|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Some homeowners in Blackhawk are preparing for another fight over the possible sale of vacant lots owned by Blackhawk Country Club. In April 2009, the Country Club along with the Blackhawk Homeowners Association put forth a ballot issue to residents seeking an amendment to their rules that would allow the sale of the parcels on Birchwood Place and Live Oak, which are zoned for parks and recreation.
A heated debate broke out in the community over the issue with accusations flying in both directions. When votes were counted in May, the residents did not vote with a significant majority to amend the HOA’s codes.
Now residents say they may have to do it all over again.
Resident Luther Johnson, one of the strongest voices opposing the rules amendment and the sale of the parcels, recently sent out an e-mail to supporters warning them that the Country Club is bringing the issue back.
“The Blackhawk Country Club has made clear their intention to lobby the Blackhawk HOA to have a repeat election on the proposal that was just defeated in May,” he wrote.
Johnson stated that the tactic of bringing an issue back repeatedly is done to wear down the opposition in order to get the issue approved.
Another opponent, Bruce Corn said that he doesn’t see why the HOA would bring the vote back considering the circumstances behind the previous attempt.
“Even though the vote was slanted in the country club’s favor they still lost. And now they’re bringing it back. Is that a mulligan? Where you get to do it again?” he queried. “The people have spoken and they turned a deaf ear on this proposal.”
Blackhawk Country Club President Frank Elliot said the accusations being leveled against them are simply untrue.
“Once a month, we have a board meeting. We discussed a number of issues,” he said. “One of the issues we talked about is whether we were going to go for this again.”
Elliot said that in the previous campaign they asked the homeowners what they would have liked to see done differently.
“The outcome was really that there had been no change,” he said.
Elliot confirmed that officials from the country club met with opponents on July 21 to sound them out regarding what about the ballot issue they were against.
“We did tell them at the meeting that at some point the board would like to sell this land. Because we can’t use it,” he explained.
Still, he maintains that at this point, everything is exploratory, with no solid plans to go back to the homeowners.
“The country club continues to be in limbo on this. We’re taking suggestions under consideration, but at this time there’s no plan to go back for another vote,” he said. “We’re a little disappointed that some of the homeowners are trying to blow this up and make other homeowners think it’s something other than what it is.”
It is very arrogant for these H.O.’s that are in opposition to the sale of land surrounding the Country Club, we own the land and have the right to sell it as needed to support our financial situation, it is not a secret that most Country Clubs in the area are having a time of it with the decline in memberships and the decline in due’s, if the Club closed all facilities except the Golf Department the HO’s would have to find somewhere else to swim and play tennis with their children. Get past it people it’s not your land to dictate. We are talking about a few acres. Mr. Elliott is an outstanding President and he has included every opinion in the Club’s Residence and this issue is really about people want to keep their free small piece of open space that belongs to the Club.
Don’t bite the hand that helps you.
Joe Golfer.
The tactic of repeatedly attempting to ram something through on the hopes that the opposition will eventually be worn down is common in our society.
The way to put a stop to this nonsense is to require that proponents who lose their argument be required to give up something of value. In the case of the Blackhawk parcels, the next time it comes up for a vote, the proponents will need a simple majority of the vote PLUS TWO PERCENT!
If Alamo attempts an incorporation again all they will need is a simple majority of the vote PLUS TWO PERCENT!
Right now there is no deterrent for repeated ballot issues that fail miserably. Well let’s change that. Just add a two percent penalty vote requirement for any ballot measure that fails and is brought up again. And if the next ballot measure fails add another two percent!
Just to keep things fair, if the ballot measure is not brought up again within five years, then the two percent penalty would be erased.
If these opponents of selling our land are for real let them pay for the deficites that our club faces every year.I doubt that any of them could pony up a hundred bucks. These are the kind of people that like to run there mouths but have nothing to back them up.
In the article Frank Elliot is quoted as saying “accusations being leveled against them are simply untrue.”
The July 29th country club board meeting minutes say they are “considering requesting a re-vote” and “there was discussion on what kind of informational material should be included as well as specifics regarding the number of valid ballots to be included.”
In a July 13th Blackhawk Country Club letter to members, they say ” …regarding the Club’s proposal to sell parcels of land…If we revisit this project in the future, we will need even greater member support to ensure its success.”
The fact is, in the July 21st meeting with two board members, homeowners were told, “We intend to ask for a re-vote” (timing was not discussed). Their board’s July 29th meeting minutes and July 13th letter comments are consistent with this.
The homeowners aren’t trying to “blow this up.” We’re simply quoting what they told us and told their members (via the letter and minutes). So which is it? “Simply untrue” or that they communicated their intention to at some point ask for a re-vote?
I was present at the July 21 meeting when Frank Elliott (and Frank Trefeletti) told homeowners the Club intended to seek a new election. Now Frank says it is “simply untrue” and he’s “disappointed” in the people who are keeping this alive. What I find disappointing is that Frank says one thing to the homeowners and Club members, and then denies it in the press. While we may disagree on the issue, I would hope we could at least have an honest dialogue.
to clarify, the parcels in question aren’t “vacant lots.” If they werre, they wouldn’t need to be rezoned.