This newspaper launched an investigation of, and began reporting on, the Big Canoe 2016 Land Deal back in August of 2018. After over 6 months of trying to ignore the matter, the Big Canoe POA Board of Directors finally issued a 1 Page Letter in response to the facts and allegations reported on. I replied with a Rebuttal Article a few days later, along with releasing a POLL to garner community opinion so far. The next day, on Thursday March 14, 2019 in an open Board Work Session, the Board again responded in an open Board Work Session that was videotaped. The video portion regarding the Land deal starts around Timestamp 51:30 and runs about the next 40 minutes.
It was a fiery meeting. The Board made several misleading and blatantly false statements. Grant Grimes & Jay Goldman specifically did not conduct themselves well in my opinion. Dudley “Angry Napoleon” Devore lived up to his nickname. Jim Farinholt was the only shining star, with a brief moment in which I thought he showed exceptional character. Other than Carolyn Littel, who is the Developer Representative on the Board, Jim was the only other Board Member actually serving at the time of the Land Deal. Here is Jim speaking at timestamp 1:14:18:
“I’ll be honest, I was on the board at the time. We did not know that this property was being transferred, and so designated, as common property. We do now.”
I have never been able to figure Jim out. He seems like a sincerely decent person. I think that for myself, I have determined in my mind that he is. I’m sure we may still share different perspectives, but he is one of the Board members that I do think actually tries to be “one of the good guys”. I personally do not think he was ever part of any “conspiracy” to defraud property owners. But I still do not think he understands some of the critical issues involved, and fails to grasp the serious degree of failure involved in their oversight of the 2016 Land Deal. I also think he is way too trusting of a POA Attorney Staff that appears to me as either utterly incompetent, or compromised in integrity.
On the flip side we have Grant Grimes. He said the some things that demand a response from me simply in order to set he record straight. At video timestamp 1:18:08 Grant Grimes said the following in response to WHY they won’t release the Purchase Sales Agreement:
“The biggest reason now is David Hopkins has, and continues to, threaten litigation (… then skip to timestamp 1:18:26 …) “We have offered for David to come meet with us to express his concerns. He continues to respond only through his blog, and facebook. And because of litigation it is ill advised for us to put every piece of laundry we’ve got out on the table, because we’re simply giving him more ammunition to find more things to pick on”
In regards to grant’s Statement, “We have offered for David to come meet with us to express his concerns.“ That is not true. Categorically false. Not by verbal or written offer has this occurred to the best of my memory. If I am in error here, I request that the Board refresh my memory as to the time and circumstances as to when this offer was made. Also…. in regards to “express your concerns”…. Please explain what parts of my reporting are confusing you. I think you are perfectly aware of the “Concerns”. This is a non issue, and there is nothing stopping the Board from responding to the community regarding these very public matters. You also need to get over this “David” obsession. You just ignored an entire roomful of Property Owners demanding answers and records. I wasn’t even there. Quit hiding behind me as an excuse to ignore the issues of Property Owners. While I am a Property Owner, I am also “the Newspaper” reporting on these matters. When the Atlanta Journal-Constitution releases a corruption story on the Mayor (or whoever), and the citizens get angry and demand answers – the accused don’t blame, or hide behind excuses involving, the AJC. This is basically the same situation, no matter how you try and spin it. It is the FACTS AND ALLEGATIONS that need responding to, not “David”.
Also, in regards to Grant Grime’s excuse that they can’t release the records/documents because of MY threats of litigation, “David Hopkins has, and continues to, threaten litigation“, that is utter B.S. As far back as August of 2018 I was attempting to negotiate with the Board to get these documents. On August 15 I put in a very detailed 7 Page Records Request. It outlined my legal justifications, my concerns and the reasons for my request very professionally submitted on the 1st 5 pages, and then on the last 2 pages listed the specific records I was seeking. There were no threats of litigation, all was very professional, detailed, organized, and statement of fact. Everyone should read it and judge the state of my “tone”. Because THIS is how it all began – before the social media character assassination squad was launched against me – which happened shortly after this request was made.
Following is the response letter I received from the POA Attorney, George Nowack. See the Highlites. HE TOLD ME TO SUE THEM IF I WANTED THOSE DOCUMENTS! That was the first reference to a lawsuit in this matter – made by the POA Attorney, as he refused to provide the requested documents, citing them as “Confidential”. So it is a bit self-serving and disingenuous to now claim they can’t provide them because I have offered to take them up on their offer.
There is a lot more I could say, but this tit-for-tat phase we have entered into is not productive. The Board has satisfactorily addressed only one issue clearly…. That they have no intention of cooperating.
