Here we Go again- Ravines residents get another chance

DB,

I was a little surprised when you listed the criteria that wasn't valid for discussion in your blog and then called others "narrowminded".   I am not so narrowminded that I consider "my way" the only way.  We've all got a right to our opinion and to act accordingly based upon that opinion, would you not agree? 

You paint an ominous image, and it's one that from a professional stand point  I do not agree with.  The one thing that is more adverse to value then a closed course is a glut of homes.  Although there are exceptions to the rule typically attached homes do not enhance values in a subdivision.  Based upon your number of 5000 new homes values in the Ravines will not increase by adding yet more. 

So far as what is listed in the Ravines, you make it sound like it's a mass exodus and that isn't quite right.  Although there could be a few "FSBO" in the s/d MLS shows that there are 14 active listings in the Ravines right now.  Out of apx 700 homes that is not a glut of properties.  Considering that at least three of them are attached homes, at least three or four are "pre foreclosure" listings, at least one is new construction, one has been on the market for a few years based upon issues with drainage and moisture and the fact that the majority have not been on the market for an extraordinary amount of time it is my opinion that the supply and demand within the s/d is in balance.   Let us also not forget that summer is the "transfer season" and there is always more activity in the summer with homes being sold.

With regards to mandatory fees, regardless of any poll the Covenants would have to be changed, and there are already two other issues with Covenants that I believe have not been resolved so the mandatory fees will have to get in line behind those.  By the time you get to the place where those covenants can actually be amended to make that social membership mandatory there will be a certain amount of residencies that will change to new owners, thus a new vote would be required.  You can't take a vote, hold the results for 18mths and then apply them.  Without 75% of approval from ALL residents, not just the ones who want to participate nothing can be made mandatory. 

We've been steadfast in what we will agree to and what we won't, what we believe and what we don't. Our position has never changed.

I feel your presentation bordered on trying to make people afraid, intimidated over what "might happen" that's one that has been tried before.  The loss in value to the residents from a closed course compared to the current housing market and the potential glut of homes coming when lending requirements are much tougher only bolsters my beliefs. 

If push comes to shove and that 75% votes for it when it's the right time to do so then we will live with it and patronize the resort like we always have.  Voting for it officially when there are other issues ahead of it with regards to the Covenants will be pointless, you cannot enforce what you cannot ammend and record. 

"""""We've been steadfast in what we will agree to and what we won't, what we believe and what we don't. Our position has never changed.""""

Could you please elaborate on this statement so we can all better understand why it is better to have a closed course than an open one?

Marsha,r

If people are not afraid that their home values in the Ravines will not increase more by having a gold course than 6 foot weeds then they are not being dilgent in their thought processes.  what I was trying to say with 5000 homes is that there is no reason for someone to buy in the Ravines if they can get the same new house for the same or cheaper price outside the Ravines.  Having a gate may not be worth an additional $$ amount however a golf course gated community will maybe entice someone to live here.

I totally understand the want and need to downplay the houses for sale in the Ravines however when the golf course was open and there was still prospects for it to be a course all the houses on the main road wer enot up for sale.

 I am so profoundly dumbfounded by the want to keep this course closed because of some houses and attached around the course.  I do not get it ad never will.

 what do "you" ( quotations because I know it is ot only you) agree to?

Please tell me what it is that would make you say the words:

"Yes, WE agree with that and are willing to allow the course to be sold and go forward" 

What will it take for this to take place and then maybe we can have some middle ground to start this process moving forward because it appears to me all the players involved are not wiling to go anywhere or do anything.

 Even the USA and Korea can find some common ground

I am not creating fear just saying what nobody else is willing to say.   

DB,

I made that statement based upon what you said in your initial blog with reference to asking people if they were sorry they'd followed "someone". I'm not sure who that someone is, I have a good idea and if you've read the blogs for any length of time you will know that we're not following anyone. We just happen to agree on a couple of points within the community.

Your making the statement that we prefer the course to be closed is not accurate in any way DB and you made that statement more then once. Would I rather see it closed then developed? You bet your sweet bippy I would. The land that course sits on is too beautiful to rape with residential development.

I don't know what you mean by a "gold" course, could you elaborate? DB I'm not trying to downplay or put a spin on anything. It's my job in real estate to be objective and 15 +/- listings in a community with 700 homes is not something to have concern over. Values are down, yes, and even if that course could open tomorrow the values in the s/d are still going to be effected by the overall market which is still declining and most likely will continue to decline for awhile. However, with that being said what I do all comes down to opinion, and you could find other Professionals to disagree without much effort.

Your original blog said we have another chance suggesting a new buyer, isn't this Hayden group the same people you were blogging about several weeks ago and is this still not the same offer?

I'm sure you believe that this is our last chance, but I don't. When the property can be purchased for what it's worth at auction, it will be bought, Ravines is too unique to sit for long once it's free of the bankruptcy mess and is no longer encumbered with debt.

