RSS Feed
Email Us
Photo Gallery
GeistTVFall I session begins on September 10. Registration for Fall I begins on August 15th.
Visit our website for a listing of all our programs.
Recent Classifieds
- 2007 Volkswagen Jetta 2.5 - $9,500 May 15, 2012 Tom Britt
- Fishers Women's Day Charity Night for Girls Inc May 14, 2012 Stephanie
- News Flash: Instant Video Memories starting "Auto-VIDEO $elling services! May 12, 2012 Doug Tyree
- Nutrition Classes and Wellness Coaching May 12, 2012 Jada Svoboda
- HUGE NEIGHBORHOOD & MOVING SALE (FISHERS) May 10, 2012 debra hire
- Mint condition - 2007 Glastron GX 205 boat for sale by owner - $19,900 May 10, 2012 Kelly Sego
Geist Story Map
Fall I Session Begins at Benjamin Harrison YMCA
- Share this post:
I just wanted to pass my 2 cents along, if I cannot attend the last meeting this evening regarding the clubhouse. I live in Feather Cove 1.
In short, I do NOT want to be assessed anything to keep the clubhouse active.
I also don’t appreciate nor do I buy into the flyer and email that were distributed that is so biasly slanted to keep the clubhouse. DANGER! YOU WILL LOSE VALUE IN YOUR PROPERTY! No. I won’t.
It’s simply not that important, particularly to neighborhoods not close to it.
I disagree completely that losing the clubhouse will affect the value of my home or any home in Feather Cove 1, at all.
The rez itself is THE selling point for this area and what plays into the value of my home – not the clubhouse, tennis courts and pool 2-3 miles away in a different neighborhood.
…I didn’t know anything about it when I bought my house, which is the same story I’ve heard from every neighbor I’ve talked with.
…It was not mentioned on the realtor’s flyer when my home was for sale, and I have not seen it listed on any flyers on homes for sale in our neighborhood, currently.
…You would think at this economically-challenged time, ANYTHING of value you could put in a flyer would be. Yet, the clubhouse, pool, and tennis courts are not mentioned.
The loss of the clubhouse is at this point, as I understand it, due to very few memberships and people using it.
I assume this issue is more important to those living in the Admirals, where the Clubhouse is located. Although, based on how much it’s being used, maybe it’s not that important to them either.
It is not a park, a playground, nor does it have any biking trails – at least, I’m assuming it doesn’t.
I see this $300 assessment as WRONG.
This is an amenity that does NOT apply to many in the Geist area. It makes no sense at all to penalize those who are not interested and to whom this amenity has no value to incur an expense to keep something going that has shown to be of little interest to most in the area.
I also assume that the clubhouse has not been marketed that well — based in part by what I’ve read in the atGeist.com monthly newsletter.
It is a fine facility and it’s a shame that more wasn’t done to solicit its use – corporate retreats and off-site meetings, corporate parties, ticketed Geist holiday parties and events, job fairs, sales events/opportunities, etc.
Bottom line:
1. I think it’s a very nice facility that has the potential to support itself without any expense passed onto uninterested and unimpacted Geist residents.
2. I do not agree with any monetary assessment for Geist residents to keep the clubhouse, or the idea that losing it would impact my property value.
3. I do agree with the board that came to the conclusion to sell off the land and have nice homes put there.
I would much rather spend money on traffic and pedestrian safety.
Ron, I can appreciate your position, however, I respectfully disagree. Many communities require in the Association dues a fee to maintain greenspace and the amenities of the community. Most of us, until recently, were not aware that our Association did not own our amenities. To your point that you’d like the land sold off and “nice homes put there” – there is no guarantee that will happen. These amenities were put there as a marketing tool, and they still are used as a marketing tool. Facts and figures from the National Association of Builders and the National Association of Realtors do, in fact, support the claim that amenities really do help property values. Many of the residents of Feather Cove and Beam Reach are just as empassioned about KEEPING the amenities as you are empassioned about letting them go. While I also can appreciate that “the other side of the lake” has a further drive than anyone in the Admirals, it is still closer to drive over to the Admirals than it is to go to, perhaps, the YMCA. Additionally, if we owned our amenities, we could be free to market the clubhouse as we see fit, to develop a larger playground area, and a whole host of other ideas have been tossed around. I do appreciate your position, however, I adamantly support the concept of value of these assets for ALL of the GHPOA members.
I have not been able to attend a meeting, however I think keeping the pool and clubhouse would be in our community’s best interest. How would I go about signing the petition if I haven’t been able to attend a meeting?
As for Ron, I guess he’s one of the old men on the board who wanted to decide for everyone else. If he can’t afford his share (three hundred dollars), he can cut my grass for a couple of months this spring and I’ll pay his part.
As for why it’s not mentioned on any of the flyers for current homes for sale in “his” neighborhood…. do you think it’s existence being in limbo at the moment might be why a realtor would choose not to list it?
The pool and clubhouse would actually be the only thing I’ve ever see the property association ever use my dues for that I would actually spend my money on. (The snowplows that never seem to go anywhere near my street and the safety patrol aren’t exactly anything that have any impact on my day to day life, and while the new signs are pretty, the others were more than adequate.) We have had several events there through the years, from our “Clean Up Day” in the spring to the picnic we had for the couple who lost their home to a fire on Old Stone last summer and of course as the annual meeting place for the parade of kids on Halloween night.
