# Point at Poipu maintenance fee for 2013



## Fisch (Nov 16, 2012)

Just got the bill for 2013.

Get to pay less this year then planned.

Yearly Maintenance Fee went up $69 for a 1 week 2BR.
The bonus is they changed the payment plan on the Special Assessment.  Instead of having it paid up in 3 years, it's stretched to 5 years.  Same $$ amount, but $1K per year is easier then $2K.


----------



## artringwald (Nov 17, 2012)

Got my MF statement and was surprised to see a $3093.99 credit. It took the DRI rep 20 minutes to figure out that it is because of the revised payment plan. The $3893.32 remaining water intrusion balance minus the $3093.99 credit is the $799.33 due this year. That's not what the revised chart says it should be, so I'll have to call again.

I was also surprised that the bad debt due to unpaid MF's was only up 75%. I thought it would have been much higher.


----------



## Fisch (Nov 17, 2012)

artringwald said:


> I was also surprised that the bad debt due to unpaid MF's was only up 75%. I thought it would have been much higher.



I sat in on the owners meeting in October and Jamie mentioned they had a lower default rate then budgeted for.  That was surprising after listening to all the complaints and the "lawsuit".  I figured it would've been higher then they planned.


----------



## Kauai Kid (Nov 17, 2012)

What is the maintenance fee for a 2 br every year?

What is the maintenance fee for a 1 br every year?

Sterling


----------



## Fisch (Nov 17, 2012)

kauai kid said:


> what is the maintenance fee for a 2 br every year?
> 
> What is the maintenance fee for a 1 br every year?
> 
> Sterling




$1423.28
$1266.99


----------



## Kauai Kid (Nov 18, 2012)

Mahalo:  We miss the view and the good folks at the Point, especially John the bellman, but the decision had to be made to sell it with that maintenance fee.  Too much for retirees.

Flew back from Lihue Friday nite 1130 pm departure.  Took American three flights to get us to Texas!  LAX was a zoo because they changed planes and had to reseat every passenger.  (Originally there was only a single change of planes but AA decided that three was better for their bottom line)  That is in outgoing and incoming flites

Austin TX is a zoo because of the Formula 1 race going on today 11/18.

But we got home safe and sound.  What more can you ask for?

42 degrees this morning.  Miss Kauai already.  :hysterical:


Aloha, Sterling


----------



## dougp26364 (Nov 18, 2012)

Fisch said:


> I sat in on the owners meeting in October and Jamie mentioned they had a lower default rate then budgeted for.  That was surprising after listening to all the complaints and the "lawsuit".  I figured it would've been higher then they planned.



It was a few people making a lot of noise. Most of the time I've found people (myself included) talk the talk but don't walk the walk. It's easy to threaten you'll do this or you'll do that but, when it comes time to actually do something you find most are just blowing off steam.

This is just a guess but my gut feeling is DRI has been burnt before by under budgeting for defaults. I believe they've learned it's best to take a worst case scenario, budget for that, then soften the blow in future years by not requiring huge increases in MF's to cover under budgeting if there's a surplus from the previously budgeted default catagory.


----------



## dougp26364 (Nov 18, 2012)

Kauai Kid said:


> Mahalo:  We miss the view and the good folks at the Point, especially John the bellman, but the decision had to be made to sell it with that maintenance fee.  Too much for retirees.
> 
> Flew back from Lihue Friday nite 1130 pm departure.  Took American three flights to get us to Texas!  LAX was a zoo because they changed planes and had to reseat every passenger.  (Originally there was only a single change of planes but AA decided that three was better for their bottom line)  That is in outgoing and incoming flites
> 
> ...



We're finding that it's getting harder to get to Hawaii from the midwest without two changes of planes. I use to be able to book us through either Denver, Chicago or Dallas but now nearly everything also goes through LA or San Fransisco. Thus is the price we're paying to spend a little time in paradise.


----------



## Kauai Kid (Nov 18, 2012)

Forgot to mention DFW Airport's problems from yesterday.  Their monorail train broke down between stations!

Our Austin flite was delayed because the flight attendants had to walk the terminal to get to the departure gate.

As far as I know there was no one on the train when it broke down or they'd need a cherry picker and bucket to get the folks offl

But Hawaii is worth it.

