LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Go Away POA? How does that happen?

For some time now we have heard and seen the phrase “Go Away POA,” It’s catchy. It rhymes. It implies we could continue to have the Bella Vista we enjoy, or maybe even better, without paying assessments. Sounds appealing. How would it work? To start, it would require two-thirds of our total ownership to vote in favor of abolishing the POA (around 22,000 of 33,000 lots). We rarely get even half our property owners to cast a ballot and split a vote on any proposal. In other words, we typically have fewer than a quarter of our property owners who vote alike on any given issue. But for this analysis, let’s assume it could happen.

The primary “Go Away POA” argument has been that the city could take over our amenities and operate them as a Parks and Recreation Department. But, according to Mayor Christie, to make that happen the city would have to increase our current 3 mil property tax rate by 24 mils. You can do the math for your own property. Take your current annual property tax, multiply it by 8, then add that number back to your current tax. We would each trade a few hundred dollars in annual POA assessments for many thousands of dollars in increased property tax. And that doesn’t even address the issues of how, and at what costs, could our amenities be legally acquired by the city.

And while the city can, and has, raised our property taxes, the necessary amount would exceed their currently allowable limits. Not to mention the effect on property values, and the future of Bella Vista, if homes with current annual tax bills of $1,500 suddenly became $13,500.

We’ll leave it to Mayor Christie to explain the complexities of tax revenue sharing, etc., but he has repeatedly stated that it is simply not feasible for the city to take over our amenities.

Having two-thirds of our property owners vote in favor of abolishing the POA would indeed make our assessments go away, along with the POA board, management, and all employees. Since it’s not feasible to transfer amenities to the city, all golf courses, clubhouses, restaurants, exercise facilities, and other buildings would be shuttered. All lakes, trails, parks, tennis courts and playgrounds would be abandoned.

Perhaps some other entity could develop a vision, and find a highly complex mechanism to legally, financially, and practically acquire and manage some or all of the amenities. But the hurdles would be formidable enough, and the risks high enough, to make that very unlikely. And the longer things remained abandoned, the less likely such a rescue would be.

Or we can continue to have all the things we currently enjoy, and much more. All attractively rejuvenated and well maintained, for $33 a month for improved lots and $19 a month for unimproved lots.

Have a look at the Rejuvenation Plan on the POA website. You won’t find catchy, empty rhymes. You’ll find a real plan. Bob Brooks and Ron Stratton Chair and Vice Chair POA Board of Directors Bella Vista

Bella Vista Patriots? Not by definition

A couple of days ago, I first really noticed the American flags on the large Bella Vista Patriots “Vote NO” sign near Cunningham Corner. Why national flags on a political sign for a very local community issue? I assume that it is to reinforce the vote-no message by implying it is patriotic to vote no.

According to the online Merriam-Webster dictionary, the definition of a patriot is “one who loves his or her country and supports its authority and interests.” At least 10 years of active opposition by the BV Patriots to anything and everything the BV POA proposes hardly meets that definition.

But misleading credentials aside, the message may be valid. Mr. Judson and the POA board have laid out a five-year plan that appears to be in the interest of POA members who realize our communal facilities are deteriorating. As a home owner, I know that maintenance and upkeep of property is expensive. Common sense tells me that 31 cents per day is reasonable for bringing the village back up to the standards most of expected when we moved here.

But, aside from the cost, which I assume the majority of us can afford, perhaps there are other reasons for voting “No,” as the BV Patriots would like. Should I reconsider my position?

If there were good reasons for voting No, Google doesn’t find them for me. Further, the BV Patriots fails to provide any reasons to vote No or a plan for maintaining

our amenities without an assessment increase. Nothing. Not even their organization’s goals or their position vis-avis the Bella Vista Property Owners Association.

I am a 23-year military veteran, and feel I am more patriotic than most. As such, I intend to vote “Yes” for the assessment increase. I would vote “No” if it made good sense, or if I was presented good reasons.

Jerry Argetsinger Bella Vista

Bella Vista POA needs a Plan B

The top two reasons people give for moving to Bella Vista are the low cost of housing and the love of nature. Yes, our amenities are a bonus, but they are rarely the reason for people to move here.

I have been selling property in Bella Vista for 15 years. I know Bella Vista — the demographics, the geographics, the politics and the factors that motivate people to move here.

Our POA leaders are telling us that this new assessment proposal will increase the value of our property. I guess this is one of those things that seems “intuitively obvious” but cannot be proven.

There is a group on Facebook called “Bella Vista Neighbors.” Someone in this group asked the question as to why people moved to Bella Vista. Here are some of the many answers: “Less severe winters, one of the lowest violent crime rates in the nation, economical housing, lower cost of living, beautiful scenery, plentiful walking trails. We don’t golf or fish, but there’s plenty of both here for those who do.” And: “The natural beauty of the area and the lower cost of living said pick NWA. The hills, trees, lakes and lower home cost said pick BV.” And another: “We are both from the Midwest but lived on the East Coast for years. The beauty of the area impressed us, and the prices convinced us this was the town for us.”

This went on and on with not a single person mentioning amenities.

We need an assessment increase, but not one that allows our POA leaders to realize a pipe dream of making Bella Vista the amenities Mecca of northwest Arkansas. We cannot logically or economically justify creating amenities that only one or two percent of our residents will utilize. We cannot justify rebuilding, relocating, or remodeling facilities for our POA administration every few years. These types of proposed enhancements will only lead to increased maintenance and future assessment increase requirements.

A POA board member was giving a presentation in the Highlands about the changes to the Scotsdale Golf Course. One member of the audience said he had talked to many golfers and could find no one in favor of the changes. He asked the board member whose idea it was to make these changes. The board member answered “It was my idea.” We cannot ask for assessment increases if they are going to be spent on the whims of individual board members.

Chief operating officer Tom Judson was asked what Plan B is if this assessment increase does not pass. He answered that there is no Plan B. I would suggest a good Plan B would be to ask for an assessment increase that would allow us to maintain our current amenities and provide enhanced amenities, not based on the whim of board members, but when requested by a significant number of members.

That sounds like a good place to start to me.

Larry Blech Bella Vista