You asked what we would agree to, that would be most anything that didn't include mandatory fees and further residential development. We would applaud an expansion of the resort. I'm not interested in being obligated to help someone else with their financing, and if you gotta pay then you have no recourse for bad service or a poorly run resort.

You should feel pretty hopeful though, I received an email that said the results of the unofficial poll are complete and of those that responded (which is the catch, how many responded in total?) that 75% were ok with mandatory fees and 83% were willing to accept some more attached homes. I don't know what the statistics were before so maybe the numbers are growing in your favor, and maybe they're not. I still say it's all premature because the Covenants would have to be amended and there are already two problems with the C&R that have to be resolved before this could be put to an official vote. We would protest any vote on this issue that could not be immediately acted upon, like I said before, you can't take a vote and hold the results for 18mths before you take action on them.

You also continue to not acknowledge the fact that the Bankruptcy Trustee put it in writing that if anything was allowed in the future that was not allowed for the former owner that a legal remedy would be sought. That can go both against the county and the homeowners association. You could end up paying for a whole lot more then what you thought you might.

We're not out going door to door trying to keep people from agreeing to this, other then you I converse with one other person so don't feel like we're out campaigning to get our way, we're not. Whatever the majority votes for is the way we will go. However our opinion remains and will always remain the same.........no mandatory fees, no changes to the layout of the course and no further residential development.

That's the one thing we can control, while the DRI's are packing people in like sardines and creating suburban sprawl, we have a community that is not overbuilt and crowded, and I hope it stays that way.

In closing I will once again ask you to be fair and not continue to imply that we want the course to stay closed, because that just isn't true. We just believe neither fees nor further development are necessary for the Ravines to be successful, and the sky isn't falling.

I want to assist here a little.

 Here are the amenitiy fees for Fleming Island

1)  Condos- $99 a month and is going to $199- this is to cover roads/pool,etc... 

2)  Residential is a few hundred a month more than that.  You pay whether you want to or not because this is for the pool, playgrounds,etc

Fleming Island is a private course and is a going concern seperate from the amenities. 

We pay 66 dollars a month for our Amenities and upkeep of the landscape-cheap

EAGLE Harbor- If the cost of the course is short what it cost to stay in business the residents in the Community WILL pay into keeping the course as a running concern, period!.

Everyone pays in some way shape or form- why would we be any different to any other successful location with a pool/amenities,etc..

 Gold course was a typo!hahaha. 

 Who will buy the course in the condition it is presently in.  It was over a million to repair it when it was a going concern and now it is even more than that.  It cannot generate the fees required to be a going concern on it's own and this has been demonstrated over and over.  Can you or someone please put some numbers down on paper as to how this will work.  Here are some numbers at a guess not knowing or having good data:

 Purchase price              $5million

Repairs                        $2.5 million

Total cost                     $7.5million

Average cost of a round of golf  $55= 136,363 rounds of golf to break even with no daily costs to run the course

Cost to run course           $700,000 a year at least

Average cost of round $55= 12,727 rounds per year= 1060 rounds per month= 35 rounds per day, even slow days. 

If you add in the cost of the course and ammortize it over 5 years that will increase daily needs by 75 rounds per day so now we need 110 rounds every single day and this is to barely to make it over a five year period.  $55 a round does not allow for a lot of profit to want to have 7.5million out there.  anything less than 5-10% on your money makes it better to put it in a CD versus a golf course.

Please show some numbers to show me to how this will be a viable business concern and how it will make money!!  Ask the 30 original people that challenged this and get them to put numbers together to show how this is going to be a viable concern and I will be the first one in line to agree with no development however I know for a fact I will not see any figures to quantify the need for no development because that is how courses survive these days....

Applaud an expansion of the resort- where can it go.  Course on two sides and a creek on the other- where would you expand it to?  How would you exapnd it?  More costs here on top of what we were looking at above.

diverbrian;

I'm sticking my nose in where it probably doesn't belong because I don't live in the Ravines but I would like to ask some questions and make some comments.

1. Flemming Island GC is not a private course. Just like EH it is considered semi-private. That is, you can buy a membership there and get some extra perks but anyone can make a Tee Time and play there.

2. EH is a CDD so you are comparing apples, oranges and grapes when trying to lump FI, EH and the Ravines into the same mold.

We (EH) own the course and the pools and the Tennis Courts etc. They were built with CDD money and we pay a CDD fee plus an O&M (operations and maintenance) fee on our tax bill every year but we do not pay an extra HOA fee.

3. Where did you get your figures for 'dues' for Flemming Island? Several hunder more a month over $199 seems really high for an HOA fee. The CDD/O&M fees at EH come to less than $200 per month. 

4. What is the $1493 PFI non-ad valorem charge on Flemming Island resident's tax bill?

5. Why do you see 40K rounds per year (RPY) as an unreachable number? Do you have any idea how many RPY are played at EH or FI?

