New Bern--Fairfield Harbour (Welcome: to buy, bankruptcy, school)

[FHSailer]

Those recommended by Larry Knapp were overwhelmingly elected to the three available seats:
Dan Engelhaupt - Amount 614
Sharon Henke - Amount 606
Joe Schulties - Amount 625

Those recommended by Pete Drez did not fare well:
Simon Lock - Amount 140
James Scalion - Amount 163
Ken Cavistan - Amount 267

[NewBernbound]

Does anyone know why the POA fee was just increased?

[FHSailer]

The dues are actually lower than similar communities at about $65 a month. As I understand it, the dues are up this year to pay legal costs associated with the lawsuits brought by Mr. Drez claiming there was a "conspiracy" and another character who claimed Fairfield Harbour didn't exist and sued to prove it so he wouldn't have to pay his dues. The POA won both, but that was after years of testimony and two trials. What a waste. The projected dues for next year are lower and the detailed budget is posted. I have never seen a budget like the one they post which includes the cost per owner for each line item.

[Baconisgood]

What a hot mess! No wonder home prices seem so much cheaper in FFH that other area communities. It's like a war between retired know-it-alls and retired busy-bodies! If everyone would just mind their own biz. I'm so done with subdivisions, planned communities and POAs.

My new motto:

Acreage rules-POAs drool!!!

[PeteDrez]

Please excuse the delay in responding to the questions that have been posted. Been off enjoying life outside Fairfield Harbour, for a change. But now let’s get to the subject of this thread. I am going to divide my posting in two pieces, first addressing all but that posted by FHSailor. I will then do a second posting setting the record straight on the misinformation offered by FHSailor, in the next day or two.

Perhaps the best initial subject is to offer my opinion on the overall process that drives Fairfield Harbour into continuing degradation. Hopefully this will provide enough background to help better understand specific subjects. Keep in mind that this is a community started in the 1970's and probably currently has a property owner median age of 70. These property owners are continuously offered two views of our community. We have a POA Board that routinely promises the property owners very expensive additions to the community common elements for unrealistic costs. On the other side of the subject you have a couple of hundred property owners who do the math, look at the market, and quickly conclude that the POA sales pitch is impossible to deliver. Thus the two choices for voting are the POA promising basically something for close to free, versus those stating it cannot be done. For the uninformed and disinterested, the choice is easy. Free sounds so much better than cannot be done. So, the POA gets the Board seats and tries to fulfill their promises. Keep in mind that there is no cap on how much dues the POA Board can assess, so once they own something they are free to charge whatever they decide is needed and there is no appeal process, other than through the courts. But wait just a minute. The DORs for all property owners state very clearly the "exclusive" uses for dues which are fundamentally maintenance of what common elements the community owns. So the POA hires an attorney to try to circumvent the plain and obvious language in the DORs, someone along the way decides this waste of dues needs to be formally addressed, the POA winds up in court and gets told that they cannot proceed. Then the cycle starts all over again with the next unachievable promise from the Board.

With that background let’s get to some specifics. I will start with the POA Board elections. As best I remember the numbers reported by FHSailor are consistent with what the POA reported. Since the Board refuses to share any details of the voting; they mail the ballots, they count the ballots, they disqualify votes based on their sole judgment, thus the outcome is predictable. One known error is the POA counting the 207 time share votes based on block voting versus unit voting so the first 207 votes for POA candidates are likely unlawful, being they conflict with the process defined in the community Bylaws. Thus, the net result of the election is likely another year like last year, full of conflict, unrest, and bullying by the Board and Board supporters. Perhaps a more interesting number is that less than 25% of the property owners voted. And if you eliminate the likely unlawful time share block votes, the participation level is about 15%. That tells me that way too many owners have just given up on a possible rescue of the community. The open question is, do the property owners in large numbers develop an intense interest in the lawful rescue of the community at some point and take action. I must admit that I am amazed that we have not reached that point yet.

Next, why have dues close to doubled in the past 5 years. My answer is over staffing of the POA with employees, excessive attorney fees, contributions to multiple industry lobbying groups, a public relations contract to spread a different view of the community than I see, and on and on. The POA has spent close to 8 million dollars in the past 5 years and I cannot point to any tangible improvement in the community. I routinely ask property owners I meet is social settings, what they see as a tangible accomplishment in our community in the past five years. No one, and I mean NO ONE has come up with an answer, even those who identify as being Board supporters. Instead our POA gets involved in strange subjects, most recently trying to eliminate a school bus stop on a NC state roadway that both the parents and the Board of Education consider proper. Had to get not only the Sheriff's Dept, but also the NC State Troopers to come on the scene and warn the POA to stand down. Can you believe this, and all while our roads crumble?

