Wednesday, July 11, 2012

SAVE GREEN BY GOING GREEN


                    Come to the Club House     

Wednesday,  July 18, 2012

7  PM


To  learn about  a "State of the Art"


"GREEN"  Composite siding material


Presented by the  Green Team and Hartford Lumber



Samples of the product will be available so you can see how  it looks and feels!  This is the dominant  siding which has been  used throughout the South for many years…


There are MANY reasons why this is a superior product to the cedar and pine which is currently used for siding in the Woods , however PRICE and lack of maintenance issues are at the top of the list.  Keeping costs  down in the Woods is a key way to keep  CONDO  FEES stable.

EVERYONE


is welcome, especially those  neighborhoods which are in line for siding replacement in the near future…Maple Lane and Walnut.



If you have any questions, please contact:
Barbara Timbie      860.404.0824   bltimbie@att.net  for MAPLE LANE
Richard Reinhart   860.673.0408   rreinhart37@sbcglobal.net
Kay  Olsen              860.673.2740   spiritofhartford45@comcast.net




Friday, July 6, 2012

WE SPOKE, THEY DIDN'T LISTEN

The following article was written for a new website, CT Condo News, which is "the only state-wide website for condo owners and those who are thinking about buying a condo in Connecticut." I encourage you to bookmark this site as it will have continuing relevance as we move forward with our efforts to make fiscal responsiblity and transparency a reality at Farmington Woods. I also encourage everyone to become a member the CT Condo Owners Coalition (CCOC). Their efforts with the state legislature on our behalf deserve our support.

http://www.ctcondonews.com/2012/07/06/despite-rejection-of-bonding-for-farmington-woods-golf-course-golfers-continue-to-call-shots-at-avon-complex/#more-305


It has been seven weeks since residents of Farmington Woods Condominium in Farmington, CT went to the polls to vote on 20 year bond proposals totaling $4M to replace the golf course irrigation system and upgrade the clubhouse with an elevator and horseshoe bar. The passage of both bonds would have increased district taxes by 18%.

By the time the vote took place on May 10, a group, Farmington Woods Residents for Fiscal Responsibility was formed, a blog was started and thousands of flyers were sent to residents laying out the facts of the situation: that golf/clubhouse operations had one profitable year in the previous decade, that $1.3M had been lost over the previous six years and that it was residents now, who would foot the golf bill indefinitely if things didn’t change. And that there were 89 resident golfers.

The bonds were defeated overwhelmingly: out of an historic 1,023 votes cast the irrigation proposal was voted down 684 to 337, while the clubhouse upgrade lost 826 to 194. The first result was a landslide, the second, a tsunami. Those who worked endless hours to defeat these proposals and return fiscal sanity in the form of reordered priorities were encouraged and looking forward to change at Farmington Woods.

The first change that happened was that our GM, who had held the position for three years resigned at the end of June. CORRECTION: In the original version of this column I reported that Al Miller, our GM had resigned due to the new state law requiring condo GM's to be certified. I have just been informed this is not the case. The information that I received regarding his departure was incorrect. We apologize for the error and wish him well.

But so far, that’s about all that’s changed. The board appointed their own search committee, ignoring requests of many residents to participate, they went ahead with the golf irrigation plan and found $43K in Condo reserves to start the project, even though that amount was not in the budget passed just weeks before.

They continue to insist that residents own the course, are responsible for its upkeep and that it’s an amenity even though they call it “trespassing” if you dare walk on it at any time of day or night.

And they’ve reposted the dress code for the clubhouse that requires that “men’s shirts should adhere to golf course policy” even though the large majority of residents here don’t belong to the golf club, but are still required to pay a $30 a month assessment for the privilege of eating in the clubhouse restaurant. 37% of them don’t bother.

What follows is a summary of what has changed since the bond vote and what hasn’t.
In the past I’ve compared Farmington Woods to small Connecticut towns, to the outmoded company towns of the 19th century and to Chicago and its political style.
I have come to the realization that none of these comparisons come close to the level of resistance to change demonstrated by the special interests here.

