James C. Raymond (contributing writer) wrote--
Dear Eastman Blog Persons:
Dear Eastman Blog Persons:
I stumbled across your advertisement in the Kearsarge Shopper, and am amazed at the information you provided here.
I have lived in Eastman for almost 5 years and felt I was alone in a wilderness of golfers who had no worries whatsoever about the costs of their sport for anyone who lived in Eastman and was not a golfer. And this was before the issue of a new center was raised. I had simply been perusing the annual budget and was amazed to see all the capital expenses solely for golf purposes that was being paid for out of our annual HOA dues. Earlier, when I first bought a home here, I asked the Realtors what percentage of the HOA dues went to maintaining the golf club and was told they did not know but I could learn it by studying the budget. That is not easy, but it is most revealing.
When the idea of the new center was introduced is when I began studying the budget and that raised an entire new set of issues. Among them were the question of how many Eastman owners were golf members, and how the existing center suddenly became nearly ready to collapse in its present state of repair.
I have owned an even dozen homes so far in my life. Some of them were much older than the current center and some were brand new. But none of them needed a new roof, all new windows and a new air conditioning system all at once. So immediately the question comes to mind: how did all these systems need sudden replacement all in the same year, and how many years had they been ignored before they got to this point? It seemed to me that if they do need replacement, it could be done over several years so as to not seriously impact our already huge annual HOA budgets.
But the more I read about the new center plans, the more I felt it was so golf centric as to be suspicious to someone who has no interest in golfing, or dining at the golf course, or creating a facility large enough to sustain large wedding parties, dinners, etc. Nor did I find it reasonable that we suddenly needed to move ECA offices there for reasons that seemed oddly paired with the same urgency that was required to replace the current center. The old ECA offices were suddenly inadequate, expensive to run and maintain, and "belonged" in the new center. It all seemed to this non-golfer that efforts were being made to dilute the appearance that the new center was really a golf resort concept being blended with enough other uses so as to appear to be necessary to the non golfers here at Eastman.
To begin, it seems we need to determine several important facts:
1. Of the 1400+ owner addresses in Eastman who pay their annual HOA dues, how many are members of the golf club?
2. What would bidding look like to break the repair estimates into three groups done over three years: First, roofing, then windows and doors, and finally air conditioning, to see what impact that would have on our annual HOA dues if each of these was done separately, one group per year.
Next, and this is perhaps the most important: What do the majority of owners here in Eastman honestly feel about supporting the golf club? It could be that many of us (like myself) do not feel golf in any way improves my ability to increase the value of or sell my property and may, in fact, decrease those chances. It may well be that because of our very high HOA dues added to our high taxes, ownership here appears less and less desirable to those prospects who might become new Eastman owners.
It may be that a majority of Eastman owners might want to see the golf club go the way of the recent sewer district, and be sold or otherwise made the burden of golfers, not all of us.
Keep in mind that all of this is written with the thought that the most important thing we need to learn before anything is done is to determine what percentage of the 1400+ Eastman owners are golf club members. This means how many Eastman HOA dues payers, not couples or families who are counted as club members individually. (And non Eastman members of the golf club should have no say since they pay little or none of the true expenses of maintaining this golf club.)
If that number represents a majority of owners, then perhaps we must submit to their majority and proceed with plans to repair or replace the center. But we should do it knowing the complete picture about who will pay for it and for how long.
I personally do not believe any magnificent new clubhouse will ever make our golf course a destination for enough new golfers to make this club anywhere near self sustaining in our lifetimes. There is considerable realistic marketing available in the golfing, resort, and real estate worlds to either support or negate my belief.
In the meantime I hope nothing proceeds as swiftly as this project seems to be heading without some very careful, professional input about the financial consequences and the future nature of our lives and lifestyle here at Eastman.
The Center reached the same state of collapse as did the Water System and the Sewer System. There was no schedule or moneys set aside for repairs/replacements for any of them. Was that because of inept, ignorant management? Was it a deliberate effort to "low-ball" fees and assessments to make Eastman more attractive to owners and purchasers? Was it a little bit of both? Who knows?
ReplyDeleteSee contributing writer Schaefer's reply on 7/29/14.
DeleteLook. Golf should be a self-supporting endeavor. The restaurant in the Center should be a self-supporting endeavor. If they can't support themselves, they ought to be shut down. This is not the Eastman of over 30 years ago. Times and tastes change. Today's families have a different lifestyle and Eastman needs to change with it if we are to attract new families as residents.
ReplyDeleteECA members acquired the Golf Course in 1980 under the condition it be self-supporting and only required it be run as a golf course for 15 years. (see Post of June 12 Eastman Direct Vote) Up until 2012 the restaurant concessionaire paid rent and a portion of the utility cost. Now Eastman members pick up both costs unless gross revenues exceed $650,000.
ReplyDelete