LET­TERS ED­I­TOR TO THE

The Weekly Vista - - Opinion -

Dis­ap­pointed

I would like to thank all those who came to the Prop­erty Own­ers As­so­ci­a­tion board meet­ing Thurs­day, emailed, called or stopped by to dis­cuss my pro­posal to pur­chase the ArkMo prop­erty from the POA.

Be­fore I sub­mit­ted my pro­posal, I spent hun­dreds of hours walk­ing the prop­erty, talk­ing with en­gi­neers and of­fi­cials, de­vel­op­ing plans, run­ning num­bers and pre­par­ing my pro­posal ma­te­ri­als. I was will­ing to put my per­sonal and pro­fes­sional rep­u­ta­tion and my fi­nan­cial fu­ture on the line to move for­ward with a qual­ity de­vel­op­ment for that prop­erty, va­cant since pur­chased in 2000.

I was shocked that the POA would en­ter­tain an of­fer emailed five hours be­fore the meet­ing by a phan­tom buyer who would not stand up in a pub­lic meet­ing or even al­low their name to be re­vealed.

The board chair­man ref­er­enced an ap­praisal they had from 2014. One thing I learned in my al­most 20 years as a state-cer­ti­fied ap­praiser, is that with­out a ready-will­ing-and-able buyer, an ap­praisal is merely a pile of pa­per.

A board mem­ber dis­cussed how if the POA were fi­nanc­ing the project, they would in essence be the de­vel­oper. Not so. The POA would merely be the bank, col­lect­ing the prin­ci­pal and in­ter­est pay­ments. I would have been the per­son spend­ing 12-16 hours, seven days a week work­ing on the project. I would have been the per­son pay­ing for the flood study, the sur­vey­ing, the en­gi­neer­ing, the soils test­ing, all of the Health Depart­ment and other agency ap­provals. I would have been the per­son walk­ing the prop­erty for hours and hours de­ter­min­ing the best way to di­vide it, while still main­tain­ing the beauty and eco­log­i­cal at­tributes of that prop­erty so that po­ten­tial pur­chasers would have a qual­ity en­vi­ron­ment in which to live. I would have been the per­son de­vel­op­ing the covenants to pro­tect the land and en­sure that the build­ings were built with en­ergy ef­fi­cient and healthy build­ing ma­te­ri­als and were prop­erly sited.

Through­out the as­sess­ment in­crease vote last year, COO Tom Jud­son kept talk­ing about how tired all of the POA build­ings are. My top thought af­ter leav­ing the meet­ing was that there is just no vi­sion to see Bella Vista as a mod­ern and for­ward-think­ing com­mu­nity where dif­fer­ent res­i­den­tial ideas and unique ar­chi­tec­ture is wel­comed.

I am dis­ap­pointed at the im­pe­tus to have Bella Vista stay tired and out­dated. Linda Lloyd Bella Vista

A sim­ple mes­sage

OK, Trump elec­tors, it comes to this: “You bear the blame, and you share the shame!”

It doesn’t get clearer than that. J. R. “Doc” Ir­win Bella Vista

Liquor li­cense ques­tion

Why is the Prop­ery Own­ers As­so­ci­a­tion liquor li­cense in the per­sonal name of the busi­ness de­vel­op­ment di­rec­tor, Tommy Lee, and not in the POA?

It seems to me it should be in the name of the POA, and we wouldn’t have had that prob­lem with the Al­co­hol Bev­er­age Con­trol Board. Mil­lie Foree Bella Vista

Shirk­ing re­spon­si­bil­ity

We elect our pub­lic of­fi­cials to rep­re­sent us and guide us to a bet­ter fu­ture. We elect enough of them to our na­tional, state, county and city of­fices to make sure that there is an ad­e­quate num­ber within the group to posses the ed­u­ca­tional qual­i­fi­ca­tions, in­tel­li­gence, ex­pe­ri­ence and ex­per­tise to ac­com­plish the mis­sion as­signed to them. In most cases we pay them enough to com­pen­sate for the work they do. That’s the way it has al­ways been in the past.

How­ever, it is now be­come a com­mon prac­tice for these pub­lic of­fi­cials to shirk their re­spon­si­bil­i­ties and hire an out­side con­sul­tant to do the plan­ning and take on the du­ties that these of­fi­cials were elected to do. These con­sul­tants can paint a rosy pic­ture that does not in­clude where the money for all the great ideas is go­ing to come from.

At the end of the day the pipe dream dwin­dles to noth­ing be­cause the pub­lic of­fi­cials re­al­ize they can’t find the funds to ac­com­plish what the con­sul­tant has pro­posed. With this fail­ure, the pub­lic of­fi­cials can avoid the blame be­cause they will say it was the con­sul­tant’s fault and they had noth­ing to do with it. At this point, all the tax­pay­ers have to show for their hard earned money is a highly paid con­sul­tant laugh­ing his way back to a bank in Chicago, Dal­las or New York City. Jim Par­sons Bella Vista

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.