Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
mtnpath, Sounds like this facility is a good fit for TV. Placing one in RB, however, is a different animal, imho. The proposed facility will have 88 units, almost 10% of the RB population. RB has limited, available land to build such a facility. The current proposal places the facility, approximately, across from the equestrian center and near the entrance. RB residents are involved and volunteer to take on many tasks, but that pool is still limited due to the size of the community. There is no guarantee, of which I am aware, that units will be set aside, or reserved, for residents when such services are required. Generally, those who no longer want, or can't, live in RB, for reasons attributed to health and aging, tend to want to return to areas to be near family members.
The Declarant, with the exception of his partners, is supporting this because of his greed. At least that is the allegation from his partners, if that letter is to be believed. The charge is that the Declarant sees this as a revenue opportunity for the Club. I can't imagine that residents of the facility, who do not already reside within RB, would be mandated to join the Club. But, I never imagined I would live in a community where one would have to pay $450 NOT to eat.
Thank you for the very helpful information regarding the current facility and the new facility to be built. I can understand how such services are important and relevant to TV.
In other communities I’m aware of, usually the amenities are available to all owners or, like TV, such amenities are available on an a la carte basis. Never seen anything like RB where there are two distinct groups or classes of owners, one group for which Club membership is mandatory and another group for which Club membership is not mandatory. In my view, this is a HUGE negative for relationships within the community.
Lots of disagreement and resentment on different issues. By my count (based on limited knowledge), RB already has, at a minimum, large groups of owners having one or more of the following "resentments":
Individual lot owners paying Club dues, but not using RB’s amenities, who resent having to subsidize Club members with homes who are using such amenities.
Individual lot owners, paying both assessments and Club dues, who resent having to compete in the lot resale market against Declarant or builder related sellers which do not have the pressure of having to incur such periodic fees, i.e., lack the intense pressure to get out at a low price to stop the bleeding.
Club members who resent having to bear the brunt of the costs of various amenities without the contribution of those home and lot owners who have no obligation to become Club members (a situation greatly exacerbated by the insufficient number of “donors to the cause” resulting, I assume, from a much slower than expected build out of the available home sites in the RB community).
Club members who resent competing, in the home and lot resale markets, with non-Club members who have the competitive advantage (I assume) of being in a position to pass down to subsequent purchasers the option of opting out of Club membership—a very large and continuous cost savings. Or are all subsequent purchasers required to pay the $5,000 "initiation" fee?
Homeowners who resent having to compete, in the home resale market, against Declarant and builders which “siphon off” potential home buyers through national and local marketing campaigns intended to showcase their new homes (i.e., cutting line in front of existing home sellers).
From my perspective as an outsider “looking in”, it appears that the underlying “bad situation” at RB fueling most of the resentment is the lack of sufficient “donors to the cause” needed to support amenities, in quality and numbers, worthy of a high end luxury home community. Correct me if I’m wrong but even the $5,000 upfront non-refundable Club initiation fee appears to be an attempt to make up the large gap in funds needed for such purposes on a long term basis including updating, repairing, maintaining and perhaps, at some point, expanding such amenities.
Since any improvement in the quality or number of amenities (funded by existing Club members and those future home and lot owners required to pay Club initiation and periodic fees) theoretically benefits the home values (and possible resale values) of ALL homeowners in RB (whether or not Club members), it would seem that the tension between Club members and non-Club members is bound to increase substantially over time, pitting neighbor against neighbor on issue after issue. Do you agree?
For those who are in a position to opt out of Club membership, is there any “legal” path by which the Declarant could, at some point in the future, greatly increase general assessment fees (applicable to all individual home and lot owners) and greatly reduce Club initiation and periodic fees (applicable to less than all home and lot owners) to spread the burden of community amenity expenses more evenly (and with a lower cost of entry perhaps encouraging more non-Club members to join the Club)? Or are general assessment fees strictly regulated in their intended use and purpose and restricted from being used to support amenities in any way, shape or form?
Tellico Village is obviously in a MUCH greater position of strength (given the huge number of “donors to the cause” and the advanced stage of its build out process), whereas WindRiver appears to be in a potentially worse position than RB (given that such community is very early in its build out process and has placed the bar so high on quality community amenities). But WindRiver does appear to have the advantage (I assume) of not allowing any owners to "opt" out.
One last question (for now): Are non-Club members required to pay the $450 for NOT eating (which you made reference to), or is that dining obligation tied to Club membership and applicable to Club members only?
