Thursday, December 16, 2004

Sports Park controversy again--use and profit

Joe,

We've been through this before but, to review:

1. Your argument concerning the 3,000 CZ Members who "don't use" the Sports
Park makes no sense. By that logic, I shouldn't have to pay for repairing
the sidewalks on your street, because I "don't use" those sidewalks.

2. If you think about it, we don't have a CHOICE except to maintain
(properly) the Coto Sports Park. To do otherwise would be a "breach of
fiduciary duty." It is an asset of the Association that MUST be maintained.


3. Since the basic costs of maintenance/upkeep are fixed ("sunk") costs,
there is no logical basis for shifting those costs to a particular group of
residents. Indeed, even if we wanted to, how would we do so? As a
practical matter, how would a resident "prove" that no member of his or her
family had "ever" used the Sports Park during a particular time frame?

4. Your next line of attack appears to be directed at "non-residents."
Again, as a practical matter, what percentage of players in a game would
have to be "residents" before a particular "use" would be permitted or free?


5. In view of the foregoing, and since the basic costs of maintenance are
"fixed," your only possible "beef" would be with the marginal increase in
costs, if any, attributable to some ill-defined set of activities or group
(e.g., non-residents?). How could we begin to measure that increase?

6. As you know, the various youth leagues do not draw boundaries around
Coto. Even if they did, however, is that a fight we want to pick? Would we
want to limit all of our families to using the one Sports Park facility in
Coto? Our residents (especially our kids) make VERY extensive use of the
sports facilities of other communities (including RSM and Mission Viejo).
If we declare "war" on non-residents, we will surely lose that battle.

7. Finally, your failure (or refusal) to defend the "50%" figure speaks
volumes. You can't tell me, and I don't understand, the factual basis for
your proposed "50/50 partnership." One simply cannot make the argument for
such a split without addressing the issue of what is a "reasonable" user
fee? Further, you must address the potential impact of a five-fold increase
in fees, including any unintended consequences. Until you address these
questions, it is impossible to consider the merits of your proposal.

Best regards,

John

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home