Guest Opinion
This is a guest opinion I wrote to the North Coast News:
I recently met with the Ocean Shores Community Club’s manager and attorney to discuss the community club’s stranglehold of mandatory membership in the form of covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CCR’s) on more than half of the properties in Ocean Shores (brought about by the club’s 1989 bankruptcy).
I also spoke with real estate agents from two of the largest agencies in town. One agent declared that the CCR’s in Ocean Shores were “not important anymore”; the other said they “don’t mean anything”. Real estate agents will remain part of the problem until all of them start practicing FULL disclosure by not only touting the benefits of the club but also informing buyers that if they don’t pay club dues, the club can, will, and has foreclosed on lots/homes.
The other part is the club itself and the obfuscation of the truth and outright lies told by the club in order to keep the status quo. For example, both the manager and the attorney claimed that having to pay for the community club is tantamount to having to pay for the city library. The absurdity of this statement is mind-boggling. Our taxes which support the library, fire, police and all other government agencies are for the common good of the community – not just half of it. We also have the right to vote not to fund them (although no one in their right mind would do so). The key is the right to vote and the concept of the common good. With the community club, we don’t have the right to vote for voluntary membership (no dissent is allowed since dissent is not for the good of the club) nor is the club good for the whole community – it only effects some of the property owners in Ocean Shores.
In Section VIII of the 1989 bankruptcy decree, it takes the first three paragraphs to declare the club’s primary benefit is that the “…Club’s facilities and property enhances the value of a member’s property” (even the club’s attorney used this justification). Doubting the veracity of that statement, I called three property appraisers experienced in Ocean Shores. Not one of them stated that membership in the community club enhances or has any effect in their decision when determining the value of a piece of property. It’s not even a consideration. Somehow the club got the court to believe this lie and the club continues to foment this falsehood to justify its existence.
In 1989 the club mailed out ballots (that almost require an attorney to decipher) to all 12,000 property owners, of which only 6,500 were returned. Failure to return the ballot was deemed tacit approval – the propriety of which I questioned. The club’s attorney said that this was common practice and gave as an example the formation of class action lawsuits – no response meant you were part of the lawsuit. The problem with that (and other examples they gave) is that non-response in those cases do not obligate the non-respondent financially nor did the lack of a response expose them to possible financial loss (from foreclosure).
The club’s attorney claims that allowing voluntary membership would destroy the club. No, it only means that those who use the club would have to pay their fair share and he would lose his foreclosure cash cow. Suppose the club went to voluntary membership and 50% of the current members dropped out. Raising the remaining member’s fees by 100% you would offset the loss of revenue and the fees would still be $14 per month less than the adult member fees charged by the Grays Harbor YMCA! Saying the club can’t survive with voluntary membership is ridiculous.
There are only two ways to get out of this mess. First, the club allows dissent. However, to run for a board position one now has to sign a “loyalty oath” (McCarthyism at its best), thus voluntary membership will never be on any ballot nor brought to a vote. The only other way is for those who do use the club to come to their senses and realize how un-American, embarrassingly pathetic it is to expect others to subsidize their recreation and then take their property when they don’t.
War on Freedom
From Alice, a club member:
Is a community club a nice addition to our city? Yes, and overwhelmingly we can all agree on that, with that out of the way, lets examine it’s principles, philosophy and the little gray cloud that hangs over the club and just won’t go away.
In the late 1980’s the club was sued and lost, the club claimed bankruptcy and went under bankruptcy reorganization and subsequently was allowed to adopt forced, i.e., mandatory membership in the club for all properties with the exception of those who were granted a one time opt out or life time memberships. With some skillfully written rules and By-Laws governing the bankruptcy re-organization the club could now force all property owners to join the club. Age, gender, disabilities, financial ability etc. do not enter into the equation, YOU ARE IN…To further insure that you are locked in to the club a 1st position lien, supported by a subrogation fee is placed on your property. Okay, the club says $10.00 to $15.00 dollars a month isn’t going to hurt anybody and besides a lot of people move here just because of the club, not for the ocean, lakes, canals. The club can now with full control of membership fees and without intervention build a so called non-profit organization with paid employees (no volunteers), own properties, additional swimming pools (out-door), hire a full time activities director, an attorney and maintain a board of trustees who are pledged to abide by the rules and philosophy for the protection of the club. This brief synopsis only gives you a peek at what the club principals say is necessary to keep the club afloat.
