Editorial Panel (EP) – We received this email, written on October 23, at 10 PM. We have purposely posted it without identifying the author. The author can of course add their identity to this post.
Whenever the Editorial Panel or Special Interest Group (SIG) responds to an email or FAKE news, we risk alienating someone. To let either pass without comment though, is perpetuating misinformation.
THE EMAIL - "Unfortunately not Everyone WAS INVITED to meet the candidate party! Why would we want someone on the board who has never even lived here AND is discontent with the existing living conditions of this beautiful community and is determined to undermine the established way of living here? Why not build somewhere more suited to their taste instead of coming in and causing division amongst neighbors who were before getting along? Why are neighbors being so inconsiderate of one another? Why can't we respond to your newsletter? Why isn't everyone being included like you newsletter PRETENDS is being done? Why are you trying to create division between the two sides of the 'pond'?"
EP - We should have stated that anyone can comment on the Newsletter by adding comments on this web site. To answer this email, we have broken it down:
"Unfortunately, not Everyone WAS INVITED to meet the candidate party!"
EP - The Meet the Candidates Event was a private party. There may be others. We are very much open to a fair open event which would include all the candidates running for the Board of Directors. At this time, we understand there are 5 more candidates, but the President of the Board has not released their names.
"Why would we want someone on the board who has never even lived here….."
EP - You just described the current Board Treasurer. There are approximately 130 non-resident owners of Tolomato Island properties, about ½ of the ownership. They pay ½ the total assessments (thus ½ our bills), ½ of all lot taxes to the County etc., and for the most part don't utilize the amenities (pool, pickle ball courts, boat dock). They have ZERO representation on the Board of Directors, and because of poor policy, they, and those of us who own additional property, are getting a terrible return on their investment. Worse, they often have a very hard time building their dream home, when they choose to move here.
"…..AND is discontent with the existing living conditions of this beautiful community and is determined to undermine the established way of living here?"
EP – With all due respect, your notion that someone "is discontent…..determined to undermine the established way of living etc.", is your projection, and is not based on facts. It is important to remember that all of us were new to Tolomato Island once. Our experience is Tolomato Island is a welcoming place, and not at all judgmental.
"Why not build somewhere more suited to their taste instead of coming in and causing division amongst neighbors who were before getting along?"
EP - Again, a projection not based on any facts. Most of the people we have talked to, are anxious to move to Tolomato Island. None are trying to cause division. Building a home of their choosing within the Architectural Guidelines is their right. Lawfully building on any portion of their lot is also their right. Openly running for the Board of Directors is not only their right, but it should be applauded.
"Why are neighbors being so inconsiderate of one another?"
EP - We suspect this is a rhetorical question. Some people on both "sides" react strongly, and they are being goaded to take sides, creating tension and inconsiderate action. The Newsletter and SIG puts forth information that is true to the best of our ability.
If you remember, there was a ground swell for change in the 2022 election, and new board members were elected. However, with various leadership maneuvers, the same people are back, now in different roles operating the Board of Directors and the ARB. There is still a need for change, which SIG supports.
Why can't we respond to your newsletter?
EP - You just did. The best method is to post comments on www.tolomatoowners.org You will need to register to post.
Why isn't everyone being included like your newsletter PRETENDS is being done?
EP - Anyone can read the articles, posts etc. on this web site. To post you need to register. Any owner can register. There is no other voice for Tolomato Owners. Board of Director leadership does not offer a mechanism for information sharing or respectful debate.
Why are you trying to create division between the two sides of the 'pond'?
EP - The Newsletter and SIG have taken the high road. SIG responded to FAKE News, that is being broadcast. Neither the EP nor SIG initiates FAKE News. If "sides" stick to the issues, we would all be better served. We more than anyone, value the greater Tolomato community, including those on all sides of the pond, and those that currently do not live here.
Comments
Amason
on Thursday, 26 October 2023 01:29
A forum for communication is not dividing the community.
Candidates wanting to run for the Board are not dividing the community.
Just because new owners want to run and owners want to introduce the slate of candidates they support (nothing the past or present Boards have ever done even though it has been suggested), that is not dividing the community.
