Bob

Rome, GA

#4396 Jun 13, 2012
seriously wrote:
<quoted text>
and that is exactly what is happening, inch by inch....step by step. Bob you mentioned we all can work to influence change, I know what I am doing, what are you planning on doing.
I am working in any way I can to help facilitate positive change.
I am usually time limited and locationaly at a disadvantage, but I will try to help facilitate improvements in the community.

what we have is good, what we canbe is great.
It will take time and moving the needle in small steps.

I am thnkful for all those those that are active.
I will support any positive efforts, but will ask question.
By doing so I hope to help.

If a schedule and format can be created to allow more involvement, I am willing.

I have made a longterm commitment to CRR. I am in for the long haul.
Long Haul Silver

Ellijay, GA

#4397 Jun 13, 2012
The first step in solving a problem is to identify it and admit its existence. This is one of the areas where CRRA is currently failing. As much as the big dogs don't want certain details published, current and perspective owners have the right to know those details to advance their understanding of CRR as an owner supplement to the usual one sided hype and sales pitches coming from the POA.

The root cause of the current problems in CRRA is the Villas, the initial con job perpetrated on the owners and its subsequent operational failures. Before the last CRR Bylaw vote, owners were promised the Villas would be a “Pay As You Go” system of self financing and the money would not come out of the pockets of other owners or the other divisions. After the current budget year is completed, the Villas will have run a net loss of about $1,800,000. The Villas have been financially bleeding the rest of CRR dry and it’s been going on for 4 years. During the same period of time, dues collections were falling off the cliff.

During the time when less and less revenue was coming in CRRA was spending more and more money on the Villas in violation of every promise ever made to the owners and creating a huge cash flow problem. Taking in less, spending more and wanting to raise dues (taxes) as a result of mismanagement, does that sound familiar or what? Giving out big bonuses during the same time period adds insult to injury and sounds a little bit like the partygoer attitude at US GSA.

CRRA knows what they need to do, they just don’t want to do it. Having an idiot on the board engage in repeated conversations with himself from remote locations only adds fuel to the fire but apparently that's what the BOD wants due to their refusal and failure to control the megalomaniac.
Bob

Rome, GA

#4398 Jun 13, 2012
Long Haul Silver wrote:
The first step in solving a problem is to identify it and admit its existence. This is one of the areas where CRRA is currently failing. As much as the big dogs don't want certain details published, current and perspective owners have the right to know those details to advance their understanding of CRR as an owner supplement to the usual one sided hype and sales pitches coming from the POA.
The root cause of the current problems in CRRA is the Villas, the initial con job perpetrated on the owners and its subsequent operational failures. Before the last CRR Bylaw vote, owners were promised the Villas would be a “Pay As You Go” system of self financing and the money would not come out of the pockets of other owners or the other divisions. After the current budget year is completed, the Villas will have run a net loss of about $1,800,000. The Villas have been financially bleeding the rest of CRR dry and it’s been going on for 4 years. During the same period of time, dues collections were falling off the cliff.
During the time when less and less revenue was coming in CRRA was spending more and more money on the Villas in violation of every promise ever made to the owners and creating a huge cash flow problem. Taking in less, spending more and wanting to raise dues (taxes) as a result of mismanagement, does that sound familiar or what? Giving out big bonuses during the same time period adds insult to injury and sounds a little bit like the partygoer attitude at US GSA.
CRRA knows what they need to do, they just don’t want to do it. Having an idiot on the board engage in repeated conversations with himself from remote locations only adds fuel to the fire but apparently that's what the BOD wants due to their refusal and failure to control the megalomaniac.
I am aware that the Villas maybe a current expense CRR has taken on.I have not studied the details.

Looking in hindsight, maybe the business model was bad, or maybe the changes in the ecomomy drove the change.

Either way, the budget as a whole needs to be addressed and is going to be addresssed. The reality, that owners are concerned about future dues increases and structures will help drive this. Economic reality will need play a role in the years to come.

Also many are concerned that the facilities don't fall into disrepair. this will be a balancing act.I believe ensuring that the Villas were maintained was one of the motivations for CRR taking them over.