The relationships between residents are not exactly what you would expect. I agree, the scenarios that you describe probably, and should, exist to some degree, although restraint to speak in public does not allow them to be quantified. And the resentment, if it is expressed, is directed towards the situation or those in power. There appears to be a recognition that if your fellow resident is perceived to be in a better position than you, the fault does not lie with the resident. You soon realize that just about everyone has complaints relative to each of their respective situations. This evolves into the, "we're all in this together," attitude, and residents just accept their plight, comforted in knowing others are equally unhappy. But, I believe there are residents who ARE happy and probably don't care too much about the things I've told you. I hope that you will talk to other RB residents, in the future, should you want to consider RB. Many of us have had experiences that are unique, which is why you will wonder, after speaking with some other residents, "who in the hell is giving me factual information?" We may all be giving you facts, but those facts belong to our individual experiences.
In my opinion, the lot owners, who never visit RB, have it the worst. They are forced to pay as much as the residents that use the amenities, which just isn't reasonable. Originally, lot owners paid a quarterly Club fee, substantially less than the current fee structure, and some residents paid nothing for years. I have a friend that paid quarterly Club dues from the time he bought his lot in 2006. Another friend paid nothing from his purchase in 2002. No one really knows why these opposing conditions would exist, but it is correctly noted in the Club Membership Plan.
"Club members who resent competing, in the home and lot resale markets, with non-Club members who have the competitive advantage (I assume) of being in a position to pass down to subsequent purchasers the option of opting out of Club membership—a very large and continuous cost savings. Or are all subsequent purchasers required to pay the $5,000 "initiation" fee?"
I don't have the hard numbers to fully tell you the relationship between the number of homes that HAVE the Club membership as a requirement and those that do not. The first 5 phases of the development do not have the mandatory Club requirement, but I believe this number may have a heavier concentration of waterfront or estate lots, as compared to the other phases, so it is hard to determine which houses are really competing with each other. If a purchaser only has a budget of $600,000, the ability to find a home without the mandatory club membership is reduced. And this is not an, "opt-out," opportunity. Homes either have the requirement in their Deed, or they do not. The Declarant claims that about half of those in the first 5 phases have made personal agreements to become members, but those agreements do not "run with the land," so subsequent owners are not obligated. The $5000 initiation fee is paid by all who purchase a home that has the Club requirement in the Deed. There were/are a few other houses in the community, which are not in the first 5 phases, that also do not have the requirement in the Deed; don't know how or why that happened, like many other odd things. However, the Declarant added the Club requirement to the Master Declaration, so the new purchasers are now required to join the Club. Clear as mud?
I think that you are correct in determining that the major contributing factor in RB's problems is the lack of donors, and it is going to take years to resolve, if at all.
Regarding the possibility that assessments could be substantially increased to subsidize and reduce Club related fees, I tell you, today, that cannot happen. The Association collects the assessments, which are capped at a maximum, 5% annually, and those funds are used for well-defined expenses related to the non-profit Association. Some residents are concerned that the Declarant's takeover of the Board could lead to a co-mingling of funds, but I do not think this will happen. It is one thing to stick it to the residents; it is another to commit a criminal act.
FYI, not sure of relationship, but developer at WindRiver is Joe Ayres, RB Declarant, Michael Ayres. Michael Ayres married to a Stooksbury, whose father is a former partner to original RB developer, Mike Ross.
Fortunately, non-Club members are not liable for any Club-related fees. They can eat at the Club but receive no discount. And, they cannot use any Club facilities as individuals.
I am pleased that the unusual “living expense” dynamics do not appear to materially interfere (at least publicly) with the ability of the residents of RB to enjoy each other’s company and even the RB community as a whole. We were hoping that was the case. Of course, I will take your advice and speak with other RB residents as well.
I imagine that, if a prospective buyer is interested in two comparable RB properties, one of which has a mandatory Club membership requirement and the other of which has no such requirement, he or she will likely be inclined to pay less for the property with the mandatory requirement (much less if such prospective buyer is not interested in using RB’s amenities).
Basic economics tells us that, to make a fair comparison, the value of the "mandatory" property relative to the other would need to be discounted by the present value of the stream of upfront and periodic mandatory payments for at least as long as a buyer (not interested in Club membership) planned to own the property (and for a longer period if subsequent resale value is an important factor).
However, if a buyer had every intention of enjoying the amenities, then only the subsequent resale value would be a factor (as the pool of potential buyers at that time would also include those with no interest in using the amenities, i.e., those who would feel a discount is warranted to cover the extra cost burden).
Of course, in real life, there is rarely such a “tie” between two homes that factors such as this would be given primary consideration to break the tie. Most couples can almost always identify which of two homes is more attractive to them.
