This topic contains 1 reply, has 84 voices, and was last updated by  Louis Fuchs 10 years, 3 months ago.

Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
  • Author
  • #2290

    Louis Fuchs

    I believe that incorporation would be preferable to annexation. I do believe that the POA committee is not telling the whole story. The POA never returns phone calls and generally does not respond to the members. When I attend the meetings we are not even allowed to ask question verbally. The written questions are read and answered with the POA slant. This type of treatment makes me mistrust the POA. Now they want us to vote their way. What’s going on? Who are the new leaders? How were they selected and who selected them? What happens to the amenities? Does a municipal government have authority over the C.C., the golf courses, private roads?



    I have to agree that incorporation would be better. Unfortunately, I think we would end up with the same untrustworthy group of people running the “city”. If we are annexed, then we become simply a tax base for BSL or WVLD and would not receive any “special” consideration. The POA has never once, answered a question with the intent of helping when I have asked. However, they do like to throw those covenants around about what WE CANNOT do. The POA makes me more untrusting because they do not have a governmental municipality to answer to…they are suppose to answer to us the property owners. If we are a city they have government accounting to do. As it is we are a “business” and as such I think we are the stockholders with some rights to the information they hoard.

    There should be an accounting of all monies that the POA receives and distributes. Not just a monthly blurb that says we lost money or not. I want to know where my money is being spent. I think amenities like the golf course, the country club, the yacht club, tennis world, and any other DH amenity should have a separate fee for usage. Not all DH residents use any of these amenities and should have to pay for someone else’s pleasure. For instance, how many 80 year olds do you see playing tennis? These residents should not have to pay for my enjoyment of the game just as I should not have to pay for a new yacht club. There should be tiers of membership whereby a resident can choose their level of activity and fees. For those who are not socially active in this community let them pay a fee for residential amenities like roads and security (but real security), and anyone who wants to actively participate in the other amenities pay something more and carry a card to enter these places.

    We seem to have become a beacon for thieves and I wonder if it is because we have no legal authority to act and they know this and if it is because the think we are a “captured audience” so to speak.

Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.