August 16, 2009 at 9:19 am #3086
A move has been funded to extend the Diamondhead restrictive covenants beyond 2020 by the Diamondhead Country Club and Property Owners Association’s board of directors. All comment concerning this issue can be posted and read here.August 16, 2009 at 3:14 pm #3085
Personally, I would prefer to have a county land fill next door to my house and a commerical airport bordering my backyard rather than being control by a bunch of power hunger egotistical board members imposing unreasonable rules and regulations and outrages fees. In case you did not guess, I am not in favor of extending the covenants. The covenants contain a sunset clause for a reason. It is interesting, however, that a push to extend the covenants is occuring while a court is considering incorporation. It is apparent that some want to insure the POA remains in power even if a city is approved. Based upon past experiences I have no trust in this board and I always suspect a motive in their actions.
p.s. Thank you Editor for restoring this site and for providing it to the community.August 16, 2009 at 6:24 pm #3087
I thought the covenants required an election to approve any change, how can an extension to an experation date not be a change? I believe it is time for the POA to go away. If these covenants were meant to go on forever they would not have an experation date, was this something required to get the charter? I too concure with my gratitude to the Editor in restoreing this site and enabeling the community to have its use.August 17, 2009 at 6:10 am #3090
It is my understanding that a vote margine of 85% is required to extend the convenants. The editor states funding has been allocated by the POA to promote the passage of this motion. I wonder how much of our money has been dedicated for this issue and also question if this a legal expenditure of POA funds. The POA Board spend over $60,000 of our money to promote incorporation. Interestingly, Mr. Feola claimed in this weeks Sea Coast newspaper that the POA was netural in this matter and the POA has taken no position on incorporation. RIGHT. The POA Board only provided funds, allowed the propoents to use an office at the POA, allowed the workers to use the POA phones, to use POA copy machines, use POA employees to take messages and answer the phone for these workers, etc. etc. This president and this board must think we are all stupid and uninformed. Obama made the same mistake. Perhaps we need a few Tea Bag Parties in Diamondhead.August 17, 2009 at 7:58 am #3092
The expiration of the covenants clause was for one purpose it appears, to allow the original developers of diamondhead to bail out, if the development went belly up, on the maintainence of the aminities and infrastructure and avoid POA Fees for the property owned by the developer in the subdivision. As long as the POA members were paying for eminity and infrastructure maintainence cost and the developer was not being charged a POA fee all was well and good, now it appears that we are getting hosed down again by another try at extending the covenants with out a popular vote by the members so the POA has a chance to survive past incorperation. What is in question is whether Percell has the right to cast Proxi votes in the election when they are not POA members? So any interested parties out there reading this need to get involved and think all this thru and vote accordingly, its much larger that a $9 dollar golf round.August 17, 2009 at 9:51 am #3093
I may be in error, but my impression is Purcell can not vote for “persons” running for positions with the POA but can vote on “issues” affecting the Diamondhead development. If I am correct then Purcell would be allowed to vote for or against the continuence of the covenants. Each parcel of property is equal to one vote. At present they have maybe 1,000 plus lots. If I am not correct in my view I would appreciate it if someone can correct me.August 17, 2009 at 10:43 am #3094
You are quite right Bob. But the real problem is that people have been elected to the board that have financial ties to Purcell and have ignored the provision under state statute that requires them to declare a conflict of interest. That law has no teeth since there is no penalty if they are caught.August 18, 2009 at 11:35 am #3095
There are several reports that UnElected personnel have been sending out bills ( NonUniform Fees ) in the mail to Diamondhead POA members for perceived Covenant violations. Lawsuits and elections in the past tend to condemn ( NonUniform Fees ) such as the infamous security fee imposed back in the 90’s by a regime since removed from office. Additionally there are numerous incidences of NonCompliance of the DMHD Covenents namely by the DMHD POA in their delayed rebuilding of the Yacht Club Amenity. The (Covent NonCompliance) ( NonUniform Fees ) harrassment mail tends to affect those adversely affected by Hurricane Katrina ( Slab Owners ). If you consider that the DMHD POA is allowing new construction in area’s that went 15 feet underwater during Hurricane Katrina, the idea of Covenant enforcement appears incredibly ludicrus. Caselaw proves that covent enforcement has to uniform.August 18, 2009 at 12:50 pm #3096
No wounder an addition to bylaws ect. containing a requirement for ethics compliance is like a drink of hemlock to these guys. Why would any “Honest” politico be against ethecs compliance?August 18, 2009 at 2:41 pm #3097
As of summer 2008, the Purcell Corp. owned between 10 -15 % of the lots in Diamondhead. Think of all of the unbuildable lots including those lots that have drainage ditches through them. All/most of these are platted lots. There are still many lots in Glen Eagle that they own. The Purcell Corp. has one vote for each of those lots and can vote on issues that do not have specific people (elections) involved in them.August 18, 2009 at 5:59 pm #3099
It is difficult to believe that drainage and other unbuildable lots have not been removed from the POA inventory and give the other property owners a fair shake in an election, However with the History of animosity between the property owners and the developers of Diamondhead it certainly is not a surprise. As it appears, its just another example of right infringement by shady rules and the planed usery of POA members from the very start. You still think extending the covenants is a good idea? Well that vacent lot next to you no one keeps up, with a dranage ditch running thru it , the one that will never be built on by a reasonable builder, yea the one with all the Hurricane downed trees on it and pays no POA fee has the same vote as you in extending covenants ect.August 21, 2009 at 1:35 pm #3100
I am in favor of the covenents. The covenents are what make D.H. a desired place to live.September 20, 2009 at 11:17 am #3109
I haven’t lived here but about 3.5 years, and do like the area. That being said, the only reason I currently live in DH is that when we moved here shortly after Katrina there really wasn’t any place else to go. I absolutely hate the way things are run; i.e. the extorsion racket the DHFD is running, the golf course & country club fiasco, etc., etc. It appears the so-called leaders of our community are more interested in “power” than doing what is right by the citizens. I say do away with the POA – today. I have told several people looking for homes to stay away from DH and will continue to do so as long as the POA is in existence.September 24, 2009 at 7:19 am #3112
If the proposed incorporation of Diamondhead is approved don’t you think we should then be governed by municipal codes rather than convenents? Or do you propose we be governed by both as the POA Board is apparently suggesting. I know of no city in the U.S. that has both covenents and municipal ordinances. I realize I am assuming the incorporation will be approved by the court, although I hope not in its present form, but is seems to me those in power want to insure their positions remain in effect in the event the incorporation fails. Ask yourself, why is a push to extend the covenents being suggested and financed eleven years before they will expire? It seems a little strange to me. But understand I have very little faith and trust in this board and my comments and thoughts should be read with this in mind.September 27, 2009 at 4:58 pm #3114
I do not have a clear understanding of the law, but I do not see how it could be legally possible for the POA to remain in place if the incorporation goes through. Can you explain that to me?
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.