Now a small grass roots group of members that grew overnight came to question why the club could not be operated with voluntary membership, why liens against properties were necessary instead of conventional means of collection. Why couldn’t the club divest itself of costly outdoor swimming pools and parks and center it’s operations out of it’s main facility where over 99% of usage and activities take place. Why can’t volunteers be used when we have such a large base of very talented and knowledgeable people eager to volunteer, be used? Why can’t the club Café, be put out to bid to the local restaurant owners to operate? The club has kept their Café open when they have operated in the red for years. Why can’t a more equitable format be put in place to insure a fair election of board members regardless of opposing view points?
With these questions directed to the club came a response unlike anything resembling good judgment, common decency or the right of debate or respect for judicial process. The group of concerned citizens i.e., The C.A.F.E. Society (Citizens Against Forced Enrollment) with over 500 supporters to date were painted with a broad brush by the forced enrollment advocates as enemies of the club, as less than good people, dis-honorable in every aspect, with a “if you don’t like it move” approach. This attitude towards us and our questions and concerns goes to the very roots of the community club’s board of directors, employees and attorney and they are not reluctant about letting everyone know it.
Here’s is a brief picture of the community club meeting held on Saturday the 27th of March 2004. The gymnasium was packed with members, unlike last months meeting where the majority was made of C.A.F.E. advocates. This time the club had done it’s homework and the majority this time fell on the side of forced enrollment supporters. Before officially opening the meeting, Board President, Bill Heinlein, jokingly apologized for his conduct in the last months meeting in response to criticisms he had received as being rude and arrogant. (Several times throughout the meeting he joked at himself being described in this manner). He then proceeded to inform everyone that he had called the police department to have them on standby in the event of any outbreak. He also said any disruptions would not be tolerated and responsible persons would be escorted off the premises.
Following the call to order, normal business was conducted in accordance with the meeting agenda, with one exception. Before the agenda was allowed to be followed, Mr. Heinlein stood up and stated he was stopping the agenda from proceeding to ask the club attorney, Mr. Mike Valdez to take the podium. Mr. Valdez, rather than welcome both groups and set the stage for friendly exchanges, immediately developed an adversarial relationship with the two groups. He opened his remarks stating that the C.A.F.E. Society was a group whose sole purpose was to undermine the by-laws of the club and to bring the club down by advocating voluntary membership. He went on further to say that the C.A.F.E. Society has decided not to take us to court because they know they will lose. This was in response to one members article in the paper. He also stated that in lieu of going to court the C.A.F.E. Society was attempting to get members sympathetic to their cause, elected to the board so they could institute changes that “would not be in the best interest of the club”.
Therefore he proposed an amendment (loyalty oath) that requires that all applicants for positions on the board of trustees to sign and states that they will be required to support and abide by all by-laws, and for what the CLUB deemed is their best interest. In essence the club slammed the door on any candidate with opposing viewpoints to even be considered for a position on the board. He then submitted the amendment to the board of trustees for approval, which they did. One member asked, “isn’t this supposed to be open for discussion?” Board President said “no” its over. Not one member was allowed to speak. The motion was then made and approved without further discussion.
The meeting was then put back on track and the rest of the agenda was followed. The floor was then opened up for questions. The club had completed their mission in setting the stage for a heated and very adversarial exchange of views within the entire audience. To cover the rest of the meeting would take up pages, but here are a few highlights I asked Mr. Heinline and Mr. Valdez who owned the community club and who they answered to. Mr. Valdez said “no one” owns the club, it is simply a non-profit corporation. Mr. Heinline stated “I answer to my wife”. I then asked “aren’t you responsible to the membership, the dues paying members whose money supports the club? There was no response from either Mr. Heinlein or Mr. Valdez. Mr. Valdez at a later time told the audience there is nothing any one of us can do and they “the board” will not or cannot be held accountable for how they spend our money. In essence, “whatever the club wants, the club gets” the board votes (in closed meetings) on All decisions about how they spend our money. We as members are only allowed to vote for appointees to the board and even that is now controlled by the board. The club alone has the power to accept or deny applications by anyone wishing to run for the board. What ever happened to the democratic process?
