Now isn’t it remarkable that our Board of Directors actually considered changing the name of our beloved community when the outright purchase of the name and trademark was available for less than the cost of the recently purchased clubhouse dining furniture? (1) It is quite frankly unfathomable that our elected leadership instead chose to subject the property owners and our community to so much distress and reputational damage (2) by arrogantly announcing their intentions to “unbrand” at the February 27th board meeting.
Obviously, leadership miscalculated the community’s passion,
as property owner meetings and discussions that were either hosted by or included Big Canoe Realty were quickly organized creating a platform to broadcast details regarding the trademark negotiations by providing information which leadership had refused to provide to property owners when asked. (3)
A sequence of events . . .
- As noted in a previous post, https://bcmatters.org/about-that-big-canoe-trademark/ the trademark issue has been an active topic of discussion in the closed door meetings since at least February 26th, 2024.
- At some point during the negotiations, the owner of the trademark, Big Canoe Realty, offered to extend the same license agreement that was set to expire in December 2024 at no cost to the POA. Apparently, the POA had concerns about the terms of future extensions of the license agreement. (4)
- Big Canoe Realty then offered to extend the same license agreement into perpetuity at no cost to the POA. (2) Instead, the POA determined that it desired to purchase the trademark outright in order to have control of it’s use. (4) (5)
- At some later date, purchase of the trademark was offered to the POA at a cost of $500k with several conditions.
- The POA countered with a $400k purchase price and conditions which were accepted by Big Canoe Realty. A previously disputed condition giving Big Canoe Realty “exclusive” rights was amended to read “non-exclusive”.
It is this writer’s understanding that each of these events took place prior to the board’s February 27th announcement regarding the “unbranding”. (5)
Somehow the actual unfolding of events appears dramatically different from what little was disclosed to the community by our leadership.
That said, only after the emergence of the community’s significant push back and the February 28th meeting at the offices of Big Canoe Realty disclosing much of the above detail did the board back down.
In a tepid version of events that excluded any mention of the purchase price, a March 1st e-blast was circulated by the board announcing that a “tentative” agreement had been reached with Big Canoe Realty. (6)
Rest not easy . . .
And now, understandably, much of the community has exhaled a sigh of relief to learn of this possible agreement.
Obviously this is good news.
But first, as property owners, we must recognize that this is “tentative” while also questioning the current board’s ability and even desire to carry out their fiduciary responsibility to act in the best interest of the community.
Given all that has taken place, it might be worthwhile to seriously ask ourselves is this the board we want representing our interests after relistening to the POA President’s February 27th announcement beginning at time stamp 48:25 on the youtube video. (7)
Note: One might also question why the developer director was so eager to pay one half of the rebranding expenses yet did not offer to pay half of the purchase price of the existing trademark.
Meanwhile, ponder this . . .
The board’s refusal to provide information or documentation when requested expands significantly beyond the subject of these trademark negotiations. (3)
For example, just recently, this writer requested a copy of the amended Service Level Operating Agreement with Utilities, Inc. and was cursorily denied by the POA President. See AskThePOA Response#15651 and https://bcmatters.org/what-have-they-done/
And on at least two occasions, this writer requested copies of the loan agreement with Wells Fargo Bank and was summarily denied. See AskThePOA Ticket #7543 and AskthePOA Ticket#12631
And then, of course, there are the accounting records whose disclosure is mandated by Georgia Code that have been consistently denied over time.
One must certainly wonder what secrets might be lurking in all those documents and records that the Association is so adamantly refusing to release. Perhaps it is time for some sunshine in Big Canoe.
Imagine . . .
Closing this discussion for now, each and every property owner deserves kudos for pushing back significantly enough to thwart the POA board’s outrageous intentions to “unbrand” and “rebrand” our beautiful community.
Perhaps this is a trend we should all learn from.
Imagine what might have happened if the community had pushed back against the Board’s decision to move forward with the clubhouse renovation without a revote on the increased cost of the project.
In closing . . .
There remains an abundance of other subject matter to discuss, financial and otherwise, but perhaps it would be best to let this rest for a few days. Until then . . .
. . . . .
