Las Palomas update?

[ernesto]

The bylaw of not renting outside of one rental management company is an HOA bylaw enforced by the HOA. Owners knew from the beginning that they had to rent via the company that manages the rental's at the resort. Now if the rental company breached their contract, then they could either be voted out or the individual could cancel their contract with them. However if an owner cancelled their contract, they could still not rent their unit outside of the rental company. the solution is to either have enough owners to vote out the company and replace with another or cancel your contract with them (again can't rent the unit if you go this route). As I say this, I believe the resort Well now,there you go again quoting bible and verse. You're good at that. Put the Kool Aid down for a sec and reconsider. If the HOA is us and we are screwing ourselves we change it. You cannot go back to some bullshit clause over and over if it doesn't work. And enough of your " I'm in the know" crap. You don't know and your approach isn't working. There is NO LOGIC to your argument Drymeat. That's why you got people on your ass here.

 

[curiousgeorge]

Competition is good, we have it among the resorts (ex. sun, spa, sea, sky, bella sirena, tessoro, las palomas, etc.) We can't though have 400+ individual owners dictating the market and having hundreds of different price points as to what one thinks they should charge. Example: what would stop an owner from renting their unit for $10 per night? eventually they would book 100% and under cut other owners. at that rate the market would drop only because owners dictated the rates rather than what the market thought was appropriate. The competition should be among resorts, and as it stands- Las Palomas still has a higher occupancy percentage than the market (see examples above) and the price point is on par with the other resorts along sandy beach. The enforcement of only one rental management company at the resort has a variety of benefits. To owners that don't rent, they are not going to want tens of independent contractors on the property servicing units (ex. maid service, rental agencies, etc.). Also one rental management company is common among most of the resorts along sandy beach. Eventually when a new rental company comes along, they will benefit from having the enforcement of one rental agency.

It is like having a debate with Bam Bam without his economic degree. Who says you can't have hundreds of price points? I believe they were each sold at different price points, each unit is wildly different and the free market will correct your ridiculous $10 example.

Now I would not want to brag about how Las Palomas is faring against other resorts. It has a higher percentage of owners not getting paid to go along with that high occupancy and high price point. And because their options are limited, owners had no where to go when WWG stopped paying. Some owners may even have even been forced into default.

Also, given the HOA is owed millions and millions of dollars due to mismanagement from the profit side, I am not sure the owners that do not rent are so happy with one rental agency.

 

[rockyptjoe]

ernoesto....I've heard from a friend who is an owner (and lives at) Las Palomas that there is sufficient "outside" vote on the HOA (the developer???), that change is almost impossible....even for little things like what is provided in terms of a cable/satellite tv "package"........but I'm sure that dry heat will come on here and correct anything that I have wrong on the matter.....

 

[AZ ROB]

The bigger they are the Faster they Fall

 

[dry heat]

I never said the resort did not have problems, that is why I have repeated over and over again that we will more than likely have a new operator for the for profit side and a new administrator for the HOA side (hopefully this year). The wristband fee's go toward the HOA, which help offset costs within the HOA (yes the operator has made a substantial payment on wristband fee's they collected over the last several months to the HOA, however they still owe the HOA a lot of money). In regards to changing HOA bylaws, the state of sonora will not recognize changes unless they are legally done, for example some bylaws require the approval of 75% of the total ownership within a phase. We can't just change something with a simple vote or because we want to. Thus the reason why it would be more beneficial to work and negotiate with the developer. I would love to just change something as quickly as possible, however we are limited by a lot of things. The resort will always have only one rental management company, we can't have owners each setting their own pricing. This is not reinventing the wheel, the other resorts along sandy beach do it too. the price point owners can offer is lower than most resorts along sandy beach and the price point the resort offers is on par with other resorts along sandy beach. The resort still has a higher percentage of occupany compared to the other resorts along sandy beach because guests still want to stay here (we just have to correct a lot of these issues to make the product even better) If an owner wanted to rent their unit and set their own pricing, they should have purchased a private home. In regards to the control of the satellite package or internet speed, the HOA controlls that. we are also looking to have a new HOA operator this year that should lower the overal costs of the HOA by having a full audit of all expenses. We can add channels to the satellite package and increase speed on the internet, however right now is not the right time since we are looking to truly take over and funds are limited as we speak.

 

[diegoxx]

Charge $10 for wristband. Wristband is good for $10 of booze or food. Problem solved. Riff raff won't pay and visiting guests would probably spend way more than $10 anyway. If I had rented directly from an Owner I would have no problem forking over $10 that I'd spend on booze anyway.