I ended my last article for this publication with the following quote:

“The current board has shown that they are completely out of touch with the interests of the majority of residents here. When they resign we will thank them for their years of service, but we will also thank them for allowing us to move Farmington Woods into the future without them. The residents have spoken. It’s time for a change.”


WE KNOW WHAT YOU WANT

How naïve of me; did I really think that the people who got us in the fiscal shape we’re in now by using condo fees and district taxes to bail out our losing golf/clubhouse operation for the last seven years to the tune of $1.3M were going to fold?  Pick up their proverbial clubs and go home? How foolish of me.

Instead, they have gone on the offensive: after the largest voter turnout in Farmington Woods history, 1023 votes cast, overwhelmingly rejected further investment in the golf (67 to 33%) and clubhouse (81 to 19%) operations the boards have decided to go ahead with at least part of their plan in spite of what residents want.

They have chosen this course of action in the face of their own Focus Group results which showed that residents “overwhelmingly” want the golf operation to be self funding. So in spite of the fact that the golf operation is already $300K in the red on the 5th day of the fiscal year, an additional $45.5K has been approved to start the irrigation project that residents turned down in May.

Not to worry, says “In the Woods”, the monthly publication that those same Focus Groups “consider a golf/restaurant newsletter” which they would rather contain “minutes of meetings and current events.” If you read the July issue, in which 12 of 27 pages are devoted to golf/clubhouse “news” you would never know that of 2000 residents only 89 or 5% of them participate in golf and 37% of them never use the clubhouse.

Instead we get assurances by our Condo/Tax District President that “contrary to some of the rumors being circulated, Farmington Woods is not bankrupt and the golf course is not closing. After the defeat of the bond proposal our Public Works Committee started working on a plan to replace the irrigation system on a piecemeal basis.” And according to our Director of Golf that piecemeal basis will cost us $200K a year for eight years.

BOND VOTE: AN EXERCISE IN FUTILITY

I have to stop here and ask: Why did we have a bond vote in May, if the board was just going to go ahead and do what they planned anyway? For that matter, why did we have a budget vote a week later and pass a budget that contained none of the above. As one member of the finance committee was heard to say after the 3-3 tie was broken by its Chair, a golfer, “This makes a mockery out of the whole budget process.” And so it does.

But “In the Woods” we have a member and former Chair of the Public Works Committee dismissing the bond vote. “Based on considerable input from unit owners during the entire process leading up to the vote, it became apparent that a majority of unit owners favor keeping the golf course as a golf course, at least for the near term.” 

I’m sorry, but the vote held on May 10th in which 684 residents voted no to the bond proposal and 387 voted for it was the closest thing we’ve had to a referendum on the money losing golf operation since I’ve lived here. I’m not buying his anecdotal evidence of resident concerns. I can cite my own “considerable” input in the form of letters, phone calls and emails if I want to, but we have one quantifiable measure here: the actual vote.

His dismissal is about as convincing as our President’s remark to me after the May budget vote that she received an email from a resident who was concerned about “misinformation” being spread up to the bond vote. I deconstructed that myth on my blog the next day to show it was not my group that was spreading misinformation.

It seems to me that any way the powers that be here can discredit the historic vote that occurred on May 10 they can and will.

WE CREATE OUR OWN “FAIRNESS DOCTRINE”

If you’ve read any of my articles in this publication you know that I started a blog three months ago to fight what myself and a considerable number of others saw as a boondoggle being foisted on residents here. We made a decision to do something about it and decided to produce our own forum: FarmingtonWoodsInsider.blogspot.com. We’ve had 8000 page views since then. But there is another reason for its existence.

In the 80’s we had something called the Fairness Doctrine and perhaps a hundred corporations in control of media in this country. The Fairness Doctrine is gone and media is now in the hands of six giant corporations. If you don’t think that affects the news you get, think again. It’s pretty much all the same infotainment now.

