Two sets of rules . . .

In what seems to have become an end of the year norm, leadership is appealing to the property owners to vote affirmatively for yet another “board contrived” change to our governing documents, i. e., the Leasing Administration Fee  (1) And as has been the case in recent years, (2) (3) (4) property owners have not been provided access to the actual language contained in the amendment until only days before the ballots are scheduled to be placed in the mail. This continuing practice gives limited opportunity for discussion, revision or opposition.

To quickly summarize, the amendment seeks to impose a $175 annual fee on all property owners who elect to rent out their homes. Described as a “significant new source of income to the community” by one director (5a), the fee is being proposed under the guise of recouping the costs of printing brochures and other vague and unsubstantiated administrative costs that leadership has attributed to “renters”.

That said, it should be noted that many property owners attended the lively October 27^th board meeting and presented a variety of outstanding arguments and points of view (both for and against) regarding the proposed amendment. (6)

This writer has been neutral on the subject . . .

However, after reviewing the amendment’s verbiage, it was found to contain seriously flawed legal language inundated with the disparate treatment of the members of the association. Considering that, this writer’s neutrality ended with the board’s October 27^th vote to proceed to place the amendment on the November ballot.

The disparity . . .

Unfortunately, it has become increasingly difficult to determine when and if our POA board is acting in the best interests of the property owners which is one of their primary fiduciary responsibilities. With the developer threatening veto of the amendment, the board has once again caved to those demands (4) (5b) by granting “the company” an extensive exemption to the leasing fee in exchange for their withdrawal of the veto. Somehow, that sounds eerily akin to a questionable quid pro quo.

In fact, it seems our board is proposing to penalize those property owners who might choose to rent their property while rewarding the developer by not only exempting those properties currently owned by the company but also the approximately 1,000 future properties that might also be developed. Further, this exemption will also extend to the initial purchaser of any developer owned property as well as any timeshare regardless of ownership. Exemptions for future developer owned inns, lodges and assisted living facilities are even thrown in for good measure. One must certainly ask, where is this community headed?

Illogical thinking . . .

And remarkably, although the developer has clearly determined a rental lease fee to be unfavorable to his ownership of property in Big Canoe, the POA board somehow believes the property owners should feel differently regarding their property by casting votes in favor of the proposed amendment. This is frankly illogical thinking.

Surely, given the developer’s threatened veto, it would have been more appropriate for our elected board to have either followed the steps outlined in our governing documents (7) or tabled the amendment rather than dump a last minute, ill conceived amendment to our covenants fraught with layers of developer exemptions on the remaining property owners for a vote. Definitely not a good move, and definitely not in the best interests of any member of the Association.

Truly, how can this community exist with two such sets of rules? And do we really want to establish this precedent?

A blatant display of double standard and non-responsiveness  . . .

And finally, this writer would be remiss if some comparison was not made of this board’s decision to place such a biased amendment to the covenants on the ballot for a vote while swiftly rejecting a recent property owners petition requesting a similar opportunity to simply vote on an amendment to reinstate the property owner approval of all capital projects exceeding one million. (8) https://bcmatters.org/true-colors/ (9) Go figure.

. . . . .

Should you wish to see additional articles posted in the future, please subscribe for an email notification or check back frequently. Likewise, please feel free to post comments below or contact me at thepcrosses@gmail.com for questions or further discussion. Meanwhile, take care, stay safe and thank you for your readership.

Patricia Cross (10438 Big Canoe)

References:

1)   Fifth Amendment to the Amended and Restated General Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions of the Big Canoe Property Owners Association, Inc. and Big Canoe Company, LLC, Pg. Three, Section 15. Leasing Administration Fee

   2)   “A consideration of Consequences”, bcmatters.org, November 4^th, 2021 https://bcmatters.org/a-consideration-of-consequences/

3)   “A misrepresentation of facts”, bcmatters.org, December 10^th, 2020 https://bcmatters.org/a-misrepresentation-of-facts/

4)   “Property Owner Protections and Controls in Jeopardy”, bcmatters.org, December 1^st, 2019, https://bcmatters.org/property-owner-protections-and-controls-in-jeopardy/

5)   Big Canoe POA Board meeting, September 29^th, 2022, video on Youtube at a) 45:50 b) 45:00

6)   Big Canoe POA Board Meeting, October 27^th 2022, video on Youtube beginning at time stamp 1:00:30

7)   January 7th, 2005 Amendment  to the Amended and Restated General Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions of the Big Canoe Property Owners’ Association and Big Canoe Company, Section 5 (b), (c) and (d).

8)   “True Colors”, bcmatters.org, July 20^th, 2022, https://bcmatters.org/true-colors/

9)   “An Update to True Colors: The Taunt”, bcmatters.org, August 8^th, 2022

https://bcmatters.org/an-update-to-true-colors-the-taunt/