The Board president saying at a public meeting, a certain “splinter” group has evolved? Sounds ominous. That is dividing the community.
It appears that a group of past and present Board members are spreading misinformation about residents being divisive just because others are supporting a certain slate of candidates as is their right. A candidate’s night is not dividing the community.
The statement that a candidate running for the Board, does not live here yet. That statement is divisive. A current Board member serving DOES NOT live here, but has been on the Board since Dec. 3, 2022.
Perhaps it’s “them” and their proxies, not the new candidates nor their supporters that are dividing the community.
Why is it divisive to have an end of the year picnic (all residents were invited) but the ones who accuse others of being divisive did not come.
Rather than complaining, have an open mind and meet the candidates, speak to neighbors and don’t consider people with a different opinion your enemy.
JimandGinny
on Thursday, 26 October 2023 23:12
You have got to be kidding me--silence anyone who does not tow the party line is more like it.
Since 2016 this community has been dominated by a group of bullies that have attacked anyone who showed initiative or challenged the status quo with new ideas. The bullying has come in the form of anonymous letters to individuals, emails, public condemnation of individuals who dare to speak at public meetings and, more recently, in the form of memos presented on TIPOA letterheads signed by "The Board". These memos have been distributed using the "official TIPOA" email system and by mail using the "official TIPOA" mailing list. In fact, this email is suspiciously similar to the 4 page letter mailed to all 261 members of TIPOA and in which the Board took a candidate for the 2022 Board to task. This bullying has caused people elected to governing positions to resign, has resulted in individuals withdrawing from participation in public meetings, and has resulted in people to declining to pursue volunteer positions or putting their hat in the ring for Board member positions. The 2022 Board letter was, in part, the reason for a candidate deciding to remove himself from consideration for a Board position. Finally, the bullying has actually resulted in a few following the email author's suggestion move to "somewhere more suited" to their taste.
The SIG has exposed this bullying and I suppose this was necessary. Unfortunately, in the process, the SIG has given voice to the bully. Continuing to respond to the bully could dissuade people thinking about dabbling in a site that promises a kinder, gentler community with respectful discussion. It could also cause some who have registered to go silent.
Worse yet, giving voice to the bully could distract from the Board candidates platform for new ideas, transparency and community dialog. As per your newsletter, we know the problem lets stay focused on fixing it.
I strongly recommend that the SIG not post future emails such as the one above. Furthermore, I would hope that the monitor not approve posts that represent personal attacks on Board candidates or the group of owners that make up tolomatoowners.org. Posts like the above email cannot possibly result in any kind of respectful discussion and can only turn this site into the type of social media site that gives social media a bad name.
Respectfully, Ginny
JimandGinny
on Friday, 27 October 2023 13:28
If we do this right and stick to our guns the bullies will fade into obscurity where they belong.
Editorial Panel
on Sunday, 29 October 2023 19:30
Factually Inaccurate – Victoria Love Post – “Covenants”
The Victoria Love (VL) Post entitled “Covenants” contains factual inaccuracies.
The Tolomato Owners site is founded on the requirements that dialog be respectful / courteous and that information or comments be transparent and accurate. The Editorial Panel (EP) did not delete the post as the comments provided are common misinformation, at times even put forth by Board of Directors officers. The EP believes it is important that the misinformation be corrected.
VL - “It was stated that McIntosh County has already combined these 3 lots. As I understand it, this is not uncommon, but that the county does this for tax purposes only. It is unrelated to building purposes. Not the same thing.”
EP – This statement is inaccurate. There are two different ways to combine lots in McIntosh County.
- Via an application process where McIntosh County extends Georgia Law and offers owners a “Homestead Exemption”. The exemption may require a survey and may include additional property etc. aka combining lots for tax purposes.