At Farmington Woods, we have one source of information, “In the Woods” delivered monthly. For more in depth information there is a website. But the Fairness Doctrine, even if it were still in effect, would not apply here. So if a Martian landed on the golf course at Farmington Woods and found a copy of our monthly magazine he would assume that all the residents of this village played the game with the sticks and the little balls.

In other words, the words and pictures don’t match the reality. That’s because it’s propaganda, which Wikipedia defines as “a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position.” And the cause that our monthly constantly pushes is that golf is alive and well here at Farmington Woods. The problem with that piece of propaganda is that it is not true.


THE BOARD GOES ON THE OFFENSIVE

At the first monthly board meeting held after the May 10th vote it was as if the vote never occurred except for the fact that two different committees proposed hiring a public relations firm to undo the negative effects that the “bad press” had created for Farmington Woods in the run-up to the vote. Never once did it occur to them that trying to float $4M in bonds on already overtaxed residents had anything to do with the negative media attention.

There were, of course, no apologies for spending $43K of resident money to pay architects, bond brokers and attorneys before the bond vote was even held. There were absolutely no signs of contrition. Instead we had the aforementioned Public Works committee member read a statement reminding us that walking on the course was an act of trespass, a misdemeanor.

That’s right. After getting their hats handed to them on May 10 there was to be no backing down on this night. Wagons were circled and propaganda filled the room: residents owned the course; it’s upkeep was their responsibility; it’s an amenity, but if you’re caught walking on it (without clubs) it’s now classified as a criminal act, trespassing.

Ah yes, amenities. Now there’s a topic that raises blood pressure on both sides of the golf issue here. The boards tell us that even though we’re not members, the golf course is an amenity here. Oddly enough, our condo declaration declares amenities to be “pools, tennis, etc.” Even the Focus Group report separates the Golf and Clubhouse portion from the Amenities section. As usual, the board tries to make it up as they go along, always in their favor of their favorite special interest.

By June’s board meeting, funds had miraculously been found to start the irrigation upgrade which the Director of Golf/Clubhouse said would be the beginning of replacing the whole system.  He estimated it would cost around $200K per year for the next eight years. Keep in mind that this year’s shortfall is already $300K and that’s based on inflated membership numbers.


OUR VERY OWN PRAVDA

And how did “In the Woods” report these events? They didn’t. If you didn’t attend the board meeting or other committee meetings, including Golf, Finance and Public Works you wouldn’t find it there. What you will find is our leaders again going on the offensive in their efforts to discredit the bond vote and push their agenda.

In the article cited above, the former public works chair, after dismissing the results of the bond vote, had the audacity to declare “As pointed out at the May MA Board meeting, anyone purchasing a Unit in FW, by default, becomes an owner of the golf course, as well and, as such, becomes responsible for the maintenance, repair and upkeep of the course the same as any other portions of the Common Element.”

If this is how we are marketing Farmington Woods these days, we may as well start calling it “Caveat Emptorville”. When I moved here in 1999 no one told me about the $100K per year that was going to pay off the bond that purchased the golf course, and my realtor waited until the very end of the process to tell me that there was a $20 per month restaurant assessment as well.

We were told that the golf operation was self-supporting and we accepted the restaurant assessment because it only applied ten months a year. Oddly enough, it wasn’t until I was doing research for this article that I discovered in the bylaws an amendment to “include a separate assessment per Unit Owner as a minimum charge for the fixed costs of operation and overhead of the restaurant in the Clubhouse, against which the costs of meals purchased during such period can be credited.”


“THERE HAS NEVER BEEN AN ASSESSMENT AT FARMINGTON WOODS”

In the letter our President sent in January announcing the bond issue, she made the statement that “There has never been an assessment at Farmington Woods, and we shall not ask for one now.” She has also made that statement at public forums. Unfortunately that is not true. The "assessment" of $20 per month mandated in the 1998 amendments to the bylaws is an ongoing one that increased 50% in the first ten years of implementation to $30 per month! Only outrage on the behalf of concerned residents kept it from increasing to $35. per month this fiscal year. With the required 18% gratuity that would have meant a $500 per year assessment for each unit owner.