Dick Mallon, a club member and C.A.F.E. supporter and prospective candidate for the board stated he had asked for the membership listing to mail out his campaign platform, and that under law he had a legal right to it. Mr. Heinlein responded by stating that Mr. Mallon did not have that right, but could not quote exactly what by-law or what section he was referring to. Mr. Mallon’s request quoted RCW 24.03.135, which the State of Washington has enacted to govern all non-profit organization or incorporations. Mr. Mallon was also told that he could not be accepted as a candidate because of his adversarial and opposing viewpoints that are not in the “best interest of the club”. Mr. Mallon then read his platform to the board. He endorsed surveying the membership, orderly meetings, no increase in dues, reduce expenditures in attorney fees, club newspaper, etc., He also supports needed capital improvements of the main clubhouse. He asked for improved administrative management of the club. How can items in his platform be adversarial to any of us who are paying for the club?
The C.A.F.E Mission Statement, does not call for the abolishment of the club. We are not out to destroy the club, but to make it more responsible and accountable to the members. I as a very patriotic person, Marine Corp veteran and civic minded person must repeat what I said to the board and those attending, that I was ashamed of the entire proceeding and actions that had taken place this day. To leave this community clubs actions, unchallenged, is giving them a free ticket to operate as usual and as they (the board) sees fit with less than a democratic agenda without a “majority rules” or any accounting to a fair judicial process.
I am so proud of the C.A.F.E. Society supporters who had the courage without malice or forethought to come forward and express their views and stand up for all that’s right. The C.A.F.E Society spent hundreds of hours into getting viewpoints from “both sides” Won’t you do your part and speak out? It’s your right!
Alice
Other Opinions
February 9, 2005
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Subject: OCEAN SHORES COMMUNITY CLUB
Two significant events occurred in recent days with very little similarities between the two. The first event was the January 05 meeting of the Ocean Shores Community Club’s Board of Directors. The second event was the fledgling Democracy of Iraqi having their first election where voters could choose candidates of their own choice (and have their votes counted) so unlike OSCC’S June election when approximately 1000 votes were disqualified on the basis of some questionable legal advice of the Club’s Attorney. But getting back to the recent OSCC meeting, it was apparent the President of the Board was not going to allow any dissidents (malcontents) to formerly present their views. Then she made a startling announcement. Mr Valdez would no longer be in attendance at the Board Meetings. He would be only available for legal issues. What a come down for the once ubiquitous attorney now relegated as a voyeur in the OSCC cloak room. As the proceedings continued, Madam President suddenly asked for an adjournment thereby avoiding the Question and Answer which would have been part of their minutes. Obviously, they had learned from their previous experiences when the former President had been in command and things had got out of hand. The word now is mum’s the word – keep your mouth shut and do not incite the masses who are unaware of the ongoing lawsuit. OSCC is pulling in the sidewalks and pulling up the draw bridges. They are deathly afraid the bankruptcy bubble will burst and the OSCC membership will be liberated.Remember, a besieged fortress eventually falls.
In the meantime, it is the duty of the CAFE (Citizens Against Forced Enrollment) Society to keep everyone informed and this will happen by mass mailings in the near future to the 5000 dues paying members who have had very little representation under the present regime. The Ocean Observer, the official publication for the OSCC has made scant mention of the pending law suit. I wonder why? Instead we might see an announcement of a planned trip to the flea market at Copalis Beach. In all fairness to the OSCC, there are certain elements in the new Iraqi Democracy who are also attempting to disrupt the democratic movements as they progress forward whereas the OSCC seems to be going backwards with their ruthless disregard of the by-laws in eliminating the Question and Answer portion of the legal proceedings and suppressing any constructive criticism. These (the Board Members) are very frightened people who have been imbedded in their impregnable fortress so long with the thought it would never fall. But Falstaff and their fortress will collapse. It is inevitable. Justice will prevail regardless of the frivolous legal roadblocks created by their legal counsel…It is with fond hopes that the OSCC and Iraq will observe the niceties of democratic representation and all votes will be counted. At this point, I would have to give Iraq the edge even though there have been some difficulties. Fair and balanced, I still have high hopes for the Ocean Shores Community Club.
