February 20, 2015 at 10:07 am #1458
A proposed football field and expanded youth facilities are being considered here in Diamondhead. This discussion is open for all comments.February 20, 2015 at 12:48 pm #9519
Diamondhead is no longer just a community for retirees. Our community needs younger people now that we are a city in order to take us into the future. Our children need organized sports as much as they need golf and tennis. The pity is that Tennis World should be by the Country Club and our youth facilities should be at the east rec center – ball fields – proper basket ball courts etc. not in the proposed location. Kids need to be able to enjoy these facilities by getting their safely on their bikes if necessary and grandparents like me should be able to get there in our golf carts. Diamondhead has the potential to be a wonderful place for all of us to enjoy – we are not enemies we are neighbors. Diamondhead belongs to every one of us and the amenities which enhance our lives need to reflect the wants and needs of all our members not just a few.February 20, 2015 at 12:53 pm #9520
At a half a million dollars??
If the land was to swampy for tennis courts, why is it all of a sudden OK for a sports field?
As far as kids getting to the proposed sports field on their bikes on Noma Drive? An accident waiting to happen.February 20, 2015 at 1:10 pm #9521
We need golf and a CC like a hog needs a saddle..you want them..YOU pay for them.the members should NOT bear the expense of the upkeep of the losing “amenities”..
GET RID OF THE POA AND FIRE DEPT FEES>?February 20, 2015 at 1:29 pm #9522
I do pay for them and I do use them – I don’t understand why anyone would move here and not understand that you support the amenities with your dues – if that is not what you wanted why did you move to Diamondhead. Amenities in communities like Diamondhead were never intended to make money or break even – the reality of a community like this is that amenities are always subsidized by membership dues – that is the reality of Diamondhead – we just need to be wiser about how that money is spent.February 20, 2015 at 1:35 pm #9523
Please use your head in regard to children. How many children do you see riding bikes or driving golf carts now ? It is the adults that I am talking about that ride or drive on the streets allowing such traffic. Kids with all their gear will come to the fields with their parents or grandparents. Nanapat is thinking about how much fun it would be if they could accompany their grandchild on a bike aside them in their cart. Please tell the folks in Plaquemine Parish, La about facilities in or near swamps or in south Hancock County that they can’t build. Or maybe Jordan Shores ETC ETC.
Half million dollars you must have seen all the bids and been in all the meetings with Coast Electric. The budgeted amount is $150,000. which may or may not be enough to start and allow play here this year without lights.February 20, 2015 at 1:56 pm #9524
Nanapat – 2015-02-20 2:29 PM I do pay for them and I do use them – I don’t understand why anyone would move here and not understand that you support the amenities with your dues – if that is not what you wanted why did you move to Diamondhead. Amenities in communities like Diamondhead were never intended to make money or break even – the reality of a community like this is that amenities are always subsidized by membership dues – that is the reality of Diamondhead – we just need to be wiser about how that money is spent.
What some don’t want to admit is that when the POA misappropriated 90,000 of our dues to facilitate incorporation that was a game changer. We are a city now. We now have way to many layers of governance and too many dues fees and taxes. What other citizens of a city are mandated to pay for golf and a country cllub that only 198 have bought full membership to. When the poa pushed for incorporation and got it many were saying the dues wou8ld go down due to the city taking over many expenses that our TAXES now pay for. It is p^ss poor for the poa to just pocket the money for the services our various taxes now pay for. Your attitude about "we all moved here for the amenities" is old thinking that will lead to the death of Diamondhead. That thinking will no longer fly now that we are a poa created city. There has been so much corruption in the poa. All the no-bid half a mil projects going to an atlanta company connected to HMS which is connected to Purcell. The behind the scenes sneeky work to make sure the covenants don’t expire. The poa is dirty. I trust citizens to be albe to monitor a city government better than we have been able to monitor the corruption in the poa.February 20, 2015 at 2:07 pm #9525
If the move to provide long needed facilities for youth sports goes forward a $150,000 seems to be a small amount when you consider how many children will utilize them. Bear in mind less than 200 golfers want to spend around a half million. My main input would be sure to have a highly reviewed design for the fields before limiting the project to $150,000. Base the estimated cost on the design, do not design to the amount allotted you will just wind up with another albatross. The area that s being proposed needs a highly technical drainage plan with a lot of input and permitting I would think. This is NOT an amateur project proposal that just scratches around and clears an area of brush puts out chalk lines and hollers “Play Ball” Done right it will be highly contributing to family life in Diamondhead, much more so than half a million in underutilized golf courses.February 20, 2015 at 2:39 pm #9526
There certainly should be well-built fields for the children done at a reasonable cost though it is too bad that the POA didn’t offer a better location in the first place. Too late now for that, from what I understand? The real question is whether the proposed cost will turn out to be reasonable or not.
As I’ve said before, I don’t think anyone opposes good things for the children – but everyone would like to see them done openly, using good sense, for a proper purpose, and keeping the work local as much as possible.