Ron: I respectfully agree with ALLof your comments. Further, I specifically agree that the “clubhouse” was never mentioned as a selling point for our home in Beamreach. We also still purchased this home. So did a significant number of homeowners.
Patty, You need to back up your comment to Ron, “Many of the residents of Feather Cove and Beam Reach are just as empassioned about KEEPING the amenities as you are empassioned about letting them go.” Just who are they? Rather than a ‘general’ statement, please back this up with the number of people to whom you are referring. According to the facts only 108 families had memberships to the pool last year, of which only 6 were Beamreach and Masthead. I also see that you live in Admirals. I agree that the clubhouse along with every other homeowner paying to purchase and maintain it, will be a great sellling point for Admirals. I don’t necessarily want to see the homeowners in Admirals lose that amenity, but I don’t feel this is a GHPOA financial responsibility.
As a family with both parents working full time jobs, we purchased a membership two years ago. We found that we could not utilize the clubhouse on a regular basis. Since the clubhouse/pool was not located in our neighborhood, our child could not walk to the pool to play with the other kids. The Admiral experience is vastly different than our Beamreach experience in regard to this facility.
I would prefer to use the $100 monthly cost your committe proposes to continue to finance my child’s participation in her swim team (Which is year round, not seasonal.) Your proposal now puts that in jeopardy.
Stephanie,
The additional cost is up to a $100 per year increase in dues and not $100 per month. This is stated in the third paragraph of the “Giest Clubhouse Committee Making Good Case for Purchase” article above. It is also my understanding that it could even be less than $100 per year.
I have to agree with Ron on this one. I live in Crossing South and we are fairly close to the clubhouse but we’re still on the other side of 86th street. An obsticle for a youngster wanting to ride his bike to the park. If I lived in Beamreach it would be all but impossible. I don’t see how assessing a property to pay for ammenities that you don’t have easy access to helps my property values. We already pay high association dues. And living in Crossing South we already pay for things like grass cutting and irrigation. We don’t have ANY common space grass that gets cut . Now we’re supposed to pay for an ammenity located entirely within a different neighborhood. To be honest about the only thing that all of the unconnected GHPOA neighborhoods have in common is that they all pay dues to the GHPOA. There may be a compromise out there someplace but assessing Beamreach and Masthead the same as the Admirals is just unfair. This should probably be an Admirals project exclusively.
Just a few things in response to Beth and Patty.
Patty,
First, I AGREE that amenities are a selling point … in the neighborhoods in which they’re located. The fact that the GPHOA has a community of properties spread out over Geist doesn’t mean that specific amenties clearly contained in one of the many neighborhoods has the same value to ALL neighborhoods.
Yet, the committee would have us believe that.
And that simply isn’t factual.
I’ve discussed this situation with realtors, and not one said that losing the clubhouse property would negatively impact the sale of homes in Feather Cove 1.
Without looking at the study the committee keeps referring to, I would assume it applies to amenities that are built IN the neighborhoods or in a close, safe, convenient location to all associate neighborhoods. Respectfully, again this doesn’t apply to Feather Cove 1.
This is my biggest objection to assessing FC1 for this property purchase and maintenance.
Second, the study you mention talks about parks, biking and hiking trails, playgrounds as well as other things. I have also seen childrens playground equipment in some neighborhoods. The Geist property has none of those things, and with the exception of space for playground equipment (and with that comes a significant cost), the property is not that big to have bike or hiking trails of any magnitude, or a small area for baseball or soccer.
Also, I THOUGHT one option in this process was to have nice homes put in it’s place. It’s not a question of me wanting a particular thing to be done.
Finally, if people in ANY Geist neighborhood are passionate about saving the clubhouse, then they can certainly vote that way. People feel the way they feel.
I just feel strongly that the argument the committee is presenting has some degree of bias and skewed interpretation of the value of the clubhouse to ALL GPHOA residents. And, I happen to believe the argument you make loses credibility the minute you cross 86th street, and gets weaker the further away you drive.
Understand there is nothing meant to be personal in my comments.
Beth,
For the record, I’m not an old man on the board, and what I can afford is not the issue.
Lets not assume this CLUBHOUSE issue to be more important to Admirals residents. I have live in the Admirals since 89, very close to the Club and really and truly I have not seeing any real interest or support for the Clubhouse coming from all of the different neighborhoods since it was built.
Why expend all this money on a White Elephant that has served no purpose in the past and most likely will do the same in the future. If this plan does not work, then the Board will come back to you very shortly asking for more dow to support this fiasco, just like the Feds do. This should not be a financial responsibility of the GHPOA or its members.
I do agree that the whole area were the club and its facilities are located are nice, but there must be a solution if we want to benefit just a few.
I do not agree with any unnecessary assessment to sustain a losing proposition with no real value for residents.
I also do not agree with the notion that our property will lose value if we don’t own the Clubhouse. There is nothing to support this.
I do think the $300 assessment and the possibility of a $100 increase in yearly dues is totally WRONG and unnecessary.
The Clubhouse has not being a selling point in the past for Realtors. If the majority of Realtors in the area agree that loosing the Clubhouse would not be a negative impact to homeowners, why not listen to Realtors then.
I will vote against this proposition and I urge you to do the same.