Maybe a property managemnet firm or a sale of the villas will take the burden off the operting budget. All valid things to be dicsussed.
concerned

Newnan, GA

#4399 Jun 13, 2012
Bob,
So, it sounds like you have insider info. What do you think relative to replat for purpose of dues reductions and tiered dues? if we go to a tiered dues I like lot size but I know many who don't. Lot size seems easy. Others say not. Neighbor says lot sizes are not the eay to go. He gives an example of a small riverfront parcel paying less than someone with a little larger lot with no water or view paying more just for sq. Footage. I see his point but size just seems easy. Replat will cost me more too. Especially if Flint is allowed to replat.
Steve

Lady Lake, FL

#4400 Jun 13, 2012
concerned wrote:
He gives an example of a small riverfront parcel paying less than someone with a little larger lot with no water or view paying more just for sq. Footage. I see his point but size just seems easy. Replat will cost me more too. Especially if Flint is allowed to replat.
But in most cases that person with the water front payed a higher purchase price than those without waterfront/ water view.
Yes replat with dues set according to lot size.
seriously

Seffner, FL

#4401 Jun 13, 2012
Steve wrote:
<quoted text>
But in most cases that person with the water front payed a higher purchase price than those without waterfront/ water view.
Yes replat with dues set according to lot size.
Absolutely agree, but that isn't the plan they want us to vote on. GET TO THE MEETING ON THE 16th of June, and let your voice be heard. If you don't want to talk, write something down on paper and hand it to the person who is taking names and tell them to have the secretary read it for you. If you are out of town email the secretary your concerns and have them read it at the meeting.
Whatever you do make sure you do something to get your voice heard.
resident

Ellijay, GA

#4402 Jun 13, 2012
Could we please hear from someone who is not on a developers payroll?
Forest Beaver

Ellijay, GA

#4403 Jun 13, 2012
concerned wrote:
Bob,
So, it sounds like you have insider info. What do you think relative to replat for purpose of dues reductions and tiered dues? if we go to a tiered dues I like lot size but I know many who don't. Lot size seems easy. Others say not. Neighbor says lot sizes are not the eay to go. He gives an example of a small riverfront parcel paying less than someone with a little larger lot with no water or view paying more just for sq. Footage. I see his point but size just seems easy. Replat will cost me more too. Especially if Flint is allowed to replat.
Flint may be finished, as in chapter 7 dissolution. Their official status is still up to the bankruptcy judge but it's sure looking that way. The replat lawsuit appears to be a sham. CRRA can not get 2/3 of owners to pass the bylaw change, that's why they postponed it while they conger up the next batch of snake oil. A group of active owners is doing a great job peeling back the onion and management is nervous. This whole mess will sort itself out in a few months. Have faith.
seriously

Seffner, FL

#4404 Jun 13, 2012
resident wrote:
Could we please hear from someone who is not on a developers payroll?
You already have, you just aren't listening
Behave CRR

Ellijay, GA

#4405 Jun 13, 2012
No Censorship wrote:
<quoted text> No owner observation allowed for handling of ballots or counting of ballots. Fact is the same people who so desperately want tiered dues to pass are the same people who have total physical control of the ballots. High praise to those who got the BOD to promise no proxy votes on tiered dues.

With the staggering number of unpaid lots, it is entirely possible that not enough ballots will arrive by the specified date to validate this year’s vote, even for Board Members.

It is comforting to know our BOD or POA would never deliberately change the published rules of an election for expediency sake or political purposes.
The manipulation of the vote occurs with the ballots returned to CRRA for "undeliverable address".

Some of “us” might have finally figures where the vote fixing comes from.

There are supposedly many ballots that get returned from “addresses undeliverable”. How can that be?

The ballots that get mailed out, by legal definition, have to be from owners who paid their dues on time otherwise they would lose their right to vote and not get a ballot, right?

The mailing addresses of the ballots that are supposedly undeliverable are the same addresses where the bill for the annual assessments were delivered to and subsequently paid, right?

Every year CRRA has claimed the same thing; that all these ballots were returned as undeliverable. How can that be since less than a month prior the dues bill arrived at the same address and was returned with payment in full?

I will ask all BOD members who read this forum to admit publicly about the "irregularities" of the last three CRR elections, especially last years elections. This is your LAST opportunity to set the record straight about last years election irregularities with a promise of forgiveness.

They say confession is good for the soul, if I were you I would take advantage of that, Last warning!. If not, it goes to the newspaper.

For those who know the details, be very careful. You never know who has what on tape. LAST WARNING!!!
Hi there

San Jose, CA

#4406 Jun 13, 2012
Behave CRR wrote:
<quoted text>
The manipulation of the vote occurs with the ballots returned to CRRA for "undeliverable address".
Some of “us” might have finally figures where the vote fixing comes from.
There are supposedly many ballots that get returned from “addresses undeliverable”. How can that be?
The ballots that get mailed out, by legal definition, have to be from owners who paid their dues on time otherwise they would lose their right to vote and not get a ballot, right?
The mailing addresses of the ballots that are supposedly undeliverable are the same addresses where the bill for the annual assessments were delivered to and subsequently paid, right?
Every year CRRA has claimed the same thing; that all these ballots were returned as undeliverable. How can that be since less than a month prior the dues bill arrived at the same address and was returned with payment in full?
I will ask all BOD members who read this forum to admit publicly about the "irregularities" of the last three CRR elections, especially last years elections. This is your LAST opportunity to set the record straight about last years election irregularities with a promise of forgiveness.
They say confession is good for the soul, if I were you I would take advantage of that, Last warning!. If not, it goes to the newspaper.
For those who know the details, be very careful. You never know who has what on tape. LAST WARNING!!!
There's a lot more than that on tape:) have a nice day.
Bob

