This was the HOA's meeting so I was determined to just sit and listen but I want to applaud Judy for her brave effort … especially since she wound up being shouted down by Cathy McAllister.
Interestingly, this is what I tried to suggest a couple of months ago, even making an overture to get together through a now-resigned board member. That overture was rejected also.
The Good … there weren't a lot of people there to hear the misinformation.
Jeff announced that he has formed a new committee to develop a "proposal for a fair conversion." I'm happy to see this broad-based approach to figuring out how to make this conversion better for everyone. However, I got a little worried when Jeff said he was going to create a proposal for conversion, "like nothing you've ever seen before."
When Jeff described the people who would be on this committee, they sounded like smart, capable people who could help bring all of this stuff together. I recognized some of the people behind the descriptions and one of them happened to be sitting beside me. When the meeting ended, I asked him if he was going to be on the committee and he said, "Not that I know of." Since he and his wife still live out of the area, he wasn't sure he would have time to serve on the committee. Curious.
If I had a crystal ball, what I would like to see is a proposal that would add flexibility, protections and incentives to the already existing conversion offer. Unfortunately, what I would probably see is a proposal that doesn't make sense, one the owner has to reject. At that point, Jeff will be able to say, "See, we made a fair offer and they didn't take it."
Apparently, this proposal development process will invite all of us to participate in a small group meetings. We need to be there and try to help shape a proposal that has some possibility of being accepted. I have some things in mind that I think could help more people benefit from this conversion. I would love to share these ideas.
The Bad … The HOA Board continues to say they are not opposed to conversion and then acts as if they are. One of the first things they did was to announce that their lawyer had filed a 38-page "brief" calling for a new survey and a "fair conversion." That "brief" (actually a long, convoluted, redundant letter) asks the County to deem the application for conversion incomplete primarily because not enough residents support it.
Jeff continued to state that conversion would devalue our homes and we would be priced out on rent, even giving us another specific number saying we would only get $15,000 for our homes. Where does he get these numbers?
I don't know if the complexity of the issues around space rent confuses him or he is deliberately not painting the whole picture, however he allowed one resident to draw the conclusion that "70 percent" of the park would see their space rents go up to market rate.
Just to reiterate the written facts: almost everyone in the park is on a lease (only 36 are in rent-controlled properties). Everyone on a lease can stay on their lease indefinitely … that means their rent will stay the same, with annual increases as prescribed in their own lease agreement. Period
The Ugly … Language and argument by innuendo, Out-shouting, and Blatant lies.
Just because politicians do it, doesn't mean we should. This is our community. We live together and will long after this conversion has become a thing of the past.
"Indisputable" Facts. Here is an indisputable fact … we don't have all that many facts and the ones we do have are in writing. Just because Jeff says we're only going to get $15K for our units, doesn't mean that's so. Just because Cathy says the lot prices will be overpriced by $100,000, doesn't mean that will happen. They are speculating and calling their speculations not only "facts" but "indisputable facts."
I have speculated about the price of lots and other aspects of conversion. However, I have never called them facts and would never dare to call something an "indisputable" fact unless it were in writing and/or validated by two or more outside sources.
The Appraisers. Jeff continues to damn by innuendo. Once again last night, he insinuated that appraisers can't be trusted … especially the ones paid by the owner. He doesn't know … or doesn't care … that the recent real estate debacle created new legislation to make the appraisal process tighter and less subject to influence. In a recent living room meeting with Michael Fitzgibbons from Murphy Bank, he told us that they can no long order appraisals directly from an appraiser. They have to go through a third-party management firm to order appraisals.
The Owner. This poor guy, whoever he is, never gets a break. Not only is he only "in it for the money" (of course the rest of us are never interested in the money when we sell our homes, cars or whatever), he really has a devious plan for over-pricing lots now so they won't be sold until sometime in the future. That's a strategy you can take to the bank. (And I did … I asked Richard Laxton of Murphy Bank what he thought and he said, "Great idea. I'm going to list my house today for $850,000. Of course it's only worth $350,000, but what a great idea.")
The Lawyers. The Board doesn't miss many chances to slam the lawyers and bring up past conversions as their "proof." I don't know the lawyers but I do know Susy Forbath their representative in this conversion. She has been open and responsive in all of her dealings with me, and, as far as I know, with everyone else she has dealt with.