I understand that the leaders making these statements are looking out for what they perceive as the interests of the Farmington Woods community. Unfortunately, the community that they see is an illusion. It may have existed in the 80’s, but it does not exist now. The membership rules reflect the delusion that the golf operation here is thriving: when total membership reaches 300, outside applicants are placed on a waiting list. With our present membership total of 179, we don’t have to worry about that. But we should worry about 179.

After reading the article by the Public Works Committee member “In the Woods’, I discovered that although board members and leaders here consider it a mandate to keep the golf operation going indefinitely, regardless of cost to residents, there is a clause in the declarations that offered them a way out. Under Restrictions Regarding Golf Facility it clearly states that “nothing in this declaration shall be deemed to restrict the use of the golf course as a Golf Facility.”

In other words, if it gets to be too much of a financial burden you can close it.

I doubt that’s going to happen any time soon. The special interest group that controls Farmington Woods will not let that happen. My pie in the sky request that board members simply go away and allow us to redefine Farmington Woods as a community and release the anchor that is the golf/clubhouse operation from around our necks is simply that. Pie in the sky.


JUST SAY NO TO THE STATUS QUO

There is only one way that the grip of golf is going to be relaxed on the wallets and purses of non-golfing residents of Farmington Woods: the political process. What a revelation you say! Yes, well I said before I was politically naïve. But I’m getting less so. The statements released by our leaders have emboldened many here. The email that I receive tells me that the status quo’s status is about to change.

Just to show you how politically attuned I’ve become I now recognize that we are up against a status quo that’s used to winning. Our current President held that position when I moved here 13 years ago. Since then, it’s been a carousel of the same half dozen people, who end up on either the condo or district boards when their term is up. I’ve been told they screen applicants for board positions and weed out those who may think differently.

But between the bond debacle and the golf deficits that keep rising, the natives are getting restless. In the run-up to the bond vote even “In the Woods” couldn’t screen out the overwhelming majority of letters against the bond proposals. But now we’re back to thank-you notes for great golf tournaments and pleas to ignore the fact that we’re throwing good money after bad and just “roll up our sleeves” to return Farmington Woods to it’s glory days.

I’ve been rolling up my sleeves for some time now keeping this losing operation alive. At this point my hands are busy guarding my wallet from folks that think that it’s 1985, there are 300 full time golfers here, Ronald Reagan is President and golf is king at Farmington Woods. Hasn’t been that way for some time. Won’t be anytime soon. Or ever.

Realistically speaking, it will take new leadership to change the priorities at Farmington Woods; those resignations I called for in my last article aren’t happening anytime soon. But elections are coming in September and October and people are motivated. We’ve had it with the trickle down myth of the course improving property values. That may have been so 27 years ago, but trickle down hasn’t helped the national economy yet. What makes the board think it will work here?


Comments? You're welcome to email me at 2chewman@gmail.com.

Friday, June 29, 2012

NEW FARMINGTON WOODS MOTTO: CAVEAT EMPTOR

I've been getting a lot of email since the budget passed last month from residents concerned about the crumbling infrastructure of Farmington Woods. One writer expressed concern that though she has been fighting for driveway repairs for months with little success, the budget contains $43K for new cart paths on the course. Another put in a work order to have the disintegrating sidewalk in front of his group of units repaired. When he checked back a few weeks later, he was told that the work would be done after Memorial Day. The last reply he got was that "there was no money for the repairs."

These people are understandably furious. Money for cart paths, but none for sidewalks and driveway repair? Why is it so hard to get the boards and committees here to understand that this is a residential community 100% of the year and used as a golf course about 50% of the year, weather permitting. The golf course is a money pit draining resources from the residential community that could be used for the overall improvement of our units, roadways, sidewalks and grounds.