Art M
February 23, 2005
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Subject: OCEAN SHORES COMMUNITY CLUB
I would like to add to Art M.’s article posted recently. The OSCC has done the unthinkable to it’s members. In the OSCC By-laws there are only two ways for a member to voice their opinion where that concern will be recorded in the OSCC minutes of the Board of Trustee meetings. One reference is to the annual June meeting and the other is order of business of the monthly board meetings. In both places the By-laws allow for discussion and questions during the meetings.
In early 2004, members were restricted to questions only and questions were restricted to 5 minutes. Later on this was changed to 2 minutes. Then at the clubs December 2004 meeting, no formal questions were allowed at all. We as members would be allowed to ask informal questions after the board meeting adjourned. This may not seem too bad, but what has happened now is that no discussions or questions would be a part of their legal minutes and there would be no formal recognition to member concerns.
Minutes of the OSCC board meetings have intentionally left out some member’s questions during their formal time almost every meeting in the year 2004 making their minutes inaccurate every time this was done. The board then approves the minutes as posted in the Ocean Observer. In the July 2004 meeting, there was a threatened suit against the OSCC because of the election process. In September 2004 that suit was officially filed and served on the club. One member, during the formal time, asked about the suit he had heard about and again the Ocean Observer failed to mention it; therefore, it did not get into their minutes, why? Are they hiding things from the membership?
The OSCC’s official newspaper, The Ocean Observer, does not print articles, which have an opposing viewpoint to what the Board of Trustees want you to hear. I thought we lived in America. Freedom of speech and expression is our first amendment. Art M. said something like “are they afraid their bubble is going to burst”? Why are they hiding or keeping so much from the membership? If they ever print the news of the suit, see if both viewpoints are printed.
Their last Ocean Observer paper said the trustees are supposed to represent the membership. Is this all (approx 7,700) members or just the few (approx 700) that use the club? How can the board serve the entire membership when they do not ask them what they like or want the club to do. What are the goals of the OSCC trustees? They serve us, but they do not answer to anyone. Weird!
Now the OSCC is going around town convincing our local merchants that this NON-PROFIT organization (which competes with local restaurants, 3 local newspapers and the city parks department) should give a 10% discount as long as the buyer shows the merchant an active OSCC membership card. About a year ago the manager of the OSCC threatened that they (the club) would boycott any merchant that posted a CAFÉ Society poster in their store. What’s next?
M. B.
August 7, 2020 @ 1:07 am
Thank you for posting this. I just bought a property in Ocean Shores and am quite dismayed that it is not possible to get out of this. I am curious if anything is still happening in this regard.
August 7, 2020 @ 1:35 am
As long as Valdez is the attorney for the club, I doubt if anything has changed. The club has been a huge cash cow for him and he won’t go away anytime soon.
Valdez will go to any lengths to maintain control, regardless of what the Articles of Incorporation/By-Laws/State laws say. As attested by what they did to us. Many have tried to file suits, but Valdez floods you with tons of paperwork and increases the cost for you. Because of the low cost of the club benefits, an expensive lawsuit doesn’t make sense.
That said, if I were well off, I’d spend the money just because what they do is just not right. I come from a military family and am married to an Army officer. We’re both combat vets and what they do flies in the face of everything I believe in.
Sorry you got caught up in that extortion scheme.
August 7, 2020 @ 2:03 am
Thanks for the response. This seems to be one of the many quirks to living in this town. Other wise it seems like a nice place to live.