You appear to be correct that most of the homes free of the mandatory Club membership may be on the upper end of the price scale. Of the 17 RB homes priced below $420,000 on one website, only these three mentioned that benefit:
$325,000 home, built in 1996, advertised as “All memberships are optional on this property.”
$375,000 home, built in 2000, advertised as “No mandatory membership required to country club, but available.”
$419,900 home, built in 2000, advertised as “NO MANDATORY MEMBERSHIP REQUIRED. A $200.00 PER MONTH SAVINGS!”
By the way, I was pleased that a substantial number of those who are not required to join the Club have agreed to do so anyway. Perhaps that support may keep the Declarant from doing something crazy just to increase the number of Club members (yeah, right!).
I also noticed that the developer at WindRiver shares the same last name as a person involved with RB’s Declarant. Small world. Interesting, given that both communities are probably targeting the same group of potential home buyers, i.e., are direct competitors!
In any event, thank you for sharing your thoughts on RB. Despite the unusual dynamics, we are still drawn to it for some reason.
TennTitan, out of curiosity, I did an online search for the now-defunct "Rarity Pointe" and found (probably old) addresses for Rarity Pointe Realty and Rarity Pointe Sales and Information Center of "350 Lighthouse Point Dr., Lenoir City, TN."
I then plugged that address into mapquest.com and it described the location as the "WindRiver Gate".
I then typed in www.raritypointe.com to see where that took me and, lo and behold, it went directly to windriverliving.com!
Wasn't Mike Ross the developer of both Rarity Bay and Rarity Pointe (and a few other "Rarity" developments)? Since the "Ayres" name is popping up at both Rarity Bay and WindRiver, perhaps we are back to both developments once again sharing a common bloodline. May be enough of a connection that it bears close watching, especially if either community takes a hard fall relative to the other. Fiduciary duties are never something to take lightly but, as we know, they sometimes take a back seat in hard times, regardless of the best intentions.
Interesting as, in my view, the difference in the two communities is that we have, in Rarity Bay, what a Tennessean (who, as you mentioned, may have never actually been to France) may imagine a French Country "inspired" home to look like, and, in WindRiver, what a Tennessean (who may have never actually been to England) may imagine an English Country "inspired" home to look like.
Seriously, though, the few WindRiver homes we toured appeared to be very well built and of very high quality.
However, if a buyer had every intention of enjoying the amenities, then only the subsequent resale value would be a factor (as the pool of potential buyers at that time would also include those with no interest in using the amenities, i.e., those who would feel a discount is warranted to cover the extra cost burden).
These are the so called club house "AMENITIES"
1. Club house: anybody can use the clubhouse, it is not private, 50% of the users are "outsiders" playing golf and no membership is required
2. Club house restaurant/bar: anybody can eat drink there, 50% of the users are "outsiders"
playing golf and no membership is required
(15% discount for Club members, wow, mandatory food fees over $900 annually or $450 to
opt out - paying for privilege not to eat there)
3. Swimming pool: outdoor, ridiculously small,. 30'x 50', capacity for 30 people at most
and that would be very crowded, open 4 months only
(RB has now approx. 430 houses, 2 occupants on average, RB home sites capacity 1200)
4. Tennis courts: 2
5. Gym: used to be approx. 25'x 25' low ceiling room, now dysfunctional, no restroom
What else, anybody?
All for only $184.00 a month of mandatory membership for selected home owners and especially out of state lot owners for substandard facilities and services.
Lotpoor, thanks for providing a list of and details on the various amenities. I recall another RB resident also mentioning "Club parties". I realize you do not live there but perhaps a poster who does can weigh in on whether any portion of the Club fees subsidize social functions during the course of a year and, if so, how often and to what extent.
Also, based on a pamphlet provided by a realtor on the social and group activities at RB, joining and participating in any of the social groups or activities listed in such pamphlet requires "membership". Is this referring to "Club" membership?
Assuming my amenity interests are limited to swimming and fitness, here is how the numbers shake out for me:
In the gated community where I currently reside (which has no privately owned facilities open to the public), my annual $900 assessment includes use of the club house, fitness room, pool, tennis courts, etc., and the ability to join and participate in the various social groups and activities. It also includes the cost of the guard at the gate. That $900 annual cost is my point of comparison.
That annual baseline cost goes to $1,343 ($793 to RB + $550 to TV) if I buy a home in RB with no mandatory social membership requirement, do not join the Club BUT (assuming it is permitted) purchase a pass for the annual use of the indoor and outdoor pool and fitness facilities at TV (the added benefit being the ability to use the indoor pool for all 12 months in a given year).