If you believe the information contained on this site is important, please continue to share and pass it on. Should you wish to see additional articles posted in the future, please subscribe for an email notification or check back frequently. And as always, feel free to contact me at thepcrosses@gmail.com for questions or further discussion. Meanwhile, take care and stay safe.
Patricia Cross
10438 Big Canoe
References:
1) 2023 Capital Plan, November 2023, Pg. 7, Line 14
(POAwebsite>login>POA>Financials>Budgets>2023>2023NovemberCapital)
2) “Deal reached on Big Canoe name”, Pickens County Progress, March 6th, 2025, Page One
3) AskThePOA Ticket#16003, dated January 31st, 2025 ,Click here to read that response, AskThePOA Response#16003, dated January 31st, 2025
4) A message from the POA Board of Directors, “Big Canoe’s Trademark”, e-blasted January 30th, 2025.
5) A message from the POA Board of Directors, “Trademark Update”, e-blasted February 27th, 2025
6) A message from the POA Board of Directors regarding the tentative agreement, e-blasted March 1st, 2025
7) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNaRGx37zlq.
Note: This link may have been removed.
Amazing how positive you always are..
Run for office and make a difference.
You are amazing in organization and details. Just move to a lift more trust and positive attitude.
It’s easy to be negative and not appreciate
What volunteers do.
You are spot on Ronnie! It’s easy to criticize when you are not in “the arena”. I think being part of the solution is far for effective than just calling out the problems. The naysayers should run for the board and make changes and come up with solutions. Appreciate your note!
I’m not sure what world you live in Mr. Cail but you don’t just volunteer for the board and get on it. I know we had a fine man run three times who got bounced. Why? He had previously headed an HOA board in Gwinnett Co where he balanced the budget in addition to having previous experience as a LEO. But we didn’t want him because he wasn’t a cabal member & most likely knew more than everyone else. Patricia Cross has impeccable sources and financial knowledge who has been a voice for the voiceless. Some of us choose to not think we live in a perfect utopia afraid to harm our precious property values. The truth hurts & yes, we need a proper management firm to run BC. Scott Auer should be the first to go.
in reference to you 3/6 posting on the Big Canoe trademark, while I appreciate and agree with 90% of the issues you raise and your associated insight in this case it was great that you brought the issue to the homeowners’ attention and gathered our support but I do feel at this point it would not hurt to recognize the outcome and give the board a win
I think when the deal is signed, sealed and delivered there will be a rousing cheer for the POA board for the work they’ve done. Until the ink is dry, it’s still iffy although it’s looking good.
We appreciate all volunteers in Big Canoe, from those whose pick up roadside trash and walk BCAR pups to those who serve on the board.
However, I feel our community has grown to the point we need professional management, whether it be a person or a team. Relying on good intentioned volunteers with little or no experience running a small city to make long range plans for a community approaching 5,000 property owners is no longer feasible.
We are growing and our management structure should grow with us.
Make no mistake, we all appreciate the time, talent and effort our POA board members bring to the table. I know each only wants the very best for our community.
I know several well qualified property owners who were interested in throwing their hat in the ring to run for the board.
However, they were discouraged by the restrictions placed on board members once elected. To be fair, during the informational meetings held prior to submitting intent to run for our governing body, such restrictions were discussed with prospective board members.
This often surprising revelation is why so many good candidates choose to drop out of the race. They feel being on the board would disassociate them from residents and tie their hands while trying to govern. I’ve heard some say they felt under the thumb of too many “can’t do this” rules that curtailed open discussions. They also didn’t like so many closed door meetings. Sure, some are necessary but we sure have a lot of them!
I call for the “rules and regs” required of sitting board members be made available to all property owners. This would clear up much confusion.
Examples: Can individual board members meet with property owners privately to discuss ideas? Can group meetings be held in homes? What, if any, gag rules are in place? Can board members discuss why they voted a certain way in private settings? What happens if a board member goes outside board boundaries? Will they face disciplinary action?
When board members are up for reelection, it’s difficult to know where they stand if said candidate is not allowed to give reasons for his/her previous board positions.
If there are restrictions keeping board members from relating to property owners who voted for them, what is the reasoning behind this?
This would be a good start to bring actual transparency to our governing process.