The proposed Country Club property purchase agreement has not yet been finalized and there are those intent on circulating a letter urging owners to vote for the agreement while attacking those who may oppose it. We are referring to the letter being circulated by Bob and Peggy Ulrich. Of course the Ulrich’s have the right to send whatever they wish to whomever they want. However, some of their statements therein cannot go unchallenged. For example the Ulrich’s letter states:
“You may not realize there is a negative faction within Somersett that is anxious to force policy changes that will stymie the growth of our community and greatly change the aesthetic appeal of Sommersett” and further in conclusion: “In case you are not aware, there is a very negative faction that would love to be elected to the Board and significantly change the appearance of our community and stifle its growth. We cannot let this happen, but we cannot prevent this without your help”
What ridiculousness and paranoia! Just because one may disagree with the terms of the proposed purchase agreement or believe there are other alternatives the Country Club or the SOA should consider, does not equate to the Ulrich’s implication that they represent a negative faction intent on destroying our community. Rather than focusing on the content of the proposed agreement, they choose to denigrate those who may have opposing viewpoints. These are the same baseless attacks made against those who questioned the benefits and legality of the current SGCC Lease Agreement, which was essentially validated by the Nevada AG’s office and brought us to where we are today.
The letter also states:
“This proposal GUARANTEES the golf course land will remain green whether the golf course succeeds or fails” and “Your SOA dues will not increase”.
We would contend the finalized agreement will not “Guarantee” anything in this regard. In the event the SOA does acquire the 400 acres of Country Club land, will the SOA indeed keep it all “green”? If so, what would the cost be to unit owners to maintain as such, or in any other configuration for that matter? Whatever the cost to acquire and maintain the land, it must be paid for somehow, obviously through homeowner assessments. Many may feel this cost is justified, while many others may not. What is required is financial due diligence by the BOD as to the costs associated with such eventualities.
Whatever the case, the proposed purchase agreement is a huge step for the SOA with significant downstream ramifications. It should not be taken lightly. Therefore, we would urge all owners to keep an open mind, consider both the pros and cons of the finalized agreement, engage in civil debates, reach an informed decision and vote your conscience.