The Big Canoe POA has a spotty track record when it comes to voting issues. Last year there was the double whammy of the Board of Directors Election and the $5,000 Capital Contribution Fee. This year’s voting disaster is the Creek 9 Initiative Ballot. Problems with the language used in the Ballot were first reported by Big Canoe’s preimminent Blogger, Patricia Cross, in her article “Read the fine print please…”
Since then the community has descended into confused discussion regarding what to do. There is open discussion regarding whether a Member should vote or not vote; vote but make notation on their ballot that they object to the conditional language additions; worries if a member makes such notation that their ballot may be invalidated; and concerns that if they vote but don’t make notation that they will be giving up their future rights in regards to the conditional language. The confusion will undoubtedly affect the final voting numbers.
For myself, I have determined that while I believe the Creek 9 Initiative vote is incredibly important, I feel that not voting in order to avoid the establishment of a bad legal precedent is even more important, and with that in mind I have decided that I have no choice but to NOT CAST A VOTE in this referendum given the conditional language presented, even though I strongly desire to vote. Subsequently I feel that I have been discriminated against, and denied my right to vote on this important community matter.
As such I have prepared (and delivered via email & 1st Class Mail) a letter to the Big Canoe General Manager, the individual members of the POA Board of Directors, Mauldin & Jenkins, and the POA Attorney (Kimberly C. Gaddis Esq. of Gaddis and Lanier LLC) whom I am told reviewed and approved the Ballot language. I have decided to share the letter, titled BIG CANOE VOTER COMPLAINT & NOTICE (5 Page PDF), with the community at large as I believe that this is an important issue that has potential long term ramifications to the community if not challenged.
I will provide a little spoiler alert, and go ahead and share the final paragraph of my letter, which is actually the lead in for a point I think needs making, and ultimately is the reason for this article. I end my letter as follows:
Thank you all in advance for your attention and consideration to this matter. Please be aware that myself and others I am aware of feel very strongly regarding this matter, and that in the event the Voter Referendum is allowed to continue as is, then I will personally begin exploring the funding and formation of a Property Owner Group with the intent to explore litigation to protect property owner interests and rights in this and future matters.
That highlited bit above is something I want to sow a seed of thought regarding. I can state with great conviction that the 3rd greatest mistake ever made in the history of Big Canoe Governance was when the Big Canoe HOA was disbanded back in 2015. The HOA was a voluntary membership organization with a low $45 annual membership fee. The HOA balanced out the power structure within the community, and kept the POA Board & the Developer “honest” simply through the fact that a central organization existed which could act as an advocate for the property owners, sometimes through the threat of litiagation if necessary. It is probably time for property owners to begin exploring the reformation of such a group. Below is an excerpt from the old HOA website, and a link to the old archived HOA website. It really was a fantastic organization, and most of the great programs still alive within the Community – were actually developed under HOA leadership, not the POA, which has seemingly acted over the years more as an advocate for the Developer, than the community residents.
About Big Canoe HOA
The Homeowners’ Association of Big Canoe (HOA) is a voluntary association supported by its members through annual membership dues ($45). The purpose of the HOA is three-fold: (1) to be an advocate for its members, (2) to promote the interests, health, safety, and welfare of its members; and (3) to enhance and preserve their quality of life – all with a view to the concerns of all property owners.
And that is my thought for the week. It may be that in the coming weeks and months we will revisit the idea, perhaps with more planning and purpose.
Peace,
– david / publisher
Focus on Big Canoe, GA
* a publication of The Mountains Voice
Be the first to comment