Rome, GA

#4407 Jun 13, 2012
concerned wrote:
Bob,
So, it sounds like you have insider info. What do you think relative to replat for purpose of dues reductions and tiered dues? if we go to a tiered dues I like lot size but I know many who don't. Lot size seems easy. Others say not. Neighbor says lot sizes are not the eay to go. He gives an example of a small riverfront parcel paying less than someone with a little larger lot with no water or view paying more just for sq. Footage. I see his point but size just seems easy. Replat will cost me more too. Especially if Flint is allowed to replat.
For the record, i don't have any real insider info.
I read the posts, and other info sights and appy my best judgement

I wrote a detailed response to the rest of your questions. When I hit post, the reply disappeared into cyber space.

If it does not show up shortly, I will repost.
Bob

Rome, GA

#4408 Jun 13, 2012
concerned wrote:
Bob,
So, it sounds like you have insider info. What do you think relative to replat for purpose of dues reductions and tiered dues? if we go to a tiered dues I like lot size but I know many who don't. Lot size seems easy. Others say not. Neighbor says lot sizes are not the eay to go. He gives an example of a small riverfront parcel paying less than someone with a little larger lot with no water or view paying more just for sq. Footage. I see his point but size just seems easy. Replat will cost me more too. Especially if Flint is allowed to replat.
Here is what I think. I have now way to judge the effect on Revenue and any viable plan will have to be tested. I will pay higher dues in many scenarios. So I am speaking in terms of what may be sellable to the community etc.I also don't take into account all the legal details required. i am just applying a simple plan.

Replatting: I would only repoen this option if a valid engineering group states that two or more lots are required to build on.

replatting may be forced upon us by the courts. It was allowed at one time. If Flint wins the legal battle, The court will dictate the rules. Let's wait and see.

Tiered dues: I am not fan of the concept, but I want a vialble,well maintained community. If we must make a change, I am not infavor of lot size. If lot size is used, it could mean that a steep unusable property pays more than a river front lot. This does not make sense to me.

I would Break out some general groupings.I would structure them something like this:

1 Rental Properties pay the highest Dues level: This higher rate could be passed on to the vacationer/renter. The logic is that these type units put a greater burden on the ammenities and should pay a higher rate. the rentalowner also has the advantage of using the expenses as a tax writeoff.

All dues paid below would be frozen or increases capped to the inflation rate after the owner reaches the age of 67.

2, All Developed River front properties, Developed Combined lots, and all owners who own multiple lots pay at the next tier.

3, All other developed lots, All campground lots with permanent structures and all undeveloped lots the we granted a replatting based on bulding nees would pay at the next level.

4, All single undeveloped lots, and all other capmground lots pay at the lowest level.

Not scientific, just my thoughts. I would be willing to try to negotiate from here. No solution is going to please everyone.

I would also require that before tiered dues be allowed, That a budget review board independent from management be implimented to suggest and impliment budget savings. this may seem redundant, but the BOD and there committees at times may get to cozy with management. This is to be expected when they work together. The down side is that objectivity may suffer.

I would also cap the amount of Capital expenses that can be paid for from the dues revenues. Any large projects must be approved and funded by special assesments.

That would be my outline. i would validate from there.
seriously

Seffner, FL

#4409 Jun 14, 2012
Bob most of those riverfront lots are the steep unbuildable lots and as for rental property paying more, they already do. Rental properties have to pay extra each and everytime someone comes into our gates to rent. Now knowing these two facts, what would your next proposal be.
Bob

Rome, GA

#4410 Jun 14, 2012
seriously wrote:
Bob most of those riverfront lots are the steep unbuildable lots and as for rental property paying more, they already do. Rental properties have to pay extra each and everytime someone comes into our gates to rent. Now knowing these two facts, what would your next proposal be.
Well that proves i don't have insider information.
I don't think I would change my plan.

If we are going to teir dues, some general clasifications need to be used. Not a single one will be perfect.

Do you know what the gate fee for rental is?

My goal would be to try to facilitate a compromise with exsisting owners, and provide a climate that would bring potential new dues payers back into the fold.

I would also be as aggresive as the law allows on those who fall severely behind on dues payments.

I am also not opposed to selling the Villas to a outside party to cut the budget.(I we could find a taker). Any proceeds could be used for capital improvements on remianing facilities.

