I'd like to get an update where you are with the workers compound
issue and where you think it will all end up. As you know you have my
support.
In the meantime, I'd like to share my thoughts with you. Although I'm not as adversely effected
as many of the owners in Phase 7, I understand the issue and why it is
proving so difficult to find a solution in the short term. This is a
Minority/Majority issue where the majority are not being effected by the
impact of the issue but might be by the resolution and the minority are
being impacted severely by it and from what I understand they have a
legal and a moral right to have it shut down.
If this gets taken through the legal system, it is highly likely
that the site will be shut down and the workers will have to find an
alternative location to base themselves either within or outside of the
resort because they don't own the land and its designated use is likely
to be agricultural. There may also be implications on the organisations that have used the site and those that have encouraged
them to use the site, which includes the Resort Committee, IRM and STV
if what I read is factual. Those implications are likely
to involve financial compensation for owners directly effected in phase 7
for any damages that they have incurred over the last x years.
The potential impact of this on the all owners including those in
Phase 7 is a likely small increase in community fees to cover the impact of
re-siting our gardeners etc and a capital funding issue for IRM to
re-site their maintenance equipment for the golf course. It has also
been flagged that the cost of this could put IRM into administration
which in turn could force a sale of the Golf Course (which incidentally
may of may not be a bad thing, it depends on who buys the course -
therefore it is a risk).
On the other hand if the minority do not take action
they are likely to suffer a much greater loss due to the impact of
continued air and noise pollution and lower property values due to what
looks like a rubbish dump from their terraces. Given
that it only takes one person to take legal action against the use of
the site for the courts to issue an eviction notice, I believe its just
a matter of time before this happens. Therefore if we need to find a Win/Win solution so we don't all end up losing out.
How do we do that?
Well, first of all, we need to remember that
whatever gets agreed could always be challenged by anyone on the resort
unless the legal status and designated use of the site is changed to
comply with that agreement. Given that you would normally have to own
the land to apply for its change of use I can't see that happening.
So the only way I can see of creating a Win/Win
situation is if all parties could agree a short term compromise
agreement combined with a longer term contractual solution with specific
economic indicators and/or dates to ensure the point at which that
longer term solution gets enforced does not
have unforeseen adverse economic impacts on the owners within the
resort.
Anyway, those are my thoughts, I'm
sure someone will say we've already tried this and it didn't work and if
that's the case they probably didn't go about it in the right way.
You are welcome to share my thoughts with anyone if you think it will help us achieve the best outcome for everyone.
John
No comments:
Post a Comment