A living example of this disparity occurred yesterday when I got home at 4pm and decided to have a cool drink outside. As I stepped out onto my deck I noticed that the trash that is routinely left under the light pole across from my deck hadn't been picked up yet. This is a pet peeve of mine as there's been times I had to stare at junk like this for days on end. Of course having trash picked up and disposed of in a timely fashion.is something we pay for with fees and taxes. Otherwise we'd all be living in a huge junkyard. So I was less than happy with the sight:




Not that I hadn't seen it before:




But today was a beautifully warm summer day so I decided to sit in the opposite direction and try to forget about it. The opposite direction happens to look out over the second hole and I could see a golfer enjoying his solitary game on the clutter-free beauty that is the Farmington Woods Golf Course on this gorgeous day:




The contrast was striking: the lone golfer enjoying his rounds on the course that I subsidize to the tune of about $700 a year while the trash that I pay condo fees and taxes to have removed sits in full view of myself, my neighbors and even the real estate agent and her client that had to walk by it to get to the unit they were looking at. They didn't stay long. It was even visible at night when the light on the pole came on.

By the way, I called the office and was promised it would be removed before the end of the day (as the by-laws state) but it didn't get removed until this morning. I was very glad we weren't having guests over for cocktails on the deck this particular evening. But it got me thinking about the fees and taxes we pay here and where they go:

They don't go to repair this kind of stuff:


Or to dredge ponds like this:
Or to remove bee infested tree stumps from two years ago:
Or finish the repair of the sidewalk in front of my unit which was fixed "temporarily" eight months ago:
For that matter there's no money to replace the "invisible shield" that's supposed to protect us near the guardhouse, with a real sidewalk. Nope, not enough money for this. Give us our cart paths!

So, after thinking about all the things we don't have money to replace or improve I sat down with my copy of "In the Woods" and came across an article written by Richard Oatman, member of the Public Works Committee, which describes its mission as follows: "The Public Works Committee develops and administers a program to preserve, protect, and enhance the physical assets and infrastructure of Farmington Woods. They oversee the maintenance and improvements to our grounds, buildings, and facilities and provide long range plans to ensure the physical and economic well being of our community."

While reading the article it was hard to believe that it was written by a man whose mission as previously stated is to serve the entire community of Farmington Woods. Instead, what I read sounded more like an admonition from the assistant principal of my old high school: "I know what's good for you because I'm the authority here. There are no alternatives, so get over it". After admitting that the bond had been voted down by a wide margin, he tried to discount the whole process by saying that he "heard from many people" in the lead-up to the vote who were concerned about losing the golf course. Since 337 people voted for the irrigation bond it's conceivable that he heard from that many residents, but somehow I doubt it. On the other hand 684 people voted against it, but they don't count to him.

As I continued to read the article the usual propaganda started to appear, only this time with the aforementioned authoritarian tone:  "As pointed out at the May MA Board meeting, anyone purchasing a Unit in FW, by default, becomes an owner of the golf course, as well and, as such becomes responsible for the maintenance, repair and upkeep of the course the same as any other portion of the Common Element." By default? And now, as long as it's "pointed out" at an MA Board meeting it becomes the law of the land?

I'm sorry, but I'm not the only person who bought a condo in Farmington Woods who was told the golf course was self-supporting. I get those kinds of emails every day. So I'd like Mr. Oatman to show me the paperwork he received informing him of this when he purchased his unit or the agreement he signed taking responsibility for the golf course. And how is it a common element if we can't even walk on it? Isn't that what a common element is for, common use? At the May meeting Mr. Oatman even proclaimed that anyone who walked on the course was committing the crime of trespass.

So, this man who serves on a committee whose mission is to preserve the beauty and infrastructure of all of Farmington Woods is fine with taking money that should be used to fix things (see above) and pouring it into the Money Pit known as Farmington Woods Golf Club. Has a cost/benefit analysis been done to determine if using the land as a golf course (and appropriating millions from unit owners over the years to keep it going) is even a viable option? It's not just the economy that's sick. The game of golf is on a respirator and these folks want us to give it our oxygen!