December 8, 2022 @ 8:30 am
We need to get Jesse Jones out here, from KIRO 7 to help sleuth for us. This club house and forced enrollment needs more research. As I am sure it was done in 2005. But we are in 2022, and I really want to know where the money is going, what it is being paid out to, and who is gaining from it.
December 8, 2022 @ 8:58 am
Hello, Bailey!
We tried to get the media involved to no luck. The same goes for the State, the Feds, anyone I thought would help. The small amount of the monthly fee goes to maintenance, salaries, and, of course to attorney fees. As that I haven’t been associated with the club and Ocean Shores for several years, but I’m going to assume that Mr. Valdez is still on a retainer to battle people who dispute the club and it’s dues methodology.
I, too, tried to get financial data from the club but (against the Articles of Incorporation and bylaws) they refused to give me ANY information at all. My persistence questioning, websites, letters to editors, etc, lead to the club illegally filing a restraining order to shut me up. At that point, my wife and I walked away from our home and Ocean Shores.
Any attempt to change the situation would cost in the neighborhood of two hundred thousand dollars since a bankruptcy court approved of this horrible dues methodology.
Good luck!!!
Robert
September 21, 2020 @ 3:24 am
Who were the attorneys that filed against OSCC? I can’t get Valdez to properly fill out a HUD reverse Mortgage form, so I can sell my home. Because Gray’s Harbor is so small, nobody I have talked to wants to go up against him. Been fighting this for 4 months.
September 21, 2020 @ 1:56 pm
Not sure what the club/Valdez has to do with reverse mortgages, but Valdez will fight anything that will keep properties encumbered by the club. To fight Valdez over anything will cost an arm and a leg. When they brought the injunction against us, our attorney told us it would be $20,000 just to fight the injunction! Valdez is known for piling paperwork on the those who do fight, increasing the costs greatly. He is a master manipulator when it comes to the club and protecting his income. His house was known as “the house the club built” when we were there. As far as I know, there are no attorneys in Grays Harbor who will take the club on – they know the costs and know you would probably lose. The only way to change is to change the Board and put people on there who want change. But with the way the club ignores state laws, its own Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws, I don’t see any change via the Board, or, unfortunately, the courts.
So sorry you also have gotten caught in the club’s web of deceit and lies.
February 15, 2024 @ 8:33 am
Thank you for all the information. Unfortunately I was onne that was lied to an d purchased a property just as you were leaving. The dues were $144.00 then. They are now $165.00 and will be going up on April 1, 2024 (appropriate for April Fools Day) to $175.00. I guess The board thinks they deserve a raise. I’d laugh if it weren’t so painful.
March 6, 2024 @ 6:46 am
Hi, Micheal,
That was always one of the problems with the club: they can raise the dues ANYTIME THEY WANT and you just have to put up with it.
Sorry,that you were dragged into this situation with same lies told to us by our realtor, the builder, and the builder’s attorney.
Robert
March 4, 2024 @ 2:07 pm
I am completely baffled by any property owners being bothered by being enrolled as a member to this club when clearly upon closing and final purchase of the property you were informed by Escrow that you would be a member and incur a monthly charge. Liens are recorded documents. If the title company misses those you can sue them for recourse to make you whole again. Been there, done that. If you chose to proceed with purchasing a property subject to the rules, regs, liens, etc. you knew you became a member and were subject to those and would be charged an annual fee and could be foreclosed on for not paying those. You did not have to purchase. And who in the world would be against contributing such a marginal amount of money monthly to the community good whether they used the facilities or not. That’s the part that completely stumps me. For very little, you can easily contribute to other’s well being, something rarely available to us except around Christmas when the bells ring for charity.