At this time I will instead begin to focus the next phase of things, which currently involves my updating the community on the results of the POLL that was attached to my last rebuttal. FYI…. it is not too late to take the POLL and potentially add yourself to the list of people to be notified of an upcoming Public Meeting.
POLL RESULTS ARE IN:
Below are screen shots of the Questions and the Response Breakdowns and Percentages.
Brief update. The numbers above are from Saturday morning March 16, as I began to prepare this article. As of publication time, Sunday late afternoon March 17 2019, the responses have changed as follows:
SECTION 1: Are you a Big Canoe Property Owner?
Yes, I am a Big Canoe property owner 97% (97)
No, I am not a Big Canoe property owner 3% 3
SECTION 2: Do you believe that the Board has satisfactorily, openly, and transparently addressed Issues regarding the 2016 Land Deal?
No 84% (81) / Yes 10% 10 / Neutral 6% 6
SECTION 3: Do you support a process by Property Owners to begin evaluating the need to seek outside counsel/investigation?
Yes 88% (85) / No 12% 12
SECTION 4: Would you like to attend an initial Open Meeting of Property Owners to discuss the facts to date, weigh available options, and provide input/feedback on pursuing a path forward?
Yes 61% (59) / No 39% 38
So we currently have a clear set of indicators – (84%) of respondees do not think the Board is handling this well enough; (88%) support evaluating an outside counsel/investigation; and (61%) – or 59 people – want to actively engage and attend an initial, open, planning meeting. I hope this puts to bed the oft repeated notion of the Board’s Core Supporters – that it’s just David and a handful of nuts that care about this. These are substantial numbers, and not indicative of a handful of fringe nut cases. HOPEFULLY, the Board will pay attention to this, read the tea leaves, and change course… to one that represents the desires of the Property Owners, and not the Developer. And maybe they will finally start taking this seriously, and release ALL the documents and records at issue. It could save us all a lot of time, money, and legal effort.
But if not – we have more than enough community support to get started. We are moving forward. I will be emailing all people, who have so requested to be notified, a time and date for an initial meeting, which I hope to occur within 10 day at the latest (shooting for March 22 – 27). We may even break it up into 2 meetings. The only obstacle is time and preparation and organization on my end. I am working to prepare a Clear, Concise, yet Comprehensive Presentation Outline of what the facts are; what the challenges are; what my conversations so far with Attorneys have revealed; some thoughts on organization and action items, etc.
Below are some general Goals / Outlines of the Meeting as I am currently envisioning it:
- Part 1 ~ A basic presentation, backed up by written outline, so that people can get a an idea of the overall history of the Land Deal, and a line item of the “open issues / allegations” involved. This will include a basic breakdown of potential financial damages the community could have suffered.
- The above is envisioned to be followed by an open Q&A session to fill in any missing pieces, and to address specific concerns of property owners.
- Part 2 of the Presentation will focus on establishing “Achievable Goals”. We will move past the drama, the blame games, and low level issues of “they did something dumb” – and we are going to focus on specific, line item goals of things we believe we want to come out of this. I will break this down as I see it in advance, but final decisions will be made as much by group concensus as possible….
- A) Get the Facts! This means records. The focus on getting the records is of primary concern. The Board’s Attorney told me in writing 7 months ago that it would take a court order. It’s time to take them at their word.
- Part 3 will involve discussion of the issues and options of achieving the prior step – of getting the records through a legal process. This will include selecting a core group to be liasons to hold preliminary consultations with an outside legal team / counsel. Possibly selections of sub committees to do support work. There is still substantial research and organization to be done. I could use the help, and I will identify some actionable areas that people could volunteer for.
- I think it is premature to go any farther than Step 3 in regards to setting additional Goals. The facts and the advice / input of counsel will dictate the course of things.
I have started working on the Presentation Outlines, with the help of a small unofficial “Advisory Team” that I pull ideas from, and check with to see if they think my direction is sound. Will pick a time for a meeting soon, and then will shoot out email invitations around March 20 – 22.
If anyone hasn’t taken the POLL yet, and would like to be on the Invite List, then please do so.
Following is a Link to the Poll. All responses are confidential. No personal information will be shared. There are only 4 questions. The Initial Open Meeting(s) will be “Invitation Only” for those that express interest in seriously and legitimately exploring the Legal Remedies Available.
2016 Land Deal POLL
* exclusively for Big Canoe Property Owners
PS… Join Your Fellow Property Owners at our Facebook Group. Discussions are beginning to set up Property Owner Comittees (POCs) to deal with the following perceived issues:
1) Land Deal
2) Financial & Accounting Review Teams
3) Governance Review Teams, and
4) Big Canoe Identity Crisis Discussion
(Establishing a Community Wide Survey/Poll to see what WE think of OUR future)
Be the first to comment