Trusting social media

The results of the proposed assessment increase show that Bella Vista is simply a reflection of the nation as a whole — split right down the middle. Heck, it even matches what happened in the Electoral College.

Had the assessment election been decided by a simple majority, then bills would be going out increasing the monthly fee on both developed and undeveloped lots, but that's not the case. The Declaration requires that 51 percent of the ballots cast be in favor of the increase. So, the POA administration can salve the wound, knowing that the majority of voters wanted the assessment increase — but not quite enough of the majority.

A few days after the election, POA General Manager Tom Judson said he'd received an email from a person holding 40 lots, asking if there was still time to vote. It was the day after the election. The emailer was going to vote in favor of the assessment increase. Those votes would have changed the outcome for the increase of $9 a month on developed lots.

At the meeting held the day after the election to announce the decision on how the abstention votes would be counted, a member-comment session was held.

From a number of comments made, it became very clear that there is a giant nonunderstanding of the relationship between the POA, village developer Cooper Communities and the Architectural Control Committee.

Maybe nonunderstanding isn't a word — but it accurately describes what we saw.

Reading comments on Facebook posts reveals the same thing.

There are many, many people who buy a house in Bella Vista and do not understand what they are buying into. The fact that the lot is tied to membership in the POA — and all the things that go with it — are revealed at the time of closing. But we all know how closings go: The closing agent says sign here and here and here, then — Bingo — you own a home in Bella Vista.

These folks are shocked when they find out they MUST pay the monthly assessment. They say they bought a home here for whatever reason — but none of their reasons included using any of the amenities. Because of that, they see the POA as a dictator.

Turns out that they agreed to the terms of the dictatorship — but they either didn't understand, didn't care at the time or knew but forgot. Either way, these folks now see the POA as an opponent, the enemy.

That is a sad, painful situation that needs to be avoided. One solution is for the state to require better disclosure during the process — much earlier than at closing. Are there other ideas out there?

••• There is also a huge amount of mistrust between many members and the POA administration. Some is fueled by people who've never read (or don't care about) the Declaration and Covenants, some is fueled by the POA board's penchant for closed meetings. We've written before that — while the Board CAN meet in closed session — the Board should reserve that action for a very short list of issues: personnel issues, contract negotiations and legal strategy. Face it: The POA has no trade secrets to protect.

The POA board has the unenviable job of trying to represent the interests of an extremely varied group of people — from successful corporate executives who could have afforded to retire anywhere, but chose to retire here — to families just getting started in home ownership, families that are living paycheck to paycheck.

We've watched in amazement as people use social media to answer questions rather than turning to the official source.

An example: Want to build a fence in Bella Vista? You can ask on Facebook and get wildly varying answers, or you can ring up City Hall or the POA and ask — then get an answer from the group that can make you take down your brand new fence. They won't care one whit when you say, “But a guy on Facebook said that's how to do it.”

Social media posts are great for many things, but for getting a correct answer? Not so much. It may SEEM faster to just ask the world, but by the time you wade through all the responses in search of what seems to be accurate, a simple phone call or two would have revealed the correct answer. And why ask social media to provide the number? Clearly the writer has the Internet (because the person is able to post online), so just search for it yourself. But many people ask every question they have on social media. Why?

We trust our friends. Study after study shows that happens because, well, we know them. And if we know them, it's in their best interest to not steer us wrong. Right? Sure. But that assumes they know the answer, or if they don't they won't just guess. We'll ask a question: Would you ask a group of friends if this particular mushroom is safe to eat — and if the group said yes, would you eat it? (Believe it or not, we saw that exact post on a social media site last week.) So, why build a fence that way?

One thing POA GM Tom Judson has talked about is how much misinformation was out there about the assessment increase.

“They can say anything they want, but I have to always tell the truth,” he said.

Therein lies the problem, on a local scale and a national scale: It's easy to lie, but it's hard to tell it's a lie. It's easy to be wrong, but hard to determine if it's wrong.

On a national scale, it's easy for a website to post a fake story. It's not illegal.

On a local scale, it's easy

for someone to post “a fact” about the POA. It's not illegal.

In many cases, the fake story takes some effort to disprove. And if a friend shared it, it must be right. Right?

We saw this unfold nationally by people in both candidates' camps. The websites have authentic-sounding, authoritative names. At the end of the day, though, there's only one term for what happened both locally and nationally: Propaganda.

As consumers of social media, we all must look at every source — including this newspaper — to determine the veracity. Democracy, and membership in the POA, requires people to take some personal responsibility.

Because, are you really going to eat that mushroom because most people on your favorite social media site said it is safe?