Post by Jm Herbst on Jan 25, 2014 13:40:16 GMT -5
The following is my contribution to the "comments" section of the Jan. 25, 2014 article in the Polk County Ledger:
As one of the “objectors” to the proposed increase in Association dues to pay for Mr. stabs internet service, I want to explain my reasons. While I don’t necessarily have a problem with a community-wide internet service, I think we can do better. Currently there are four communications towers in the S-bag complex – one on Mr. stab’s property and three in the Association’s common areas. They are all used to broadcast Mr. stab’s internet service. The tower on Mr. stab’s property is also used as a “repeater” for Verizon’s cell phone customers in the area. Moreover, Mr. stab is using these towers to serve customers of his internet service that live in other retirement communities and subdivisions outside of S-bag.
As a former City Manager I know how much AT&T was willing to pay our municipality to place a cellular antenna on our water tower or emergency communications tower. But, as far as I know, the S-bag Association charges no rent to Mr. stab for those towers or for the storeroom in our Community building where he has his servers.
It seems to me that our Board of Directors should be constantly on the lookout for ways to reduce the HOA dues we owners pay for the upkeep of our community.
One such way is to seek revenues for the Association in order to offset operating costs. Nowadays, it is quite common for a retirement or independent living facility to rent out space to businesses such as a branch bank, an investment advisor like Edward Jones, a beauty salon and barber shop and so on. In Mr. stab’s case, however, he is apparently getting a free ride. Why are we being so generous?
But now, we are not only missing the opportunity to obtain some revenue that can lower our dues. If Mr. stab’s proposal is approved, our dues will in fact be increased for what I see as a subsidy for a private business.
I can’t help but notice that this situation is much like the controversy over Obamacare. Consumers are denied their right to choose and will be forced to pay for something they don’t want.
Jm Herbst
As one of the “objectors” to the proposed increase in Association dues to pay for Mr. stabs internet service, I want to explain my reasons. While I don’t necessarily have a problem with a community-wide internet service, I think we can do better. Currently there are four communications towers in the S-bag complex – one on Mr. stab’s property and three in the Association’s common areas. They are all used to broadcast Mr. stab’s internet service. The tower on Mr. stab’s property is also used as a “repeater” for Verizon’s cell phone customers in the area. Moreover, Mr. stab is using these towers to serve customers of his internet service that live in other retirement communities and subdivisions outside of S-bag.
As a former City Manager I know how much AT&T was willing to pay our municipality to place a cellular antenna on our water tower or emergency communications tower. But, as far as I know, the S-bag Association charges no rent to Mr. stab for those towers or for the storeroom in our Community building where he has his servers.
It seems to me that our Board of Directors should be constantly on the lookout for ways to reduce the HOA dues we owners pay for the upkeep of our community.
One such way is to seek revenues for the Association in order to offset operating costs. Nowadays, it is quite common for a retirement or independent living facility to rent out space to businesses such as a branch bank, an investment advisor like Edward Jones, a beauty salon and barber shop and so on. In Mr. stab’s case, however, he is apparently getting a free ride. Why are we being so generous?
But now, we are not only missing the opportunity to obtain some revenue that can lower our dues. If Mr. stab’s proposal is approved, our dues will in fact be increased for what I see as a subsidy for a private business.
I can’t help but notice that this situation is much like the controversy over Obamacare. Consumers are denied their right to choose and will be forced to pay for something they don’t want.
Jm Herbst