- While not noted in the Love Post, persons may also request that their property evaluation for ad valorum tax purposes (property taxes) be frozen. Readers may want to investigate that ability, in this time of rising inflation.
https://mcintoshassessor.com/homestead-exemptions/
- A second method combines lots for various purposes including building. The County’s Building and Zoning requires a survey of the combined lots which usually shows the former lot line and the minimum property line setbacks established by county, state or federal regulations; a new lot description; and that a new deed be filed with the new description. Assuming Building and Zoning approves the combination, the new deed is recorded, and the survey is officially recorded in the Book of Plats,
- Neither method adversely affects the TIPOA Declaration of Covenants (assessments, voting, etc.).
- A note: according to the owner, 2 of the 3 lots were combined.
VL - “Tolomato Island is governed by a set of Covenants which do not allow for the combining of lots for building purposes. You can’t build across the lines. People have varying opinions about that, but those are the rules……”
EP – This statement is misleading. Building across lot lines is not prohibited in the Covenants. This TIPOA Board in particular, has interpreted the Covenants to say you cannot build across lot lines. The Board has a disputed legal opinion to that effect. There are 3 other lawyers who disagree and conclude that owners can combine lots (via the county process as required) and build on their combined lots. The matter will be resolved in court or through a property worded amendment to the Covenants.
VL - “…..and that we already have 16 existing homes that are over 3800 square feet in size. Apparently, 7 of them are actually over 4500 square feet. Each of these homes, as I understand it, is built on one lot.”
EP – This statement is inaccurate and misleading. Lots have been combined by both current and previous owners including a home that has been built on a combined lot. It should be noted that most of the homes mentioned were built during the time of initial development. Proximity of homes to each other was probably not a major developer concern.
VL - “So. Someone has recently purchased 3 adjoining lots and wants to build a 3800 square foot home. Spanning TWO of those lots…….”
EP – This statement is misleading. – While this and other posts have been directed at a candidate, there are at least 3 homes in the planning stage that would take advantage of combined lots. One is St. Joseph’s point, one is in Sugar Mill, and one is in Thicket 1.
There are other locations that probably cannot be built on, unless they are combined, and there are lots that should be combined, else truly beautiful community views and ancient trees will be destroyed.
Readers should remember the former ARB announced the need for and rationale behind combining lots, way before it became an issue, or any candidate submitted plans.
It should be noted that no homes proposed "span" two lots. The footprint of proposed homes do not change when set on a combined lot. The placement of a home on a combined lot usually takes advantage of its natural features, as opposed to destroying them.
VL - “No one is being “denied an opportunity” to do anything, either by our Board (which is obligated to enforce the Covenants as written) or by our current ARB.”
EP - This statement is inaccurate – The current ARB and the ARB prior to the 2022.5 ARB have denied persons both the ability to build on their home’s lot and on their adjacent lots.
Guest - Victoria Love
on Sunday, 29 October 2023 20:33
…” there are at least 3 homes in the planning stage that would take advantage of combined lots.
Indicates how important it is, especially now, that our ARB and Board are committed to abiding by our covenants.
Guest - Victoria Love
on Tuesday, 31 October 2023 17:01
The EP writes, “- A second method combines lots for various purposes including building. The County’s Building and Zoning requires a survey of the combined lots which usually shows the former lot line and the minimum property line setbacks established by county, state or federal regulations; a new lot description; and that a new deed be filed with the new description. Assuming Building and Zoning approves the combination, the new deed is recorded, and the survey is officially recorded in the Book of Plats,”
McIntosh County’s Building and Zoning requirements and Tolomato Island’s Covenants and Guidelines are not the same thing. We should be very glad of that fact.
The County’s requirements span the entire county. They must accommodate a wide range of circumstances and interests. The county may allow someone to buy the lot next door to you and put in a mobile home. Or build a weekend fishing cabin. Or allow you to have chickens in your backyard. That isn’t going to happen, here.
In Tolomato Island we are governed by a set of Covenants and Guidelines that are specific to our community. They are recorded by the County. They are restrictive, and protective, by design. Those protections are what gave all of us the confidence to buy and build in this community.
JimandGinny
on Friday, 03 November 2023 11:53
County zoning and the building inspector define what is considered a buildable lot (perk, min. set backs, etc.) Zoning also defines our area as residential (no commercial activity, no bed and breakfast, etc.). Above and beyond that, our covenants and ARB guidelines specify land use (type of house, additional placement requirements, etc.).