Sterling


----------



## Kauai Kid (Nov 18, 2012)

Try a flight from Phoenix on US Air.  We can get to Maui or Lihue on US Air with only one change of planes.  Never had a problem. (Who knows what will happen when USA and AA get married)?

Sterling


----------



## zora (Nov 19, 2012)

Alaska air will be starting a direct b/t lihue and San Diego. Hope that helps.


----------



## dougp26364 (Nov 19, 2012)

Kauai Kid said:


> Try a flight from Phoenix on US Air.  We can get to Maui or Lihue on US Air with only one change of planes.  Never had a problem. (Who knows what will happen when USA and AA get married)?
> 
> Sterling



USAir no longer flies from our hometown airport. They code share with United, which requires 2 changes of planes.

In the reality of it all, I don't mind having to change planes in LA or San Fran. It gives us a chance to stretch our legs and maybe use an adult size bathroom. It also gives us a chance to buy something other than the slim selection of food offered on by the airlines and, if we have enough time, grab a cup of Starbucks coffee before getting back on the plane.


----------



## artringwald (Nov 20, 2012)

Apparently, spreading the remaining SA payments out over four years instead of two was part of the lawsuit settlement with Point of Poipu Angry Owners. For more details, check the Facebook page:

http://www.facebook.com/pointatpoipu


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Nov 20, 2012)

artringwald said:


> Apparently, spreading the remaining SA payments out over four years instead of two was part of the lawsuit settlement with Point of Poipu Angry Owners. For more details, check the Facebook page:
> 
> http://www.facebook.com/pointatpoipu



And that probably was made possible because defaults are less than anticipated.


----------



## Beefnot (Nov 20, 2012)

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> And that probably was made possible because defaults are less than anticipated.



I think it was made possible because of compromise.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Nov 20, 2012)

Beefnot said:


> I think it was made possible because of compromise.


"compromise" was possible only because the project finances are better than anticipated.  The compromise would never have been made if the project finances didn't allow it.

It also suggests to me that Diamond proceeded with the project with a fair degree of contingency in the budget, which is a mark of good project planning.


----------



## timeos2 (Nov 20, 2012)

All things considered this appears to have finally worked out about as well as could be expected. A case can be made that it wasn't handled as well as it should have been and there remains an undercurrent of owner dissatisfaction with the make up & method of voting for the Board members but ultimately there was a basic building integrity problem that was the owners responsibility, not DRI's, to repair. How it came about is also open to question but that's in the past and the work needs to be done now. 

So in the bigger picture it took some hassles to get here but it now appears that they have made the best of a very bad situation and can now move forward. Compromise is always the preferable path to costly and long drawn out lawsuits.  This one got wrapped up fairly quickly and both sides get kudos for that outcome IMO.


----------



## Beefnot (Nov 20, 2012)

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> "compromise" was possible only because the project finances are better than anticipated.  The compromise would never have been made if the project finances didn't allow it.
> 
> It also suggests to me that Diamond proceeded with the project with a fair degree of contingency in the budget, which is a mark of good project planning.



That is not necessarily true. Settlements happen because of compromise. At least one side concedes more than they would like.  In this case, it is much more likely that DRI gave back some money, not because the finances were any more favorable than before, but because they wanted the lawsuit to go away.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Nov 20, 2012)

Beefnot said:


> That is not necessarily true. Settlements happen because of compromise. At least one side concedes more than they would like.  In this case, it is much more likely that DRI gave back some money, not because the finances were any more favorable than before, but because they wanted the lawsuit to go away.


Having negotiated a fair amount of settlements in my life, I can say that an absolute precondition for compromise is feasibility.  You can't achieve a compromise if the underlying conditions don't make compromise possible.

Of course you then must also have parties that are willing to compromise.  But the first requirement is feasibility.  In this case compromise was possible because compromise was feasible.  

****

One of the biggest causes of failed negotiations is inability or unwillingness of one of the parties to the negotiation to recognize when compromise is not possible because what is being demanded is not feasible.  That's when the accusations of bad faith, stubbornness, insincerity, lack of commitment, etc., start flying.  

In the case at hand I commend the parties for finding a common ground.  I also congratulate the plaintiffs for being able to set aside their strong initial emotional responses (which had led me to fear the litigation was an impending train wreck) and get to what I think is a reasonable resolution with relatively little pain and agony.  

And it happened smoothly enough and generated enough overall benefit that I wouldn't mind them being compensated for reasonable attorney's fees.


