Revote shows the POA out of touch with owners
Let me start by saying I did not move to Bella Vista for the golfing, boating, fishing, tennis, swimming, etc. I moved to Bella Vista for what its name implies, beautiful view. I love the wooded scenery, the people, the rural feeling so close to urban areas.
That being said, the Bella Vista Property Owners Association has shown once again it is not in touch with the residents. After this month’s defeat of the assessment increase, they decided to redo the election, but this time put the entire increase on the improved properties’ owners. This new election is happening so quickly I don’t believe it is something that just came to them. Let’s just call it “Alternative B” with “Alternative A” the outcome if the election had passed.
Their reasoning that “unimproved property owners live too far away to enjoy the use of our wonderful amenities” so they should not share in the increase is false. The main reason many unimproved property owners buy unimproved lots is so they can use the amenities. In fact, the POA has been clear in stating this is a perfectly good reason for buying unimproved lots. So now the POA wants unimproved lot owners to get the proposed benefits with no fee increase while the on-site property owners (many who do not use the amenities) foot the entire bill.
The POA reasoning is akin to Bella Vista asking Bentonville residents to vote on a residential property tax increase to provide them with free benefits. The POA should realize their position isn’t being helped by spending additional money on another vote because they didn’t agree with the results of the last election.
Personally, I view the POA as an over-priced parks department that has outlived its usefulness duplicating many of the city permit processes (and fee collections) yet attempting to justify its existence without being financially responsible.
They talk about needing money but show fiscal irresponsibility by spending over $1 million on executive salaries, maintaining golf courses in flood zones that require constant expensive repairs, and providing up to three years of financial support before their restaurants need to show a profit.
Add the practice of multiple charges for uses of amenities by requiring the POA card showing property assessment payment, an additional $30 photo ID card to allow entrance to amenities, additional fees to participate or use amenities (such as the beach), fees to store/park/maintain your sporting equipment, etc., and you have a tangled mass of poor financial management, outdated expectations and a pyramid scheme designed to provide the chosen few what can only be described as their own country club experience.
One final note: It does not seem to be fair or open for the POA to continually bombard residents in its various weekly emails with sections supporting a “yes” vote unless it offers space for opposing opinions or provides a list of email recipients of the opposition to allow for sending out an opposing view.
KATHY JEFFREY
Bella Vista