfers are saving us dues money because they are the ones using the CC. Gotta laugh at that claim because if the subsidized golfers so called country club was closed it would save the majority of dues payers a fortune

    #9260

    wayne king
    Participant

    There NEVER was a “Truck Stop” Casino planned for Diamondhead, The Gaming Laws in Mississippi prohibit it.

    #9261

    rohboat
    Participant

    Fair enough Wayne. However while all this interaction was taking place there were many residents who though that it was a real possibility. If not a specific truck stop variety it seemed that they were willing to do anything to bring a half baked operation that would allow this new city administration a source of funds to justify it’s existence. Witness the dollar stores. Reality seems to elude this bunch.
    At any rate to continue….. Tony Biddle just informed me that they do not respond to Sea Coast Echo stuff.

    #9262

    wayne king
    Participant

    The Casino proposed by the Jacobs group was not half baked, it would have employed approx. 450 people, had a large very nice hotel, good or bad? I only know both of those are badly needed here in Diamondhead and it looks like both governments are incapable to make anything, equally contributing, happen that would contribute to their financial support.

    #9264

    rohboat
    Participant

    Wayne it is obvious that you are in some confrontational mode coming from somewhere in outer space.
    Previously you have said that the POA was an organization not acting in our best interest and should be terminated. To that extent you are in compliance with many if not most participators on this forum.
    From there you drift into some psychotic obsession with class distinction. You evidently think that there is some battle going on between those that are retired against those who are still working. I would suggest that we are all in a very similar boat facing the same problems.
    From the get go the city administration has been trying desperately to find a way to raise enough revenue to create a model city that could realistically exist only in their imagination.
    Get it through your head there are lots of residential communities that exist quite comfortably without being infused with proceeds from tourism or casinos.
    The thought of Diamondhead being a Mecca for tourist is laughable. So I guess that leaves a casino as our only salvation. I am ignorant in so far as understanding the inner workings of casinos but what I do know is that there has been an incredible amount of dissension about every aspect of how it would be a benefit or hindrance here in Diamondhead.
    You seem to be enamored with the Jacobs organization but I also hear some complaints about it’s operation.
    Evaluating the plus and minus of a casino would take an extensive investigation. Which brings us to the first problem that occurs in the city, the POA and in general everything Mississippi.
    Transparency and participation by the populace is missing everywhere. Witness Singing River and the Dept of Marine Resources. The city administration is playing foots with the casino boys and has no intention of making it totally visible. The same thing with the POA and the golf course extravaganza.
    Now here is a novel idea. Let the community pay for it’s own way. Privatize the amenities and let people pay for their own amusement. Let the city pay for grounds upkeep and facilities for community activity.

    #9265

    wayne king
    Participant

    At least the 11th and 12th line in your statement is correct

    #9266

    pdutton
    Member

    Mr. Ramirez need not worry about boring “non-Diamondheaders” with his lengthy defense of board actions concerning incorporation in the Sea Coast Echo. Antics of Diamondhead’s POA board have been entertaining nearby communities for many years now and undoubtedly will continue to do so for some time to come.

    Still, Mr. Ramirez could have been much more interesting He could have pointed out, for instance, that he was a POA director during much of the period he describes, just so his readers would get the full context that he is defending himself, not just some anonymous board members.

    He could have added that his group of interested citizens who were NOT connected to the POA but who craved incorporation went running all over Diamondhead, hair on fire, shrieking that Bay St. Louis and/or Waveland were on their way up 603 to annex them. That part of the story would have greatly amused those two cities.

    He could have further intrigued all of us by explaining why the perpetually lawyered-up POA could not have found from Mississippi statutes how ludicrous the annexation ploy was and then gotten that word out to the community so that their decision-making on incorporation wasn’t tarnished by unfounded fears. You’d think that a board with a fiduciary relationship to their members would have at least done that much.

    And what spice he could have added by revealing more about how that rate of support for incorporation was produced. Besides the annexation lies, for example, he forgot the part about the all-out campaign waged for well over a year by those “interested citizens.” He could have explained in his own words from a 2009 document that he compiled that the incorporation effort obtained about 70% consent only after an effort by 140 people over a 1.5 year intensive sign up period.”

