Say NO to the Lowball Offer
After four long years Preserve Plantation would like to thank the former agent acting on behalf of the River Club for finally admitting that The Master Declaration Contract is valid, is operative and applies to the golf course. Past statements lambasting the intervenors' cause were obfuscations, despite the pleadings in the public record of a former Federal Judge and were intended to divide this community. We can only hope that the neighbors in the Plantation Community have now come to appreciate the fact that the admission of the validity of the contract would never have happened without the efforts of Preserve Plantation, “objectors, the “intervenors” and the many contributors that have been part of our defense of the golf course common space. All the bad will in the neighborhood could have been averted if the agent acting on behalf of the ownership group had been honest and admitted to what they knew to be true almost 8 years ago. THE MASTER DECLARATION HAS APPLIED TO THE GOLF COURSE ALL ALONG! So now that we have an admission that we were right all along and that the developers did not tell the whole truth, we must ask, should we now believe the developers and accept their lowball offer?
The answer is a resounding NO!
The validity of the Master Declaration Contract (MDC), though already admitted to by the developer, needs to be ruled upon in District Court. Hopefully, that will happen on Monday, or at least soon thereafter. Had the HOA simply stayed in the fight, they would have been entitled to an award of their attorney's fees due to the Developer defending this case without a good faith basis in law or fact. Instead, the HOA was charged for excessive legal fees by an attorney whose advice turned out to be incomplete and who for all intents integrated and failed to separate the interests of her clients with the developer. Who was she representing?
The request for a “Special Meeting” of the Master Association needs to be properly noticed under the terms of the Master Declaration. It fails on at least three counts, and we are confident that our position in that regard will be upheld.
We would like to avoid further litigation. However, The HOA though working closely with Mr. Gustafson, has not done their appropriate due diligence and has not fulfilled their fiduciary duty to those they represent before they have presented the (MDC) for Amendment via a vote. Cutting the intervenors out of settlement negotiations will only result in further litigation against the HOA. We do not want to do this, but the HOA with the cooperation and even facilitation of the developer and property owner is trying to do an end run around the litigation which they have misrepresented regarding the merits; we will have little choice. Unfortunately, this litigation may come at a cost to the HOA to unwind the invalidly noticed proposed amendments. Let’s stop and have some thoughtful deliberations before accepting an opening lowball offer.
The offer made by the Developers is a lowball offer that must be rejected. Many people I talk to including developers and assessors value the golf course property at well over nine figures. The lowball offer of a $500,000 contribution to the HOA is 0.16% of the commercial value of the property! This is a legacy property right held by every member of The Master Association that is the organization’s most valuable asset, and to give that up for less than 1% value, with no appraisal, is lunacy.
To present the proposition of Amendment to the property owners without first a proper appraisal of the property is careless and is not acting as either a guardian or steward with the responsibility given to them by the homeowners---not the former agent acting on behalf of ownership. We hereby respectfully ask that the HOA conduct an independent appraisal of the value of the restrictive covenants on the property before taking any further action on this improperly noticed vote on vaguely defined amendments.
Furthermore, the proposed settlement leaves more questions than it does answers.
Has the HOA Board actually seen the proper documentation confirming the ownership of the property by Mr. Gustafson?
Have they requested and reviewed his financial positions making sure he will not need to sell off anymore property as he may choose to lever this particular asset for future investments and place future creditors in the position of determining what happens to the golf course property.
Has Mr. Gustafson or Mr. Taunton placed any of the pieces of the property in Glass Creek into a conservation easement? What did they value that property at and how and why---for a legal tax write-off. This valuation may be extrapolated to the whole of the golf course we are being asked to release from restrictive covenants.
These are all questions that need to be addressed on behalf of the homeowners before any vote is taken at all.
Otherwise, one is left to believe that the HOA Board is acting as an agent for the developer and not as a fiduciary for the homeowners who elected them.
Again, we would never have gotten to the position we are in today without Preserve Plantation. You are welcome and we look forward to helping the process move along quickly with all parties at the table for settlement discussions.
We continue to believe that the Master Declaration Contract (MDC) remaining in place without Amendment is the single best way to preserve our golf course.
Rushing forward to a vote by the Association that has been improperly noticed, researched, and understood leads to many more problems.
The vale of virtue with a financial inducement can be very thin and easy to cross.
We look forward to seeing everyone on Monday at the Ada County Court House.
STEADY EVEN PRESSURE