I don't think the POA should be in the business of trying to run a hotel (rental service). Even if we gain no sale income, the budget would be easier to balance.

I would leave the General Store opperating. It is the base for the tubing operation and for Pickin on the porch.. These are important community ammenity. I would focus on trying to make it more self sufficient, but in my mind it is critical to the ammenity package.

As I sid any dues structure change should not be approved without a serious look at cost reduction.

I am not in the slash and burn camp. I donot think employee furloughs provide an incentive for people to take ownership of their jobs. I do think the he benifit package needs to be reviewed. All businesses have had to make significant changes in this area over the past few years.

Just some additional thoughts.
No one action stands alone.
concerned

Anniston, AL

#4411 Jun 14, 2012
The gate fee is $26 per rental IF the owner actually is honest about it. Not all are. That is not an assessment per se. Should be double at least on top of a higher assesment.
Agreed we should immediately stop taking back lots without consequences.
Selling the villas might be reasonable but suspect legal complications and other problems surrounding that,but in theory a reasonable discussion.
BOD should find a compromise and settle the FT suit asap. Replatting on CRR terms better than court mandated terms.
Good ideas Bob. A sane voice of reason.
seriously

Seffner, FL

#4412 Jun 14, 2012
concerned wrote:
The gate fee is $26 per rental IF the owner actually is honest about it. Not all are. That is not an assessment per se. Should be double at least on top of a higher assesment.
Agreed we should immediately stop taking back lots without consequences.
Selling the villas might be reasonable but suspect legal complications and other problems surrounding that,but in theory a reasonable discussion.
BOD should find a compromise and settle the FT suit asap. Replatting on CRR terms better than court mandated terms.
Good ideas Bob. A sane voice of reason.
How would leaving the general store open all year round help when it only makes money about 5 months out of the year.
How do you know what if the court mandated terms will be worse for us, they might be better. We have our rules in place for a reason. Anything is better than what the board was wanting to do last year and that was let you replatt the lot and pay NO dues on that lot. Even the county doesn't give you a break on the taxes when you replatt. Great discussion points by the way. As for people being honest, if they know they aren't being honest then they know who to charge back at the end of the month.
questioning

Anniston, AL

#4413 Jun 14, 2012
seriously wrote:
Bob most of those riverfront lots are the steep unbuildable lots and as for rental property paying more, they already do. Rental properties have to pay extra each and everytime someone comes into our gates to rent. Now knowing these two facts, what would your next proposal be.
Isn't this person saying we should charge any riverfront prop more? Steep, gentle? Lot size is nuts unless you have additions built in. My 1.5a lot in the woods w/ myself and my wife only w/ most of it we can't use isn't worth anywheres near a 3/4 a river lot. House or no house. Rentals stuff people in and these poeple use our pools to the max. No way lot size people. Don't like what I saw at the meetings but lot size isn't right either.
Bob

Rome, GA

#4414 Jun 14, 2012
concerned wrote:
The gate fee is $26 per rental IF the owner actually is honest about it. Not all are. That is not an assessment per se. Should be double at least on top of a higher assesment.
Agreed we should immediately stop taking back lots without consequences.
Selling the villas might be reasonable but suspect legal complications and other problems surrounding that,but in theory a reasonable discussion.
BOD should find a compromise and settle the FT suit asap. Replatting on CRR terms better than court mandated terms.
Good ideas Bob. A sane voice of reason.
Thanks,$26 per rental is way to cheap. I know the owner wil also will have to provide the renters for guest passes to get into the pools etc. there is probably some revenue from these as well, but
all this should be reviewed. homeowners are subsidizing the heavier use. i am not against renals,just think if CRR is looking for a pocket to pick for revenue, this may be a place to look. Higer fees sould also apply to villa rentals.
seriously

Seffner, FL

#4415 Jun 14, 2012
So it's ok for a 9 acre lot 0n the river to pay the same as a .5 acre lot on the river, because that is what is being done today. We also have several 2 to 3 acre lots on the river that pay the same as a 1/2 acre lot. All of this is fair?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Ellijay Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Gilmer county Judge flips out in Waffle House 22 min Anti waffle house 18
Granny and paw 1 hr Brads place 1
Good News Cafe 5 hr greatest paw 6
Ellijay Topix taken over by vermin 6 hr disgusted 20
The owner of the Ellijay Times Courier's wife a... (Oct '11) 11 hr Rae 50
local ellijay girl on tumblr website yourpleasu... 20 hr wow 1
Gary Hyde resigns from BOE Tue Brads place 12

Ellijay News Video

Ellijay Dating
Find my Match

Ellijay Jobs

Ellijay People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Ellijay News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Ellijay

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]