That annual baseline cost goes to $1954 ($117/mo. x 12 plus $550) if I buy a home in TV and purchase a pass for the annual use of the indoor and outdoor pool and fitness facilities at TV (again, the added benefit being the ability to use the indoor pool for all 12 months in a given year). However, I would be giving up a 24 hour manned gate.
However, that cost would move sharply upward, i.e., $5,000 in upfront costs (social club initiation fee) and $3,301 in annual costs ($171.52 x 12 plus $793 plus $450 for NOT eating) if I buy a home in RB which requires social membership. But, then, I only get to use the RB pool for 4 months, so I still may be forced to spend another $550 at TV to get the use of a pool all year round.
In short, it is the high social membership costs at RB which propel the total annual assessment/social expenses to a level well beyond the other options. For that reason, I really need more info on whether or not that extra cost is worth it. To what extent are you removed from the day-to-day social environment at RB without such membership?
On a separate "cost" subject, the community where I currently reside, like RB, has a "maintenance-free" villa area. However, some of the villas at RB have annual landscape/yard maintenance fees which are approximately double the same services here (and our villas are on larger lots with larger yards). Does the Declarant at RB unilaterally set those annual maintenance costs in its sole discretion (in which case, the villa option becomes substantially less attractive versus the option of buying a home and personally controlling those expenses)? Or are those costs bid out and subject to a budget with a reserve and, thus, governed less by the whims of the Declarant and more by market forces in the area and reasonable accounting practices managed by fiduciaries? Would love to know whether the Declarant is using this service as an additional "profit-center", in which case the captive group of villa homeowners could be subject to significantly higher annual costs in the future, similar to the captive group of Club members subject to future increases in social membership fees.
NOTE: Regarding my above numbers, I did not apply TN state/local taxes to any cost item except the monthly social membership fee at RB (which lotpoor indicated was subject to tax). I have no idea whether the general HOA assessments in TN are taxable, or whether the TV fee for the use of the pool and fitness facilities is subject to tax. I also have no idea whether the RB initiation fee for Club membership and the $450 fee for NOT eating are subject to tax.
FYI
RB HOA=POA is $740.00 annually, with 5% annual cap
Mandatory social membership fee structure has "no cap", can be anything anytime - courtesy of the present RB declarant and it's amendments
To own RB land is approx. 3,300.00 annually (350.00 property tax, 2,200.00 "social membershipo" and $740.00 POA)
Villas have other monthly + association fees too
Please read my post 4/29/2017 what happened to social membership fees since new declarant took over
Lotpoor, thanks for the clarification. I used the $793 annual assessment number because it was mentioned in prior posts from a couple of current residents of RB and also matches the general assessment number set forth in a pamphlet titled "2017 Rarity Bay Assessments and Charges" handed to us by a realtor. The 2016 number, which appeared in a similar pamphlet from that year, was $756 (still higher than your $740 number).
I did read your earlier post. In fact, based on that post, I am certain that we will likely NEVER buy a lot in RB intending to build a new home on it. Thanks for getting me the info I required to reach that decision.
By the way, the pamphlet I mentioned states that "Future Purchasers of Rarity Bay Vacant Lots will be offered Pre-Construction Membership Status for the lesser of twenty-four months from time of purchase, or upon the occupancy of a newly constructed home. . . Quarterly billing of Social Dues @ $157 + Facility Fees of $450 annually." I believe you mentioned that you are now billed the $157 (plus tax) MONTHLY, not quarterly. Thus, new buyers of vacant lots in 2017 appear to have a temporary reduction in fees compared to those who have owned certain lots for many years.
Even so, the Declarant's current approach of using existing lot owners as the "whipping boy" for shortfalls in sufficient "donors to the cause" on the social membership front leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I assume the intention is to drive the prices of your lots to fire sale levels so that the Declarant and the builders can pick them up on the cheap or, better yet, force you to make a decision to build a home in RB sooner than you otherwise would.
As I assume the Declarant controls the "home build plan approval process", and no doubt has certain builders which the Declarant would prefer you use (i.e., its partners!), you would still be firmly in their clutches. Want to use a non-preferred builder? Plan rejected! Want to try again with one of our preferred builders? What, more expensive than the non-preferred builder? So what, you have no choice! Either build a home with our partner, sell your lot to us or our partner builder for pennies on the dollar, or keep holding on to your lot and pay us substantial fees annually. Talk about a Hobson's choice!
No thank you! If we move in the direction of RB, it will likely be by way of an existing home and probably with some extra effort expended to try to avoid becoming members of any of the captive groups who may be subject to unreasonable future increases in living expenses. Still trying to identify all of the groups which are exposed to such risk factors.
Last edited by mtnpath; 05-31-2017 at 01:58 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