We've been told over and over again that the course belongs to the residents. If that's so, then the residents should decide what to do with it. Are we going to continue to support the course, so that the few can enjoy their game while the rest of the place goes in need of repair? Or are we going to finally give residents a say in the future of the place they call home. When did the survival of a course used six months a year determine the future viability of Farmington Woods as a community? When and where is it stated that we are stuck with the course forever regardless of cost?

The answer is that it is nowhere stated that Farmington Woods must remain a golf community forever. As a matter of fact there's even a clause in the Declarations that allows other uses for the land: Article XVIII, Section 8f states: "nothing in this Declaration of Condominium shall be deemed to restrict the use of the golf course as a Golf Facility."

So if we, the residents actually own the course as the boards say, what would be wrong with having a real referendum, with legitimate alternatives for use of course/clubhouse to finally determine how residents really feel? Enough with the anecdotal responses. Let's make it democratic and if the majority still wants to keep a losing operation going at the expense of not only their wallets, but the condition of the units, grounds and infrastructure of Farmington Woods, so be it. Until then we're living like children, with the authoritarians here telling us what we need and what we're going to give up to keep it going.

And for people who were so concerned about the reputation of Farmington Woods that they wanted to hire a Public Relations firm to counter the bad press of the past few months? I can only say that articles like Mr. Oatman's will keep potential buyers away in droves. If people really want to live in a place where they have little to say about their situation and no chance of changing things, there's always Cuba. I hear they have nice golf courses there.



Comments? You're welcome to email me at 2chewman@gmail.com.

Tuesday, June 19, 2012

WORST CASE SCENARIO

I don't know how many times I've heard someone affiliated with golf here at Farmington Woods ask ominously "have you ever seen an abandoned golf course?" in an effort to stifle all discussion that involves possible alternative uses of the course. After all, who would want to live adjacent to a lot filled, not with the beauty of golf carts and golfers dressed to the nines, but nature left undisturbed, growing wildly. Can you imagine the horror?

Well, now you can stop imagining and take a look for yourself. Opened in 1932 and designed by Jack Ross, a professional golfer from Scotland, Canton Public Golf Course was a popular attraction until 2003 when the owners sold the land where the Shoppes at Farmington Valley now stand. Next time you're at Kohl's drive to the back of the parking lot and take a look. You'll be surprised what you see.

According to golfcourseranking.com:
http://www.golfcourseranking.com/courses/2063/connecticut/canton/06019/canton_public_golf_course_-_closed_2003.html "it was a VERY nice, well kept, 9 hole, full length golf course. It was not a short or especially easy course, but was a good challenge, especially it's sixth "hill". The greens were among the best conditioned and several were very undulated, ala Augusta!"

And then one day in 2003, the Lowell family, owners for 70 years, got an offer from a developer that they couldn't refuse: $4.7M for the land upon which the Shoppes at Farmington Valley now sit. The mall covers much of what was once the course, but the area to the south is a concrete example of just what an "eyesore" an abandoned course can be.

Of course, the greenies of Farmington Woods would want to keep it as a well groomed park, but that costs money. And we all know there's no available money in the budget for anything unrelated to golf. For golf, there is always "magic" to be worked and voila: available money.

So, if you can't make the ride up to Kohl's this week, here's a couple of pictures I took with my cell phone a month ago. Keep in mind some of this land has been left "abandoned"  since 2003:



And if that isn't enough of an "eyesore" for you, check this out:


Of course, all of this pales in comparison to the well groomed common areas just outside the perimeter of Farmington Woods Golf  Course:



Or the landscaped beauty of our common garden areas:



This blog was started to defeat the "twenty year debt sentence" that the board wanted to hang on us in order to keep the golf operation going indefinitely. We defeated the bonds, but do we really have what it takes to wrest control of the future of Farmington Woods from the golf clique?

