It is a fact, that two types of ownership exist at Silver Star, those with obligations on title to resort area marketing or an established resort association, and those that are clear title with no obligation/encumbrance on title.
The RAM/RA group agreed at the time of purchase to meet the obligations on title to such entities. The others purchased with no obligations to such entities, and for most purchasers, at the time of purchase, had zoning that encouraged/allowed for small home-based businesses, bed and breakfasts, etc. These two distinct groups need to be treated separately, to be fair and equitable to both groups.
The group with no obligations should not form part of the resort promotion area map/resort land map, should not have a vote in matters related to the RA and should only contribute to the RA on a voluntary basis. Also, the areas should be grandfathered in perpetuity from this initiative. This would be fair and equitable to this group.
Discussing the bylaws is taking away from the real issue of whether there should be a Silver Star resort association at all and whether the non-RAM group should be excluded. The task force is making amendments to the bylaws, trying to show they are listening to the feedback and addressing concerns. It is patently unfair and undemocratic that we could end up in the situation where the RAM group are voting to include the non-RAM group in the resort association when the RAM group is larger than the non-RAM group (505 vs 471, and will only grow as the community grows) and the RAM group already has an obligation to pay.
The RAM group will decide how best to move forward on this issue through the process being presented. There remains many problematic issues with the proposal, including governance/representation of residents, the borrowing powers of the board, the proposed budget, the discounted contributions from the commercial sector and proposed yearly increases on residential contributions but not for the commercial sector.
The mandate for the resort association is to market the resort, organize and execute events at the resort and organize a central reservation system. All these functions are to the benefit of the commercial sector, with little to no benefit to the residential sector. Although the task force mentions benefits to home owners, they have not produced any studies to support their claims. The community appears to have little to no appetite to fund these activities.
Although the community recognizes there are benefits to a resort association, those that benefit, being the commercial sector, should be responsible for funding the association. To many in the community, the commercial sector is trying to download financial obligations from themselves, on to the residential sector. We believe this to be unfair and inequitable.
A deal is a deal. Treat the purchase agreements as signed at time of purchase.
Be careful what you wish for in relation to supporting the resort association.
It’s difficult to impossible to reverse once established.
Taxes never go down, in my experience. Make no mistake, this is a form of taxation.
It is far too easy to spend other people’s money, and not necessarily be held accountable.
I am a happy and satisfied customer. I have no interest in becoming a partner of resort marketing/events/central reservations.
M. Lindsay
Silver Star