    The 74% of voters who approved the petition was “hardly done in a vacuum,” his Echo letter states. I’ll say. If he had fully informed his readers on how that support was created, how much more they would have chuckled over his claim that the board, in backing incorporation, was simply reflecting the innate wishes of Diamondhead’s populace.

    Finally he could have explained how someone like him, so “NOT connected” to the incorporation effort, got such detailed knowledge of it but failed to shed full light on it for everyone else. Nearby communities may yawn, but “Diamondheaders” would dearly love to read an in-depth expose’ of the incorporation story.

    #9267

    wayne king
    Participant

    Your reading comprehension is not very good is it….I am for some kind of development in or close to Diamondhead that will provide jobs and accommodations that would allow more outside participation on our eminities, what would be your recommendations?

    #9268

    rohboat
    Participant

    I see you were quick to acknowledge that my knowledge of the gaming industry was minuscule.
    I view that as a badge of honor. My experience with people in that business leads me to believe that no one makes any money engaging in that activity. In fact with some it eventually becomes a serious problem.
    As far as bringing in jobs ,well I just do not believe many high paying jobs will be created.
    Actually I am perplexed about your concern about jobs. Truthfully the landscape for employment in Diamondhead is barren. I spent 73 years in New Orleans before Katrina eking out a living wage. When I completed my basic education in Math and Science some 60 years ago there were at least some jobs in New Orleans. But even then many of my friends with similar backgrounds moved to Houston or Dallas. Quite a few of these guys probably did better than me. Some did considerably better than me .I did manage a reasonable career mostly in the oil business but did become involved in medical research for about 15 years. I actually spent one year as a reliability engineer working on the Saturn S1B. I quickly saw that the space business was a dead end.
    Frankly I have a tough time trying to imagine what would be my career path while living in this area. I suppose Stennis is one option but that is iffy and the space program is a boondoggle.
    Truthfully if I were a young man I could not get my behind out of here fast enough.
    Getting a casino and bringing a lot of low paying jobs is a path to nowhere. I suppose the revenue brought in might help pay for beautiful golf greens and country club expenses, but that is of little concern to me. I am sure there are many buffoons here who think they have arrived and would be extremely proud.

    #9269

    vsimons
    Participant

    KYGER Kool-Aid drinking CONTINUES on the POA Board?
    Jan. 22: POA Board gives HMS “New” contract without review?

    So the Board approved a CONTRACT WRITTEN BY HMS?
    MONTJOY introduced a motion, seconded by CROSBY, that the POA Board sign a maintenance contract with HMS Gold of Atlanta, GA. He said that he “took it upon himself” to contact Jim Haslam and asked him to “provide” one.

    KYGER went on at length about what a great job HMS has done. HE passed out what HE called “POA Performance History” and characterized the decreasing LOSSES as an improvement (since we weren’t losing AS MUCH as before…).
    KYGER and toadies claim that we aren’t “losing as much as we used to”….so that is “progress”. MCCULLEY spoke up for HMS saying what a glowing job they have done to improve the operation of the club. After discussion and opposition from the other 5 Board members, MONTJOY amended his motion to say that the POA should sign the contract subject to its review by the Board attorney. His point was that the PRICES quoted ($5,000 per month?) in the contract would be ACCEPTED NOW and that any “legality” could be worked out later. (SO WHAT WAS THE “URGENCY” TO PASS THIS HMS CONTRACT?)

    KYGERITES PUSH THROUGH HMS CONTRACT:
    ($5,000 PER MONTH contract voted on without review?)
    The Board passed Montjoy’s motion voting 6 to 5 in favor, with the following 6 of our elected POA “community leaders” pushing through the UN-REVIEWED HMS CONTRACT: KYGER, CROSBY, HARVEY, MCCULLEY, JOHNSON, MONTJOY.

    NO OPPORTUNITY FOR MEMBERS TO COMMENT?
    At one point during the discussion, MEMBERS tried to comment about the HMS contract, but HARVEY interrupted them quickly and said the open comment period was over and ONLY THE BOARD could participate in the conversation.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 18 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.