I do not live in Ocean Shores or own property there or know anyone who does but we are looking. We do live in an HOA run community in Seattle’s Eastside wherein half the people do not want to support the common infrastructure because they don’t swim or believe in yard maintenance or use the park or community center even though all the infrastructure was in place when they moved in and maintaining it was a part of the HOA rules, regs and covenants and expectations. These people work tirelessly to try to downgrade our community under the guise of freedom and I tire of their version of freedom. No one living in our neighborhood could be financially poor and do so. For many of those who don’t want to support the community it is about greed and control. We would not have the amenities the majority enjoy if those same folks were able to take over the HOA, which they attempted to and nearly succeeded at through a litany of lies and bullying tactics. It is a battle to keep these group at bay with the majority being either grumpy old men with a penchant for being in charge who will find any cause to throw themselves at if doing so means the possibility of being in charge of something. Their younger counterparts are self important, testosterone fueled versions of their own parents, unable to escape family dynamics which blinded them to behaving kindly towards anyone outside of the family agenda to further the wealth and opportunities for their immediate tribe. I personally think the only thing they should be in charge of is their own zippers. Such need is sad in any person, let alone old men and women too who refuse to mature out of controlling behavior so they can access the better part of their intelligence for the common good.
All organizations that support physical infrastructure need funds to do so. We are looking to purchase property in Ocean Shores and the OSCC is a major factor in that desire. We see it as an asset. Without it, Ocean Shores runs two risk from two separate groups who often have lots in common other than income. You have your greedy wealthy who want to run the ‘rif raf” out of town and dissemble community so that developers come in and sanitize the city by making it high end. Realtors benefit from such destruction as does city government because of crime reduction and expense poured into that when there is poverty. Cities enjoy an influx of income when the poor are driven out and replaced by wealthier individuals. Eventually such cities and regions become another exclusive enclave owned by wealthy and snobby people who rarely care if their neighbor or children outside of their own clan have opportunities. On the other hand you have a population of low income earners that too cares only for it’s own needs being satisfied and who will happily vote to save $20.00 a month if it means more money for their habits and addictions, something their higher income counterpart can more easily afford. Both groups are enormously self serving and selfish and clever at hiding their truths. Neither group is really wanting to support the success of others outside their immediate tribe or needs. Negative attitude about others, including not caring about other’s lives if it doesn’t enhance their own, is the defining character of such folks and not income levels. There are plenty of kind and compassionate people amongst all income earning levels yet it seems to be the selfish, self absorbed, greedy, control freaks on both ends of the financial spectrum often do the most to undermine success for all, perhaps because they can due to having more time and diabolical energy to work on getting their way.
We are seeking to live in a community that supports community centers, parks and leisurely recreation for all it’s citizens and not just the affluent or the less affluent. If it takes a private community club to help support that, so much the better for the formation of those to create balance.
We live in the Seattle metros LaLa land known as the Eastside where people in overly priced status cars are only too willing to endanger others to get to the important places they need to be, where status conscious is a mental illness pervading much behavior and driving up costs of living along with anxiety and alcoholism, commonly known here as “high functioning alcoholism”, the sanitized, acceptable version of alcoholism where you are only a drunk if you are poor no matter how much your alcoholism harms your family or society. I mention this because the attitude of grab what you can at other’s expense seems to be a common theme in those wanting to dismantle the OSCC, Seriously, $15.00 a month to have the facilities and opportunities for recreation and socializing you have is mere pennies compared to even the cost of being a member of the senior center in this region where access to fitness machines is an added expense. Even if you never use the facilities, you could just feel incredibly happy to be contributing to others well being unless you are a greedy soul.
Don’t let OSCC be taken down by cheapskates, the selfish or those who have plenty of money for addiction, shopping and feathering their own nest but don’t want to contribute financially to creating community assets to be enjoyed by others.
Cheers to everyone who supports community and doesn’t use the excuse of freedom as a way to take it from others. We already have no choice in our presidential elections yet ‘freedom’ mongers’ will exploit fear of losing freedom by claiming we do have choice. No we don’t. Look at whose running and tell me we have choice in this country. Multinational Corporations choose our presidential candidates. The people wanting to undermine OSCC on the pretense of freedom are exploiting its meaning to get their way and are bullying those who do not support their argument into shame because to be against military and freedom is to be a loser, right? Wrong! It depends on who the military is and how freedom is defined. It is not freedom to be bullied to side with a cause because to not do so is seemingly unpatriotic. Those same folks who tout freedom as the reason to dismantle OSCC current mandatory enrollment are taking away your freedom to express yourself outside the confines of their interpretation of what freedom actually should and could look like in a society where bullies don’t tell us what to think or what to respect and to accept their interpretation or definition of it. Don’t let them bully (shame) you out of community and a sense of community by exploiting their military service as a means to convince you of their superior love of all things deemed freedom.
