[rustyp]

Originally Posted by Goldwingnut

I'd suggest that you read the entire thread, the bottom line is that the priority membership are giving the executive trail access which is not theirs to give and was paying the true owners nothing for it.

Originally Posted by Goldwingnut

Interesting question and one that I've given thought to also.
The inclusion of the Trail Fee in the Priority membership was a part of one of the services agreements when the executive courses were acquired by the SLCDD and VCCDD with the amenity's purchases. So, in this case there is likely no legal grounds for any recovery.

Post-amenities purchase significant responsibilities for oversight were given to both the AAC and the PWAC, including budgets. Why this was not noticed by the AAC in the previous budgeting cycles is beyond me. As for the PWAC, I and the rest of the committee members are taking a critical look at everything that comes before us to ensure what is approved is fair, reasonable, and in the best interest of the residents that we represent.

Some on both committees seem to go about their day with the mantra of "lets screw the developer over". An unhealthy attitude that serves no one well. The developer has no say in the decisions that are made by the PWAC and has one vote in the AAC. The developer is, however, a part of what happens with the growth of the community and their input must be considered in decisions for the long-term sustainability of the community. While the developer does appoint (the correct term is landowner elected, but with only one landowner appoint is a fitting word here) the members of the SLCDD and VCCDD board and these boards are the ones that actually own the amenities, they are smart enough recognize that the residents say in what happens with the amenities is absolutely critical, hence the existence of the AAC and the PWAC. (yes, I known the AAC came about because of the lawsuit, only part of their responsibilities were a result of this legal case - management of the lawsuit funds, these funds are nearly exhausted and the responsibilities that remain are nearly identical to the PWAC's). A win-win outcome is always a better solution than what is sought by the "let's screw the developer" crowd.

Did the PWAC catch the developer with the proverbial "hand in the cookie jar"? Perhaps. This is more akin to when Dad finds out and says No, and Mom knowing what was going on and by not saying No was giving a passive yes. Is punishment or restitution due? Perhaps not.

While I do see the logic the developer is giving away something not theirs to give I sincerely hope this decision is well thought out. I am not sure how you will measure a win / win. The developer carries a big stick as compared to the AAC and PWAC. The developer has many resources at their finger tips to show us who the boss is without hurting sales or their bottom line. Be careful. As they say some battles aren't worth fighting. I'm neutral on this one and trust you representatives will do the right thing for us owners in the long run. This seems to be going awful fast.