When I've asked her about past conversions, she has explained the context in enough detail that I've begun to understand how a conversion can go "bad." Conversion is a long process and the world changes. Conversions launched on the eve of the recent real estate crash didn't fare well. Great swaths of Las Vegas were left empty as people lost their jobs and walked away from their homes. That had nothing to do with any sort of conversion; it was the forces of the market, the same forces that affected mobile home parks whose conversion timing sucked.
However, the Board doesn't want to deal in the nuances of reality when they can continue their war of innuendo and misinformation.
The Engineer. I was truly disheartened by the innuendo around John Wallace. Because he will be paid by the owner for his *professional* services, it was implied that he is incompetent or even unethical as wafts of past issues drifted around the room. I met John this week and sat in a meeting where another land use applicant unrelated to Mesa Dunes repeatedly praised John and his work. While I don't know him well, John seems like a bright, committed, rational man. If the Board wants to attack him or his credibility, I think they should do it out in public and not by the snide, whispering innuendo that went on last night.
Because John has been involved with major systems in the park (the sewage system specifically) Jeff ended this innuendo thread by saying, in a wink-wink fashion, "And, we know what the health of the park is." The body language and implication indicated that the park is falling apart and only Jeff can save us from that fate.
The Rules. Repeatedly, Jeff said the owner and his lawyers have not followed the rules but he looks at "the rules" through his own perceptions. He wants to know the price of the lots now even though "the rules" say the lot prices will not be released until the County has approved the final map, the inspections and appraisals are done, and the budgets for the future HOA is prepared.
Members of the HOA Board have repeatedly used the analogy of buying a house … or a car … or whatever, saying "you wouldn't buy a whatever if you didn't know the price of it." What they don't say is that the house or the car … or our lots … are not for sale and won't be for probably another two years.
The conversion process is simple the process of mapping and valuation that will make those lots available for sale within the constraints of state and county regulations. We're being assured that the lot prices will be set in an orderly, rational manner led by a park appraisal and then confirmed … or not … by bank appraisals when lots actually do go up for sale.
We all want to know the price of the lots. However, from the first meeting, Susy Forbath told us we wouldn't know them for a year or two. Just because we don't like the rules, doesn't mean we get to make up our own.
The Price. After accusing me of everything they could think of, Cathy is now citing my numbers as the "official numbers." Last night she used them as the starting point for saying they are $100,000 too high, artificially inflated by the owners.
First, let me remind you that my numbers are based on my research over the past few months, developed as a way to help people to think about their own situations.
Second, I don't have a crystal ball. I don't have any insight into the mind of the owner. I don't have any concept of what the appraiser might come up with. However, I can look around and compare us with other parks. I can look at recent sales in other parks and get a feel for what lot and coach packages are selling for.
That looking around process makes me think the range (today's range … who knows what will happen in two years) would be $175,000 - $225,000. In a mind-numbing swing from my guess to her fantasy, Cathy lopped off $100,000 to make her numbers $75,000 - $125,000.
Go Cathy! I hope you're right, however, your logic and track record aren't very good so I'm not going to count on it.
The first guess on lot prices I got from anyone was from Richard Laxton of Murphy Bank (someone Cathy talked a lot about last night … but more about that later). His guess was $150,000 - $200,000. Using Cathy's logic, the owners must be sitting around thinking, "We have to make the lot prices at least $250,000 - $300,000 so the banks won't loan the money to the residents." I can see them rubbing their hands over the bubbling cauldron right now.
Out-shouting. At one point, when a resident questioned something, Cathy McAllister started screaming, "Would you want to pay $225,000 for 18 inches of dirt? Would you? … WOULD YOU?" The resident gave up in the face of that wall of hostility. So much for a calm, rational exchange of information.
Blatant Lies. The biggest, baddest, scariest of the lies came from Cathy talking about something she said Richard Laxton of Murphy Bank said. Anyone who knows bankers would know that he would never say what she said he did. After a series of emails and a long conversation with Richard this morning, he categorically denies making the statement and told me to "have them prove it."
This is so important, it will be covered in a subsequent post titled: What Richard Laxton Did NOT Say.