On a side note, I don’t care if you were in the military when it comes to your opinion on freedom and how OSCC should be run. Being in the military doesn’t give you permission or the green light to be the final authority on freedom. Every day in this country, people who have been in the military commit crimes against individuals and groups, taking their freedom away, domestic violence comes to mind and is prevalent in the military as is sexual assault. From the Department of Defenses own statistics 13 percent of males in the military suffer sexual assault at the hands of other males. So while I can thank you for your service if you are also an upstanding human, I don’t automatically grant you the status of being a kind, humane human because of your service. People often join the military to escape bad circumstances, whether abusive childhoods or lack of opportunities in their communities and our government exploits that. Bringing one’s service experience into the discussion can be manipulative at worst and not necessary at best. Share that with people who have an interest in knowing what that experience did to you. You are more than your military experience, or at least I hope you are.
Anyway, I read with interest this ongoing discussion turned battle at times and just encourage everyone to commit to a ceasefire and take a few years to explore what is working as an ORCC community while daring to examine the negatives and how to end those while also coming up with viable solutions. Managing a force of volunteers is not always viable because work doesn’t often get done due to volunteers needs, is often put off or delayed or is just plain done wrong. That has happened in our own HOA and then everyone gets mad at the volunteers and a new round of bickering begins. It’s old school Hatfield and McCoy and we should have outgrown such behavior but we haven’t so why not let the place be professionally run with employees, providing needed jobs? Volunteerism is great for organizing picnics in the park. Many HOAs are turning to professionals to run their affairs due to infighting, volunteerism not working out due to vacations, injury, birth, death, relocation, etc., etc. For everyone involved in discussions and voting, examine your own tendency to need to win or any control freakishness, admit to it, have a good laugh and forgive yourself for being that way. You got that way for a reason, mostly self preservation and it served a purpose in your life even if it was destructive. It’s time to stop choosing to be the lesser of two evils and become the person you would of been had you not needed to control everything to make you feel safe. Getting along and working together effectively is not accomplished until everyone leaves the control freak parts of them out of any meeting of the minds. Healthy contributing to your community does not begin with ‘I want”. Bow out of community involvement if you want to remain in charge at the expense of others to benefit yourself, including benefits of income, satisfying ego, safety, security and vanity needs, addiction or whatever selfishness you value above cooperation and community. The answer is already here and you all just need to cooperate to find it. The enemy is not your neighbor, it’s yourself. You have a beautiful thing that may or may not serve all your needs but if it helps others enjoy life in a healthy way then feel blessed to contribute your $15.00 a month. Anyone purchasing your property should feel blessed to or perhaps you don’t really want to sell to them.
Realtors who do not do full disclosure should be stripped of their licenses. Escrow companies have to disclose liens or make the buyer whole- buy the property back from the buyer, so for everyone complaining about that, do your part to remove such realtors licenses and, in the situation of an escrow company’s non disclosure of lien placed on buyer’s property, demand you be made whole.
Everyone stop the warring and find ways to care for each other in honest and meaningful ways. I just cannot understand why anyone would not be thrilled you have the opportunity to support such an amazing asset whether one used it or not. I still vote to support public schools even though our children are post college age because such schools are incredibly important to every child’s life who attends and the future of children yet born. Everyone benefits when communities are healthy and have good leisure opportunities, whether you use them or not. Peace on!
March 6, 2024 @ 6:35 am
WOW! You take four pages to talk about a subject you have no knowledge of (“I do not live in Ocean Shores or own property there or know anyone who does…”). Not only that, it appears you didn’t read, or understand, any of this website. And, my god, you wander around subjects that have nothing to do with Ocean Shores and the community club.
Thus, my only conclusion can be it’s AI generated.
So, whom ever sent this piece of garbage: go wallow in your own mud.
Robert