In closing, let me give you my snap shot of today at Fairfield Harbour. The amenity property owned by a third party, that the POA Board wanted to purchase back in 2010, using a future dues backed $10-15 million loan, is now in bankruptcy proceedings with the Board paying another attorney to try to influence the outcome advantageous in their minds, to the community. The POA President, both in community meetings and in the community newspaper blames the community situation on those who disagree with his leadership over the past 4 years, and suggest that these dissidents need to be held accountable for making their disagreements public. The recent annual POA meeting for all 2824 property owners drew perhaps 250 attendees, with many husbands/wives representing one property. School is out for the Summer, so the POA interference with the school bus stop is in recess until the Fall. And the division in the community has never been worse. As you might suspect, the friction between property owners is continuing, the bullying remains at its all time high, communications between those with opposing views remains at zero, and people who once were friends now look the other way when crossing paths.

Pete Drez

[poodlecamper]

We purchased a lot and planned to build in FFH My husband decided he wanted to be closer to the ocean, we now live outside of Southport, NC. FFH is a beautiful community. But they exemplify, IMHO, the worst attributes of HOAs. Secrecy, ego driven dictators and free and loose spending of "other people's" money.
What do you get for your dues? Really nothing.
I'm so grateful my husband changed his mind. We have so much more in our community here, and for less money. Still stuck with a poa, but glad it's not FFH. The "dissident" label is a joke, those people are the only ones with an understanding of how a community should be run.

[PeteDrez]

FHSailor recently wrote:

"The dues are actually lower than similar communities at about $65 a month. As I understand it, the dues are up this year to pay legal costs associated with the lawsuits brought by Mr. Drez claiming there was a "conspiracy" and another character who claimed Fairfield Harbour didn't exist and sued to prove it so he wouldn't have to pay his dues. The POA won both, but that was after years of testimony and two trials. What a waste. The projected dues for next year are lower and the detailed budget is posted. I have never seen a budget like the one they post which includes the cost per owner for each line item."

I considered two approaches in responding. First, a detailed rebuttal to each allegation offering the true facts and second, a simple characterization of the posting. I decided on the second approach.

The FHSailor posting addresses the 2014 annual assessment amount, the reason for the increase in dues in 2014, some comments on two legal actions, and a comment on the quality of the 2014 POA budget. Here are the facts; the 2014 POA dues amount and payment schedule are both WRONG, the reason for the dues increase blames areas where ZERO expense was experienced by the POA thus also WRONG, details on the two legal cases are both factually WRONG and, praise for the budget process where the auditor just recently suggested multiple improvements, thus WRONG again.

Perhaps the most important conclusion to what FHSailor’s posted is he is not alone. This community has way too many old folks that do not know what they are talking and writing about, but have nothing better to do than spread constant misinformation. It seems that many believe that if they say something often enough it will somehow become factual. Another characteristic of the uninformed is they always blame someone else for whatever they see as a problem, a technique taught and used by the POA on a regular basis. Add in a Board with no solid business leadership experience headed by a President who was/is a New Jersey community college English professor and you get what we have got.

Pete Drez

[LLN]

Does anyone have a handle on the losses (percentage wise) people that are able to sell out are absorbing? It sounds like a continuing horror story, or worse, a horror spiral. Downward spiral.

Good luck to all involved, but at this point, I don't even know what that would mean in regard to FFH.

[PeteDrez]

I have waited a while to offer my opinion in hopes that someone with hard data would respond. But, none so far, so I will give you my impression. Keep in mind I am not and never have been in the real estate business, thus my observations are based solely on what I hear in conversations. I would welcome some hard data to help everyone to understand better, including myself.

As with all real estate markets, your gain or loss at sale time is a function of when you bought, and when you are selling. Many other factors influence the profit or loss, but it is my observation that these two parameters are the most significant. So, for properties that have been well maintained and well presented to the market, your likely situation at closing time is a net:

Bought in 1995 through 2002---- break even
Bought in 2003 through 2005---- down 10%
Bought in 2006 through 2009---- down 25 to 30%
Bought in 2010 through 2012---- down 20%

Undeveloped lots follow the same trend, in my opinion, but may be an additional 5%, maybe 10% off.

I suspect that these numbers are about average for other east coast areas.

Pete Drez

[poodlecamper]

Bought our lot around 7 years ago, at $15000 was one of the lowest priced lots that wouldn't require an engineering plan to build on due to proximity to Northwest creek. Now, IF I could sell it, would get around $3,000 I've been told by Realtors.