May 17, 2012 at 6:29 am #3759
The number one asset that the POA owns is the 91 miles of paved roads, culverts and drainage!
Replacement value is over $52 million dollars.
Several elected members of POA are suggesting that we as property owners give it away without fair, guaranteed compensation under the guise of saving money.
Whats next? Golf course, country club, tennis world…
I would be curious who at POA is for this Voo Doo economics.May 17, 2012 at 6:51 am #3758
WHAT? Who do they want to give it to?May 17, 2012 at 6:53 am #3760
I know several communities that have tried to give the roads away to the county. Never seen a county yet that wanted the private roads. Also, if the county did take the roads, it wouldn’t be a gated community anymore. It becomes public access at that point. I would think it would be a good deal for the county to take over the road system if they have the equipment and are good about maintaining the roads. Might also justify some of the taxes you pay.May 17, 2012 at 6:56 am #3761
I didn’t know a city could be agated community. I guess I have a lot to learn about this city thing, huh?May 17, 2012 at 7:03 am #3762
The proposal is to turn the streets over to the newly formed city of Diamondhead, who has no equipment nor personnel to maintain the roads. Who will pay for these necessities is a question still not answered.May 17, 2012 at 7:05 am #3763
What about the supposed millions missing from a previous administration earmarked for Diamondhead streets?May 17, 2012 at 7:41 am #3764
Great. So now you guys have a POA and a city government? That sounds really bad.May 17, 2012 at 8:49 am #3765
Had there been the type of forum that was provided when incorporation came up about 20 years ago the property owners would have had the opportunity to be aware of the “little problems” like maintenance of the medians and right of ways which the POA does with its personnel. We can assume the actual maintenance/repair of the roads will be contracted for (as it has in the past) – but who knows, for our new City leaders have not told us what they plan to do.
We have never really been a gated community – because we have always had the public roads that traversed D’head – but once the turnover occurs, all of our streets will be public and subject to the normal things public roads are subject to.
There are a number of “unhappy little results” that will occur when the streets become public. To give a graphic symbolic example: it’s kind of like having sex with someone you don’t know then finding out you have contracted a vile disease. It’s a good idea to know what the pitfalls are before you leap ahead blindly.May 17, 2012 at 9:17 am #3766
One of the alternatives is to sell the roads to the City for $52,000,000. They would raise the money from the City taxpayers and then pay the POA who would reefund the money to the same people who just paid for the roads. !!! Same pair of pants, different pocket. No difference. You miss the purpose of the transfer. # 1 to get police or sheriff authority on these roads, and # 2 to get our share of County tax for road and bridge epair. As a POA we have missed over $500,000 a year from the County for 20 years. This is our money that now comes back to us.
Don KraemerMay 17, 2012 at 9:57 am #3767
You make a good point but couldn’t the same thing be accomplished by simply turning the private street over to the county without the added expense of creating a city? The sheriff’s office would then be able to enforce county and state traffic regulation on the roads in Diamondhead if that is what you desire. Also, the $500,000 per year would be returned as you stipulate. Others say we need municipal codes to address local concerns. Couldn’t this, also, be accomplished by county codes rather than municipal codes? As Ginnylea mention in her post, this system works very well in other jurisdictions. Most of us feel not enough study was done and we were too quick to jump. We tried to delay the incorporation until more studies were done and performed by an unbiased group. We suggested one of our state universities do the study and prepare a report listing all the pros and cons of incorporation. The university chosen would have no dog in the race and a decision could have been made based upon a true and correct evaluation as to whether or not incorporation would be in the best interest of the residence of Diamondhead. Of course we did not have the advantage of an $80,000 gift to promote our view. Incorporation may very well prove to be the right thing but I would like to have had more information and would like to have explored other options. If this had been done I think the controversy would be over.
Bob RagsdaleMay 17, 2012 at 11:11 am #3768
Don, this doesn’t really make sense. “…raise the money from the City taxpayers…” means collecting high taxes from us…” refund us? Doesn’t equate.
As I told you before, we have had, prior to Incorporation, Hancock County deputies patrolling our appx. 100 miles of roads 24/7. THAT is a fact. They could only write “traffic offenses” on Golf Club Drive.
SueMay 17, 2012 at 11:55 am #3769
But have you ever seen a ‘gate’ like you have in ‘gated communities’? That’s always puzzled me.May 17, 2012 at 2:00 pm #3770
How many times is the City going to use the quoted 500,000 dollars that the City will receive from Road and Bridge Taxes. If I remember correctly this money was used to balance the proposed budget when the group presented the advantages of incorporating to members but was used to cover City administrative costs such as salary, benefits, equipment (police vehicles etc). There was no mention of the cost for the upkeep of the roads, culverts, etc included in that budget. Therefore, the tax payers would have to come up with additional taxes to cover this shortfall as they will have to do for all other funding shortfalls. It was a poorly compiled budget estimate and I made that point in one ot the meetings. A proposed budget should have included all possible changes so the property owners got a clear and truthful picture of exactly what they could expect instead of the selling tool that it was.May 17, 2012 at 2:17 pm #3771
I’m with Bob. If you can get the county to take the roads, count your blessing and turn them over.May 17, 2012 at 5:12 pm #3772
Part of an article from The Free Library (interesting):
If the incorporation of a legal city expresses an upward arc of development and growth, the legal disincorporation of a city marks decline. The shutting down of municipal government signals that a community can no longer sustain the cost and institutional responsibility of cityhood. Population, finances, or faith in civic institutions has simply lost too much ground. Perhaps that is why legal scholars have cared so little about municipal dissolution, a subject that has occupied fewer scholarly pages than the number of years in a century–and most of those pages were written a century ago. (1) Yet dissolutions happen, and if ever there has been a wave of them, we are in one now. More than half of the dissolutions ever recorded took place in the past fifteen years. At least 130 cities have dissolved since 2000–nearly as many as incorporated during that same period. (2) Beyond these dissolutions that happen, both past and pending, are scores of others that do not–cities that might have dissolved yesterday, or that perhaps should dissolve tomorrow.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.