As one controversial vote is ratified on a national basis, several other votes loom in our community. First is the vote to determine future HOA leadership and second is a vote to confirm a near-term redevelopment plan for the Club West Golf Course.
Both votes are critical to the long-term viability of the community and should therefore be made with thoughtful considerations.
As you consider the candidates, I believe the community is best served by a diverse board, particularly in regards to mindset and geographic location. Most are aware that four to five of the new Board candidates are members of the CWC.
While I am not against the CWC having board representation, I am not sure that a board “packed” with three to five like-minded CWC members is in the best interest of the community.
Similarly, I’m not sure it’s prudent to “pack” the board with three to five CWC members that live on golf-oriented lots within a 450’ radius of each other. This might make a good storyline for the Lifetime Movie Network.
Instead, consider electing a board that provides geographic diversity with candidates that live both on and off the golf course.
I believe it’s fair to acknowledge that the CWC remains steadfast in its agenda to limit the current Board’s actions, including the denying of the community to consider potential re-development plans for the golf course. Selfishly, the CWC has chosen a self-serving path of litigation.
Imagine if the CWC successfully “packs” the board and further embraces litigation as the most logical approach to solving community issues. This approach would come at a tremendous expense to the community, both financially and aesthetically. Before you vote, consider if litigation is in the best interest of the community or rather a self-serving tactic of the CWC.
I believe the vast majority of Club West residents agree that a meaningful and timely executed re-development solution for the golf course is paramount.
Regardless, of the CWC’s current litigation and delay tactics, the Edge and Community Land Solutions are pursuing all avenues to present the Community with timely re-development options.
If there is one fact you take away from this article, please consider that the Edge and CLS are 100-percent indifferent to the ultimate re-development plan for the golf course.
Additionally, we support the process to confirm any re-development plan with a vote by the community.
So again, as you consider your ballot, remember that over the past 15-months, the CWC has not provided a single re-development solution to CLS, the board or the community for consideration.
Mike Hinz reiterated this fact in his recent community letter. Under Matt Tyler’s leadership, the CWC has failed miserably in its ability to provide a single viable redevelopment solution with financial support.
Regardless of the CWC’s ongoing antics, CLS is available to meet with the CWC to discuss any rational golf course solutions that are in the best interest of the community.
So here is the reality of any proposed re-development plan for the property. First, we recognize that no one solution exists that everyone will embrace.
More importantly, there is no solution that is “free.” There are fixed costs associated with the property, including land costs, pursuit costs and property taxes. In addition, there are improvement costs associated with any approved re-development plan.
The Edge and CLS are not charitable nor philanthropic entities, so two sources of funds remain to finance any re-development plan. Those sources include the sale of land and lots and member contributions.
Land and lot sales are fairly straight forward with total revenues dictated by current market conditions. Member contributions can be in various forms, including special assessments, voluntary contributions and/or various debt instruments.
The ultimate financial structure to any solution will determine the tradeoff between the quantity of residential development and member contributions.
Again, the Edge and CLS are 100 percent indifferent as to how the community votes to finance the agreed-upon redevelopment solution. For example, we remain indifferent to a CWC sponsored solution that includes no homes and requires 100 percent community funding.
Alternatively, we are acceptable to any solution that allows for responsible residential development that requires no financial contributions from the community.
At the end of the day, take a step back and consider the potential outcomes of your vote. Vote responsibly and understand the true motivations of the candidates. Support diversity in your candidates and press for open minded solutions that enhance the overall well-being of Club West.
The sooner we end the CWC’s litigation, the sooner we can arrive at community-based solutions.
Mike Hare lives in the Foothills and is a member of Community Land Solutions.