Seems to me that the abandoned Canton Public Golf Course is looking better these days than some areas of our community. Unfortunately, many residents appear satisfied with the status quo, so it's business as usual at Farmington Woods: the Finance committee recently recommended (after its Chairman, a golfer, broke a 3-3 tie in the voting) a $45.5K expenditure for a partial repair of the irrigation system and they have no idea where the money will come from.

I think I can answer their query: It comes from us, all of us. And we all pay, one way or another, to keep the "money pit" that is golf at Farmington Woods, alive and well fed, with our hard earned dollars. We'd rather do that than to expose ourselves to the criticism of our neighbors. I can tell you from experience, it's not that bad. The people who shun me now, weren't friends in the first place. Life's too short to worry about them anyway.

Public Enemy wrote in the 90's "If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything." I guess it's up to each of us to decide what's worth standing for and what isn't. Since I couldn't cure cancer or mandate world peace, I took on this mission. And I can honestly say, with a thanks to all who helped, Mission Accomplished! 


Comments? You're welcome to email me at 2chewman@gmail.com.

Thursday, June 7, 2012

HOW TO TURN A TURKEY CLUB INTO UNUSED MINIMUMS

After three months of fighting and writing, the party last Sunday was a welcome relief: good times with good people. It was such an enjoyable afternoon (until the wind started up) that it's been hard for me to gin up the edge needed to write this blog.

To the rescue comes an anonymous letter from a resident who wonders, like so many, how an operation that is subsidized by each resident to the tune of $425 per year (including 18% gratuity) can continue to lose money on a yearly basis?

It starts with minimums. During my research of the last few months I came across an article regarding minimums at country clubs, yacht clubs, golf clubs and the like. The concensus of managers of these clubs, many very high end, is that members just plain hate minimums, whether they are $25 or $125.

They tend to use them at the end of the month and expect outstanding service and and of course good food, for their money. In fact, many clubs are forgoing minimums altogether. They'd rather have happy diners than disgruntled members.

At Farmington Woods we're not only are asked to keep this money losing operation alive with our minimums, but are required to dress as golfers if we happen to be a male diner. Think I'm kidding?

Look up the dress code for the club, changed in 2007 to say that men must wear "golf attire" when using the clubhouse. So, if you're not a golfer, not only do you get to support a course that you don't use, but you are required to wear a golf "costume" while supporting it's clubhouse. 

What I can't figure out is which pair of "whale pants" to wear while dining and whether to wear a "collared shirt" as required or try to slip by with one of those mock collars made popular by Tiger Woods?

Boy, it sure doesn't take much to get me back in the writing groove. But I'll let my anonymous author relate an experience that says lots about why people hate minimums, especially at Farmington Woods.


May 31, 2012

It was brought up at one of the bond meetings about the staggering amount of residents who do not use their $30 a month fee at the restaurant.  Perhaps the following will be one explanation.

Yesterday, a resident in the “younger demographic” called from her car (I was with her) to the restaurant at 2:50 pm on speakerphone.  Here is how the conversation went:

  1. Long period of ringing, followed by a dropped telephone onto a hard surface.
  2. Then, “Farmington woods”.  When she asked if this was indeed the restaurant, said younger resident was told yes.  No sorry for the dropped phone, no ID of who answered the phone, no explanation of why no “Farmington woods restaurant” in the greeting.
  3. Said resident asked if she could place an order for a turkey club for pickup.  She was told no, it was month end and not allowed.  She was then told they were “absolutely swamped” and she would have to come into the restaurant to place her order.  We were at the front gate, so she drove on over.  Keep in mind the time of 2:50 pm. 
  4. In the parking lot were a total of four cars.  FOUR CARS.  She went inside and discovered that the DR was empty, the patio was empty, the bar was empty, and one table in the pub had people done with sandwiches and ready to leave.
  5. No functions upstairs.
  6. She placed her order and was told to wait at the bar.  She chose to return to her car for the ten minutes it took for the sandwich to be made.  Then she returned to pick it up.

