Candidate Response to SGCC Insinuations

Submitted by Jim Haar  –  SOA Board Candidate

I agree with Ms. Wright’s response to Mr. Gaskill’s memos.  It continues to amaze me that the Country Club spokesperson’s  (Mr. Gaskill is President of the SGCC) sole purpose appears to be to demonize  Somersett United supporters by describing them as “misleading”, “liars”, “negative and accusatory”,  a “hassle factor” and perhaps the most ridiculous “dangerous”.

Just what is that SU supporters have done to warrant this rhetoric?   Let’s take a look; I believe you will find these insinuations quite inappropriate.

  • SU challenged the legality of Somersett Development Company’s (SDC) continued control of the Somersett Owners Association (SOA) and fought for election of an all homeowner board. Something that is now coming to fruition.
  • SU challenged the legality of the SGCC Lease Agreement based on the manner in which it conceived and implemented.  Not because they are anti-SGCC as Mr. Gaskill would like you to believe, but because it was written primarily to offset SGCC operating losses and not to provide “beneficial amenities” for the Somersett community.  SU believes agreements of this type should be subject to homeowner vote.
  • SU challenged the legality of the 2011 Subsidy Reimbursement Agreement wherein the current board obligated homeowners to pay the SDC for costs incurred with correction of latent defects within the common area.  SU contends these costs should be borne by the SDC.
  • SU has objected to the Tolling Agreements wherein the current Board obligated homeowners to pay litigation costs associated with negotiating common area defect settlements with the developer’s subcontractors.  SU contends these costs should be borne solely by the SDC.
  • SU questioned the wisdom of budgeting $220,000 of homeowner funds to purchase the vacant lot adjacent to The Club at Town Center without a plan for its usage.
  • SU supports funding reserves at the $100% level, instead of underfunding at the 80% level as is currently practiced.

Does the above really substantiate Mr. Gaskill’s contention that SU endorsed candidates are “dangerous”.  I would contend they are simply concerned citizens voicing their opinions on issues important to the Community.  I suspect Mr. Gaskill’s only agenda pertains to a perceived threat that the SU endorsed candidates may pose to the existing SGCC Lease Agreement.

This should not be a “SGCC versus SU” proposition, but rather an election where individuals stand on their own qualifications and community involvement.  By their own admission, three of the SGCC candidates have never attended a Board meeting, with a defense that the current Board has been doing a good job.  Ask yourself if these are the candidates you want to represent you on the SOA Board of Directors.

I supported the above described initiatives and am willing to debate anyone or answer any questions as to the facts behind their relative merits.

Please read my Resume when you receive your ballot.  I believe you will find that I have the appropriate qualifications and would appreciate your vote.

Thank you  –  Jim Haar