Big Canoe Covenant Series (Pt 2): Long Range Rights & Plans Of the Developer to Use B.C. as a “Cash Cow” Resort

developer-milking-complacent-big-canoe-poa-cow

Someone on Facebook recently asked the following Question: “Is it me or does it seem like the powers to be are trying to turn this into a Resort rather than a nice community.. ? “

I thought that was a pretty good question, but in order to find the truth we must be willing to dig deeper than Facebook level of conversations, and to begin sorting through confusing legalese documents AND ask ourselves, “WHY are the powers to be trying to turn this into a Resort rather than a nice community?” In other words, what is the underlying plan and profit motive?

BEGINNING HINT: Think Developer “Resort Cash Cow” as you read through the carefully orchestrated changes to the covenants that took place over decades, doing so with the combined knowledge that when the word “INN” is mentioned in the covenants, we are not neccesarily talking about a friendly, quaint, small establishment. Ga Code O.C.G.A. § 43-21-1(2) defines it: (2) “Inn” means all taverns, hotels, and houses of public general entertainment for guests.

The source of of our problems can be traced primarily to Pages 7 – 13 of the 2005 Amended Declarations & Covenants document, specifically Section 4; items #10, #14, #15 & #18-27. Furthermore Section 5; items (d) and (k). If you are feeling brave, and wish to find out how completely we are owned by the Developer, you can even read Section 7 (Pgs 11 – 13) of the above document, or revisit our Pt.1. Covenant Series Article. Also, the Section 4 Items shown below contain a reference to the original section within the 1988 Amended and Restated General Declarations and Covenants (ARGDC) for those wishing to dive in deep.

2005 Covenant Section 4 #10: “Public access to any inns or restaurants. “
1988 Covenant Reference: Art. I Section 1(h)(3) of 1988 ARGDC (Pg. 6) Excerpt Below:

2005 Covenant Section 4 #14: “Annex then contiguous properties; provided property separated by a public road shall be deemed contiguous.”
1988 Covenant Reference: Art. II Section 2 of 1988 ARGDC (Pgs. 11-12) Excerpt Below:

2005 Covenant Section 4 #18: “Construct improvement on Company property and restrict use of such properties. “
1988 Covenant Reference:Art. IV Section 4 of 1988 ARGDC (Pgs. 16-17) Excerpt Below:

*An example – The Developer could build an Inn/Hotel, complete with its own amenities, and say to the Property owners, “You can’t use Our Amenities, but our Guests can use Your Amenities.*” Inns or any other commercial improvements could be built on “Leased Village Core Land” or perhaps on annexed “Village at Blackwell Creek Land” (which recently filed Amended Covenants to include the right to be annexed into Big Canoe), or could annex almost any other nearby land – including the lands around the North Gate.

2005 Covenant Section 4 #19: “Use of all Common Properties by guests and invitees of Company.”
1988 Covenant Reference: Art. IV Section 5 of 1988 ARGDC (Pgs. 17-18)

2005 Covenant Section 4 #20: “Charge Company guests user fees no more than owner and guest fees.”
1988 Covenant Reference: Art. IV Section 5 of 1988 ARGDC (Pgs. 17-18)

2005 Covenant Section 4 #21: “Have Company guests treated like owner guests.”
1988 Covenant Reference: Art. IV Section 5 of 1988 ARGDC (Pgs. 17-18)

2005 Covenant Section 4 #22: Company guests (marketing, inn and restaurant) have same rights as Members
1988 Covenant Reference: Art. IV Section 5 of 1988 ARGDC (Pgs. 17-18)

2005 Covenant Section 4 #23: “Inn guests have guaranteed tee and racket times.”
1988 Covenant Reference: Art. IV Section 5 of 1988 ARGDC (Pgs. 17-18) Excerpt Below:

2005 Covenant Section 4 #24: “Delegate Reserved Amenity Rights to the owner of the Inn.”
1988 Covenant Reference: Art. IV Section 5 of 1988 ARGDC (Pgs. 17-18)

2005 Covenant Section 4 #25: “Develop additional lands, bring Public and Commercial Units under the Declaration but not pay assessments, and have public access to the Public and Commercial Units.”
1988 Covenant Reference: Art. I Section 1(h)(2) AND Art. 4 Section 6 of 1988 ARGDC (Pgs. 6 & 19)

2005 Covenant Section 4 #26: “Inns or restaurants on annexed land have same rights as on the Currently Covenanted Property.” 1988 Covenant Reference: Art. 4 Section 6 of 1988 ARGDC (Pg. 19)

2005 Covenant Section 4 #27: “POA cannot interfere with rights and operation of the Company.”
1988 Covenant Reference: Art. 4 Section 7 of 1988 ARGDC (Pg. 19) Excerpt Below:

2005 Covenant Section 5 (d): “The Company’s right to continue to conduct rental and commercial business in the same manner as it is conducting, and as is permitted under the Declaration, as of December 31, 2004, is specifically retained.”
NOTE: The Resort Cash Cow that is being planned isn’t limited to creating an “Inn”. Consider 2005 Covenant Section 4 #25 referenced above, and also see the following excerpt from the Page 5 of the 1988 Covenants; Article 1, Section 1 (g) which defines the “Public and Commercial Sites” the Developer has ironfisted control of future development regarding….

2005 Covenant Section 4 (k): “The Company retains the right to use POA data for marketing purposes…”
NOTE: This starts to make sense as to why we are suddenly forced to create a Marketing Dept with what is currently a $170,000 Budget. ALL that data eventually goes to the Developer for use in their own marketing plans. And we pay for it.

Lastly, here is a very interesting bit of trivia. Do you know how the Big Canoe Company has recently been categorized?

Again, just think about all of this from the perspective of a Long Range Business Plan. This stuff is not in the Covenants by accident. It has been in there since the very beginning – all the way back in 1972. And these are the parts Specifically Retained as the Developer phases out of the “Development Phase” and into their “Resort Phase”. Again, this is not an accident, but it is also not a suggestion that any of this is going to happen tomorrow, nor even in the next few years. But it is a future plan that I would guess will unfold after the next recession. In the meantime they are protecting that future interest. This is why we are more focused on SPA’s, $9 Million Dollar Golf Course remodels, Luxury Clubhouse, Weddings etc. These are things they can leverage into their long range plan, a future income generating Resort Destination, then over the decades they can commercially develop the surrounding lands even further. And the Cow (Property Owners) is being milked to pay for all of this.

So they can’t kill the Cow…. but they milk that Cow (again, Us Property Owners) as hard as they can, and when the Cow gets upset and tired of being over-milked, and kicks over the bucket (as is once again happening), they placate it – for a time. Then it is back to milking the Cow. In my 20 years here – I have seen this pattern repeat so often. Don’t be fooled…. there are no plans to stop milking the Cow.

At this point, I think I have an even better question….

“How do we get rid of a Developer that is dug in like a tick, milks our Long Term Finances, and controls our our Board, and our Vote?” (See Big Canoe Covenant Series (Pt. 1): What Class “D” Rights does the Big Canoe Developer still hold? ).

We have so much leverage, but the Board is afraid to use it, and we have an Attorney, George Nowack, that is at the heart of the problem. Step 1 towards a solution: Fire POA Attorney George Nowack.

It would help if more people would start actively thinking and focusing on this situation, showing up at Board Meetings and asking the really tough questions that need asking.

For example, here is a simple one, that I CANNOT BELIEVE nobody is demanding an answer to….

How Many Votes Does the Developer Have? That was spelled out in Part 1 of the Covenant Series, and STILL nobody cares enough to demand an answer. I can only do so much. It is your community too.

The cow may need a little kick to get it moving.