Yes, it is month end, and understandable if the call was made during the busy time of dinner and after golf, or if there actually were diners utilizing the restaurant.  But it wasn’t.  It was 2:50 pm when the call was made.  The club was, for all intents and purposes, empty.  The parking lot contained 4 cars.

No apology was made for the dropped phone, nor the improper way it was answered, nor the identity of the receiver offered.

Under these circumstances the order for one turkey club could have been taken.  Instead, you end up with one very unhappy younger resident whose comment to me was “no wonder the restaurant is underused, I really can’t be bothered again”. 

Can you make it any more difficult to get a turkey club from an empty restaurant just because it is month end? 

Comments? You're welcome to email me at 2chewman@gmail.com.

Saturday, June 2, 2012

PARTY IS ON FOR SUNDAY, JUNE 3RD

After searching the internet I finally found a forecast that went along with my wife's optimistic attitude about everything:  It's going to clear up for our party at Byron Pool tomorrow! Noon to 4pm and don't forget your red pool tags. 

I got a call from the pool manager yesterday to remind me of the rules, which I promptly read off to him. He sounds like a good guy. Must have been told to call me.

See you there. We have everything we need: beer, wine, soda, wraps and pizza is coming tomorrow. Let's get together, celebrate our victory and have some fun.

Friday, June 1, 2012

CHANGE? WE DON'T NEED NO STINKIN' CHANGE!

Must be frustrating to be a successful professional like my friend, Peter Janus, who, having experienced life in the real world of the 21st Century, sees a problem and lays out an alternative strategy, only to have his ideas, energy and input totally ignored by the Status Quotians on both the condo and district boards. His plan for change didn't even get a mention at the monthly board meetings.

I get it. They don't want their little empire disturbed. After all, the Middle Ages are just fine with them. They get to hunt on the King's Land, as the rest of us peasants give a portion of our crops to his Majesty the King: Golf.

Anyway, I'd like to thank him personally for his efforts and give all of you a chance to see at least one of the alternatives that people who actually reside in the second decade of the 21st Century have come up with to solve the problems associated with socialized golf and restauranteurism.

One of these decades the folks in charge, who I can guarantee you are all for Capitalism and the Free Market in their personal financial dealings, will come to the realization that Farmington Woods and its golf enterprise should follow the rules of the American economic system: sink or swim. It's called Free Enterprise. What we have is anything but free!


It is our understanding that recently Al Miller resigned from his position as General Manager of Farmington Woods. In light of this development, we, the undersigned, recommend that the Executive Board defer the hiring of a replacement General Manager. Instead we suggest that an interim person be retained from outside of Farmington Woods, who would serve in two capacities. The first would be as interim general manager handling the basic functions previously performed by Al Miller. The second would be to head a study focused on the golf course and clubhouse/restaurant operations with the goal of developing some recommendations for turning them around financially. Such an individual should possess the necessary background and expertise to enable him/her to serve in both capacities.

During this same period of time (estimated to be 6-9 months) we further recommend that a search committee, composed of a representative, cross section of residents, be formed with the objective of defining/refining the future responsibilities and duties of the General Manager, the compensation parameters and the performance objectives that would be applicable to this position. The search committee would coordinate its activities with the second function being handled by the interim general manager, and ultimately the search committee would initiate a nationwide search to recruit an appropriately qualified individual.

We believe it is clear from the recent overwhelming rejection of the two bonding proposals that the Farmington Woods community is demanding solutions to the golf course and clubhouse/restaurant operations. Such solutions must be developed sooner, rather than later. We believe that the departure of Al Miller presents us with a timely opportunity to address these issues. It is also important that an objective, dispassionate, third party is needed to lead this effort to both analyze the current business models and prioritize possible solutions for these operations.

Respectfully submitted:

Peter Janus, 2 Redwood Lane


By the way, this document which the board chose to ignore, was signed by 35 other Farmington Woods Residents. As they like to say, we spoke, they listened. Just not today.