This kind of project also seems far more appropriate for the city to undertake than the POA. Accumulating new amenities under the POA umbrella when you have a city that can handle them is truly unwise.February 20, 2015 at 3:00 pm #9527
The issue is the POA wants to say that the funds will go toward the football fields but when in fact the money goes to thier pockets. If they turn any thing over to the state/county then they have to account for every penny spent, by making home owners pay dues and threatening to take houses away if they don’t pay for Dues and Fees for fire then they can hide the under the table deals. Look at it the Fire station in the West side of DH is at the fire chiefs house, Are we paying for this mortgage note too? This whole town is full of crocks trying to get one over on the people trying to make an honest living instead they back stab the very people that elected them and laugh about it.February 20, 2015 at 3:52 pm #9528
pdutton – 2015-02-20 3:39 PM There certainly should be well-built fields for the children done at a reasonable cost though it is too bad that the POA didn’t offer a better location in the first place. Too late now for that, from what I understand? The real question is whether the proposed cost will turn out to be reasonable or not. As I’ve said before, I don’t think anyone opposes good things for the children – but everyone would like to see them done openly, using good sense, for a proper purpose, and keeping the work local as much as possible. This kind of project also seems far more appropriate for the city to undertake than the POA. Accumulating new amenities under the POA umbrella when you have a city that can handle them is truly unwise.
I think a lot of people are upset about this new poa amenity for the exact reasons you stated. The poa hasn’t been open about it’s dealings, only letting a select few see various studies that we all pay for, making it look like a project will cost less to build and maintain, etc, etc. We have more power over city gov than we do the poa. The poa is supposed to slowly become less powerful and mammoth. We should be moving away from poa control. You said it well–"This kind of project also seems far more appropriate for the city to undertake than the POA. Accumulating new amenities under the POA umbrella when you have a city that can handle them is truly unwise." That’s so true.February 20, 2015 at 5:29 pm #9529
I was the President of PASA and on the City of Picayune’s recreation board when the new Friendship Park was built, I can attest to you right now, $150k will not be enough for even one single field, much less a small sports complex. They must be depending on volunteer work and donations to support this. I propose shutting down one of the golf courses, building a new sport complex, put in walking and biking trails, a dog park, nice green spaces for a park. The POA can spend the money they save on the one golf course and put it into the new parks and complexes. It possibly could be cheaper to run the new parks and complex and use that monies on the existing course and make it as pristine as you want. The problem with this, both the city and the POA has to work together. What would be awesome, if the POA/Purcell would donate the golf course to the city and let the city get grants for developing the new complex and parks. This would be a win win situation, so it would never happen. Maintenance and upkeep would have to be worked out somehow, I would think the POA could still maintain it at a lower cost than a golf course, I could be wrong, but research would have to be done.February 20, 2015 at 5:55 pm #9530
benmike60 I believe you are on the right track in regards. The $150,000.00 is to start the project, EPA permits, engineering, demolition and layout, dirt work and field prep. If we don’t start we won’t finish. This will get us to at least play some games and practice here. As we move forward the complete budget allotted can unfold to be spread out over a period of time.February 20, 2015 at 6:09 pm #9531
If the Fire Chief owns the house, it may have been , and still is a” sweetheart” deal I know when it sold, but didn’t know who bought it..so, I would bet my socks that he has it “leased” to the Fire Dept for a very hefty price…our Editor has checked and this is the highest paid FD in the State..hard to believe, right..what, maybe a fire a year if that much?..It’s a slap in the face to real firemen and Fire Depts everywhere, and I hope you will attend our meeting at the Library at 6 pm the 25 th of this month.
Maybe we can get more people interested in getting some of their money back..(and I would hope, put some of these robbers in prison)February 20, 2015 at 6:20 pm #9532
I and many others agree with your statement that “Tennis World should be by the Country Club and our youth facilities should be at the east rec center – ball fields – proper basket ball courts etc. not in the proposed location.” (And, having Tennis World next to the Country Club would give tennis players a place to eat and have a drink, helping mitigate the huge annual CC losses.)
WHY can’t this be done? Can anyone on the current or previous Board please explain WHY NOT? Has any real study been done evaluating the most feasible long-term options? NO—all we get is ill-thought-out, unprofessionally designed projects (located at unsuitable sites) that seem to end up costing us more and more and rewarding the same old NO-BID contractors (favored by certain Board members) by endlessly tapping our POA dues.
The East Rec site is already easily accessible for kids on bikes and parents with kids in golf carts or other vehicles. The old Tennis World site is absolutely NOT safely accessible for kids on bikes.
Maybe the Board can have our new General Manager provide the facts about costs and explain the site location analysis at the next Board Meeting:
Tuesday, February 24, 2015 at 7:00pm; Country Club, Emerald Ballroom.
(And where is the agenda for that meeting? It’s not on the POA website.)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.