6. What were the number of RPY for the 5 years before the Ravines closed? Not average, but actual by year. The last one before it was closed is an outlier and needs to be adjusted or thrown out.

I guess I'm missing something in the translation. You throw some numbers out that you admit are a guess because you don't know and don't have any good data.

Yet you seem to have made up your mind that whatever deal you've heard offered is the best it is ever going to get. If it were me, I'd be holding a smoke detector in front of these people the next time they started talking.

Mike Heemer

Thank you Finder

I talked to a FI house owner and was advised the course is owned by a private Company and dues are totally seperate from what EH has.  If this is erroneous i apologise for that.

I agree we have CDD and semi-private, etc however the point I was trying to make is that we have to pay for everything at some time or another.  For $90 a month the residents will get the use of ALL amenities and the added value of a nice course, dues paying residents and major major upgrades.  I do not get why what we are currently dealing with is better, it boggles my mind to no end and no one can give a straight answer other than " We do not want more cars or residents, we do not like DeBusk"

I am not saying the RPY is not possible, what I am questioning is is it is a good investment to make when it has failed with the past four owners trying to make a go of it as a stand alone course when there were no other courses to compete with.

I am a simple guy and it does not look like a good investment to me, would antyone agree with that?

does anyone reading this blog know how many rounds the Ravines got in the five years on averagwe prior to closing??

Thanks

DB,

As I've said before, my Husband created a business plan when he tried to buy the Resort before it went into bankruptcy.  Business plans are worth money and I am not going to get into the particulars of ours in a public forum.  I know that it's frustrating to hear that but what can I say....it is what it is.   I can only tell you that Fred has/had plans to expand the resort.  He has decades of experience of starting businesses from the ground up so I trust him when he says it can be done, and our accountant backed him up, and still does.

Your price tag for the Ravines is not only unrealistic I actually had to laugh when I saw that figure yet once again.  That 5 million dollar figure is always the magic number. In pristine condition the Ravines is not worth 5 million dollars, if you want to break it up for residential development a person could make that much but since the course is protected into perpetuity that's not going to happen. With the current market conditions it's not even a good risk to try.  The place cannot be appraised at any other highest and best use then what it is because the Covenants & Restrictions are binding documents, and no financial institution seeing it's current condition and value would ever loan that much money on the place, nor would any appraiser who values their license give a highest and best use value on something that is not legally permissable.   

That price tag is to pay off all the encumbered debt and still turn a profit.  When BoA auctions it off they will be looking to get their portion of that debt satifisfied and nothing else.  I suspect at auction the place may sell for a million......maybe.  If your figure to bring it back is correct that brings you at about the same value that the place had a few years ago. 

So long as the residents don't expect miracles overnight the resort is viable. 

Residents have no control over what those dues are used for.  It's like a politician telling you what he is going to do if elected, one can only hope that they do. There is no obligation on the part of a new owner to put any money back into the course anymore then previous owners.  There is just the obligation to pay the debt service, and that is what those mandatory fees are for, security for the lender.   

Scuttlebutt says the place is due to be auctioned off next month.  Once that happens it will be bought and brought back by someone and all these debates will be over, and then maybe, just maybe, the community will come together to support the new owner whoever it may be.

I hope someday we meet at the Clubhouse, shake hands and can appreciate what was lost that like the Phoenix rose from the ashes.

OK,

I agree with this train of thought and will definitely rally around the new owner if they can make it a viable business. I will champion that.

 Thank you Marsha and I will gladly sit down and have a drink with you, you hold a very good conversation.  Let's play golf even though I am useless at it! hahaah

 Thanks.

Is it true that the auction has been rescheduled for next month?  If so, does anyone know the date?

Jon,

I received an email from a fellow resident telling me it is believed that the auction has been set for Aug 26th but that it was not yet appearing in the online records for the Clerk of Courts. 

Angela,

As this auction approaches it brings to mind two petitions that were circulated by Ravines residents and presented to the Board of County Commissioners.  Are these petitions a part of public record?  From your previous posts I would say that they would be.  I don't know how to get them so if you could help it would be appreciated.  I don't want the list of names of people that signed the petition, what I want to know is what were the questions or statements written at the top of the two petition, what were people signing to say they agree with?  If you can edit out the names and just print the components of the petition, that would help.

In a few conversations about any possible new owner building on the golf course, it lead to ponderings about what those petitions said and if the people who signed them have changed their minds since.  They couldn't really decide since some don't remember what the petition said. 

One petition was about building homes on the golf course; the first one was about building homes on what people called the par 3 course. 

If those petitions were turned in to the BCC those would be public records. You would need to contact the BCC and they will have a public records person and make a request for the record you are asking for. I think you can email them with the request.

I have to run right now. I'm at work. I will check the blogs later to see if you need some help.

Read44 it was my belief we were filling out surveys not petitions.

http://www.ctlac.com/

Sorry for the confusion.  I was talking about the signatures that were collected years ago about the Ravines Club and Lodge building homes on the golf course and par 3.