More on 'Who’s Watching the Store?'

First, I’d like to thank Mr. Sheldon for his eye-opening letter in the March 21 edition of the Weekly Vista.

It confirmed a number of suspicions that I personally hadn’t taken the time to validate.

Regarding the golf courses, there seems to be a pervasive, flawed, circular logic (perhaps perpetuated by golfers) that by

funding golf courses out of general assessments, we are securing our property values because our amenities attract new residents. However, if our golf courses are hemorrhaging cash at a rate of over $2 for every dollar invested out of both assessments and user fees, how is that good for our community? It seems like just another example of the old adage “lose a little bit on each one but make it up on volume.”

I certainly have no interest in supplementing over 50 percent of the cost of other Bella Vistans’ hobby, nor do I expect my fellow property owners to fund any of my hobbies at that rate. The second point regarding our golf courses is how did the “Golf Bella Vista Card” get approved? When I purchased property in Bella Vista, I did so with the full expectation that I would be paying monthly fees which went towards recreational amenities in exchange for which I would enjoy reduced user fees, and that those amenities were for the exclusive use of Bella Vistans. Now, we are letting non-property owners use our amenities at a cost equal to or below what property owners pay. I have even less interest in supplementing any amount of a non-property owners’ golf round. I am not opposed to letting outsiders use our amenities; however, they should pay the fully-loaded cost. If that’s $120 per round, so be it.

Finally, I have to question the overall financial responsibility of our current POA leadership. In one breath, they are telling us what dire monetary straights the POA is in, but yet they are spending significant amounts of money on discretionary projects, like Lake Point, in an area of the budget which already has plenty of red ink. A manager in any well-run organization would have an extremely short career if his area of responsibility was in as bad of financial shape as the POA. If the golf and food divisions cannot support themselves, obviously they are not providing good value, not sufficiently important to enough people, or both. Let’s get some leadership in place that can either make these operations self-sustaining with modest supplementation out of general assessments or have the courage to acknowledge the obvious and eliminate them. Until then, any assessment increase votes will receive a resounding “No” from me. Christopher G. Tabat Bella Vista