----------



## Beefnot (Nov 20, 2012)

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> Having negotiated a fair amount of settlements in my life, I can say that an absolute precondition for compromise is feasibility.  You can't achieve a compromise if the underlying conditions don't make compromise possible.
> 
> Of course you then must also have parties that are willing to compromise.  But the first requirement is feasibility.  In this case compromise was possible because compromise was feasible.



You are exactly correct about feasibility.  However, you are conflating feasibility with favorability.  The settlement can be completely unfavorable (many, if not most, are), but yet entirely feasible (i.e., DRI could afford to pay it).


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Nov 20, 2012)

Beefnot said:


> You are exactly correct about feasibility.  However, you are conflating feasibility with favorability.  The settlement can be completely unfavorable (many, if not most, are), but yet entirely feasible (i.e., DRI could afford to pay it).



Not at all. You are the one who is conflating.  

Anytime anyone settles (when they could freely and feasibly opt to not settle) it is because they deem settlement to be more favorable than the alternatives associated with not settling.  *Always*.


----------



## Beefnot (Nov 20, 2012)

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> Not at all. You are the one who is conflating.
> 
> Anytime anyone settles (when they could freely and feasibly opt to not settle) it is because they deem settlement to be more favorable than the alternatives associated with not settling.  *Always*.



I do not disagree with what you just wrote.  In fact, I completely agree with it.  However, apparently you do not understand what "conflation" means.  Either that, or "feasibility". Reread what you previously wrote: "an absolute precondition for compromise is feasibility. You can't achieve a compromise if the underlying conditions don't make compromise possible."  

That is completely different from "they deem settlement to be more favorable than the alternatives associated with not settling".  Feasible = possible, not favorable.


----------



## Phill12 (Nov 21, 2012)

Fisch said:


> I sat in on the owners meeting in October and Jamie mentioned they had a lower default rate then budgeted for.  That was surprising after listening to all the complaints and the "lawsuit".  I figured it would've been higher then they planned.



 Wonder if its because so many owners gave their units to someone new? For a while you could find 20 ads a day to just give them away. I found one few days ago and thought these freebies must have slowed down.


----------



## Fisch (Nov 21, 2012)

Phill12 said:


> Wonder if its because so many owners gave their units to someone new? For a while you could find 20 ads a day to just give them away. I found one few days ago and thought these freebies must have slowed down.



what's funny is most of the frees ones I've seen this year have had the SA paid.  If I could afford the extra yearly maintenance fee, I'd grab one.


----------



## artringwald (Nov 21, 2012)

Fisch said:


> what's funny is most of the frees ones I've seen this year have had the SA paid.  If I could afford the extra yearly maintenance fee, I'd grab one.



What I found out earlier this year, is that DRI won't transfer the title until all the SA is paid up. The seller said they couldn't afford it, so I ended up paying it, just sooner than I had expected.


----------



## Beefnot (Nov 22, 2012)

artringwald said:


> What I found out earlier this year, is that DRI won't transfer the title until all the SA is paid up. The seller said they couldn't afford it, so I ended up paying it, just sooner than I had expected.



That was rather benevolent. There were many advertised on ebay, and I think some even here on TUG's bargain deals forum, that were being basically given away with the SA already paid.


----------



## artringwald (Nov 23, 2012)

Beefnot said:


> That was rather benevolent. There were many advertised on ebay, and I think some even here on TUG's bargain deals forum, that were being basically given away with the SA already paid.



This was back in April when few had paid the rest of the SA. Besides, the previous year I already had a deal go bad after dragging on for months, so I was a little gun shy of the too good to be true offers. It all worked out because we did it in time to book oceanfront in August this year and oceanfront in February next year.


----------



## Poobah (Nov 23, 2012)

*Settlement*

We did pick up another week off of Ebay for $1. Bought it last February, but didn't get possession until almost October, for a variety of reasons. The previous owner paid the SA and then walked. 

I am very happy to spread out the payments. We could have paid it all up front, but cash flow is cash flow. I like to hold on to cash as long as possible.

I think people are dumping these units for reasons other than financial. The main "other" reason is plain dissatisfaction with DRI and its policies/programs. Hopefully the settlement will help calm the waters. We'll see.

Cheers,

Paul


----------



## pianodinosaur (Dec 8, 2012)

I suggest moving this thread to the DRI section.


----------