So the question then is... In the event that a homeowner combines 2 lots into a single building lot, is the ARB limited to specifying where the house may be placed on the combined lot via our setback requirements and with a focus upon maintaining the natural aspects of the combined lot? Or do the covenants and ARB guidelines take precedence--that is, TIPOA does not recognize the new single building lot has been created?
We have at least 3 legal opinions that favor the first and 1 legal opinion that favors the second. So it seems we are at a impasse here and no manner of continued discussion will fix it.
One thing that is obvious from the vote on the amendment is that majority of those who responded (48 versus 41) support combining multiple lots into a single building lot and allowing the property owner to position their house on the combined lot in a manner consistent with current setbacks and in a manner that preserves the unique features of the new lot.
What we do not know is whether there were some among the 41 no votes who voted no because of the restrictions added in the amendment. That is, the majority may be bigger than it seems. In that regard, lets have our own vote. If you are in favor of the following like this comment. Please only vote once.
Guest - Victoria Love
on Sunday, 29 October 2023 20:04
“… there are at least 3 homes in the planning stage that would take advantage of combined lots.” Floodgates. I am glad we have good leadership. Thank you, again.
Dswest
on Sunday, 29 October 2023 20:54
Who makes up the editorial panel?
JimandGinny
on Monday, 30 October 2023 19:35
Go to Groups, look at the editorial panel--the members are listed.
JimandGinny
on Monday, 30 October 2023 19:40
So are you saying you would prefer 261 homes on half acre lots as opposed to fewer homes on bigger lots?
Are you saying that 261 homes on half acre lots preserves our green spaces?
If not, and if you don't encourage combining lots and placing homes a location that preserves trees, etc., then how do you propose we maintain more of our green spaces? Please be specific.
ps I forgot, you were lucky enough to find that the owners of the lots on either side of you were willing to sell so you have your green spaces and aren't restricted to having your home within 30 feet of your neighbor.
JimandGinny
on Monday, 30 October 2023 20:36
You are ignoring the fact that their is support for the conflicting legal opinions regarding the interpretation of 10.15 of our covenants. The EP stated that there is one home that has been built on multiple combined lots.
Does your failure to acknowledge this fact indicate that you think the statement is false?
Or is your failure simply the result of not wanting to admit that the Board may not be interpreting the covenants correctly and thus is not abiding by the covenants?
JimandGinny
on Monday, 30 October 2023 21:06
Does good leadership ignore data presented to them? As per above, the Board has ignored facts that support different interpretations of the covenants--we do have a home build on combined lots.
As another example of ignoring data. On several occssions, the 2022 and 2023 Board stated that Tolomato was a POA in name only. On several occasions I stated that an amendment to opt into the Georgia Property Owners Association Act had been filed at the court house in 2013. The Board ignored this. In March 2023 the Board authorized the Attorney on retainer to file the amendment required to opt into the act. Upon doing his research the Attorney confirmed that the amendment had been filed in 2013.
A Board showing good leadership would have asked the Attorney on retainer to check my facts. Alternatively a Board showing good leadership would have gone to the court house and checked for the amendment. The Boards failure to follow up on the information I provided cost the TIPOA money and put the TIPOA at risk by not adhering to the requirements of the Georgia Property Owners Association Act.
In my opinion these failures of the Board (both current and 2022) do not represent good leadership. In fact, these failures of the Board border on negligence.
Editorial Panel
on Tuesday, 31 October 2023 14:31
The Editorial Panel (EP) and Special Interest Group (SIG) are closed groups. The origins of the Tolomato Owners Organization, ED and SIG are discussed in the Newsletter supplement of October 12. Members joining the Group are automatically announced by the system, in other words those members identities are already in the public domain. The Editorial Panel usually consists of 6 editors, all persons of integrity. Some have chosen not to register. They are not the whole group. There are contributors, and Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) that we call upon when needed. They include lawyers, engineers, officials.
The focus of the Editorial Panel in regard to Blogs and Comments is on factual information and tone, not on who wrote it. Owners and members of groups are free to register on the web site or not, their choice, which we all should respect.