DavidnRobin
TUG Member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2005
- Messages
- 11,863
- Reaction score
- 2,262
- Location
- San Francisco Bay Area
- Resorts Owned
-
WKORV OFD (Maui)
WPORV (Kauai)
WSJ-VGV (St. John)
WKV (Scottsdale)
GeneNWendy - do not forget that in 2008 there was a doubling of the replacement reserve (within the MFs) that was suppose to be for limited refurbish - which was done because parts of our villa were refurbished before the Special assessment (that wasn't voted on).'
btw - to be clear - I voted 'YES' to the initial refurbish vote because our villa was in deep need of remodeling - the owner of week 23 at the time (now our week) and I even offered to buy a new couch for the villa out of our own pocket because the one we had was in such poor shape it was unusable (unless passed out from drinking too much rum - like my brother did... lol). Also, Robin wanted the kitchen redone - especialy since we tend to stay in more and cook at the villa. I am personally in favor of the remodel and glad they went forward with the refurbish. Other Owners that I spoke with (limited) were also in favor and voted 'yes'. What happened - due to poor management, database systems, etc on WSJ/SVO's part - is that not enough Owners voted and the they were stuck since bylaws required a minimum number of votes that was not attained. Then, from what I can tell, decided to go forth with it without proper approval for the good of the resort (at least that is what I believe their argumant is...). Am I in support of a lawsuit - even if it is over the illegal refurbish vote which we supported? Yes, but only to get the attention of WSJ HOA BOD and SVO Corporate about MF and transparency issues - and this appears to be the best path forward in getting their attention.
What I am not in favor of is the lack of transparency - and that our base MFs have skyrocketed due to mismanagement, and SVO's and WSJ's policies on how they deal with vacant villas due to deliquent owners (like throughout SVO) in their ability (or lack of) getting the HOAs reimbursed.
btw - to be clear - I voted 'YES' to the initial refurbish vote because our villa was in deep need of remodeling - the owner of week 23 at the time (now our week) and I even offered to buy a new couch for the villa out of our own pocket because the one we had was in such poor shape it was unusable (unless passed out from drinking too much rum - like my brother did... lol). Also, Robin wanted the kitchen redone - especialy since we tend to stay in more and cook at the villa. I am personally in favor of the remodel and glad they went forward with the refurbish. Other Owners that I spoke with (limited) were also in favor and voted 'yes'. What happened - due to poor management, database systems, etc on WSJ/SVO's part - is that not enough Owners voted and the they were stuck since bylaws required a minimum number of votes that was not attained. Then, from what I can tell, decided to go forth with it without proper approval for the good of the resort (at least that is what I believe their argumant is...). Am I in support of a lawsuit - even if it is over the illegal refurbish vote which we supported? Yes, but only to get the attention of WSJ HOA BOD and SVO Corporate about MF and transparency issues - and this appears to be the best path forward in getting their attention.
What I am not in favor of is the lack of transparency - and that our base MFs have skyrocketed due to mismanagement, and SVO's and WSJ's policies on how they deal with vacant villas due to deliquent owners (like throughout SVO) in their ability (or lack of) getting the HOAs reimbursed.