 

[dry heat]

Charge $10 for wristband. Wristband is good for $10 of booze or food. Problem solved. Riff raff won't pay and visiting guests would probably spend way more than $10 anyway. If I had rented directly from an Owner I would have no problem forking over $10 that I'd spend on booze anyway.

Now that is a great idea for non resort guests that want access to the pool area. something to keep in mind. thanks.

 

[ernesto]

You pretty much had everyone on board 'til you waffeled on blocking and unblocking LP from the condos.You took your eye off the ball and identified certain HOA paying owners as cheaters. The cheater has always been and continues to be LP.You had your foot on the throat of the devil and you let him up.They say " we'll play nice now".
Can you imagine the thoughts in WWGs heads?These stupid sheep gringos bought us a hotel room, pay for repairs and insurance and taxes and utilities and we keep ALL the money. Not just our %. What's more, they keep coming back for more.You are misguided and wrong my friend.They are challenging us on their field because they know the legal system is so slow.

 

[dry heat]

You pretty much had everyone on board 'til you waffeled on blocking and unblocking LP from the condos.You took your eye off the ball and identified certain HOA paying owners as cheaters. The cheater has always been and continues to be LP.You had your foot on the throat of the devil and you let him up.They say " we'll play nice now".
Can you imagine the thoughts in WWGs heads?These stupid sheep gringos bought us a hotel room, pay for repairs and insurance and taxes and utilities and we keep ALL the money. Not just our %. What's more, they keep coming back for more.You are misguided and wrong my friend.They are challenging us on their field because they know the legal system is so slow.

Again, we expect to have a new rental management company and a new HOA administrator. Owners will eventually have much greater control. In regards to unblocking units, well that is a little more complicated. We can't play hard ass if we believe a solution is at hand. If they really wanted to play hard ass they could shut the water source from their plant (on their own private property), they could limit access on the private road leading up to the resort (that they own). Also, the voting out of the operator and HOA requires a near impossible majority. So, we have to work with these guys. I believe we go their attention and I believe they are ready to move on to other projects within the resort's property (medical facilities, phase III, homes around the course, etc.). they have too much invested on this project to completely screw owners out. The whole situation is a complicated mess, however I think we are finally heading in the right direction and it will turn around sooner than later. Cheaters have been both owners and the resort, owners who rented outside of the rental company for years before it was enforced. In any case we have to move forward with a solution rather than a problem. In regards to indefinately blocking out units, as much as that was helpful- your fellow owners only blocked 30% of the units- thus only affecting a few sold out weekends in the year. Yes, the legal system is slow and that was another factor in wanting an amicable solution to past debt and future control.

 

[ernesto]

I seriously doubt if they can move on to anything. Who in their right mind would buy anything from them now? They are getting their asses sued off by the entities that funded phase III anyway. They are most likely going to lose those buildings.

 

[rplarry]

Yo DRY MEAT, you dont need cliff notes, you have the reading comprehension of a PRO, right?! I wasnt comparing watches to rental rates, only comparing how MEXICANS do business. I dont believe the operator is bad at the rental game, they arent bad they are bad people. They purposefully dont tell you about the cheaper rate, why would they?! Its not that they are bad at what they do, its that they dont give a <WASH MY MOUTH OUT WITH SOAP><WASH MY MOUTH OUT WITH SOAP><WASH MY MOUTH OUT WITH SOAP><WASH MY MOUTH OUT WITH SOAP>! If it's this person's job to get business into the resort they are doing a horrible job and should have been fired. Like I said we went elsewhere because of a $50 difference. Also, if you are educated and I know you are because we've gone back and forth these past couple of days you would know that a CONDO isnt going to rent out for $10/night. $100/night yes but $10 come on, now you're making this a joke. Im well aware of the reason why LP implemented a wristband policy, because for a while like you said the LOCALS were using the pool like it was the SUNNYSLOPE CITY OF PHX POOL. I understand this but what I dont understand and this has nothing to do with race but simply THE TRUTH, IM WHITE AND A TOURIST AND I HAVE MONEY (well... at least thats what the RP cops think every time they stop me) THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SPEND. Kicking locals out because they are DEGENERATING isnt the same as telling me to leave when Im about to DROP $50 at the swim up bar! You took what I said out of context, I didnt mean they disrespect anyone that has money, as in you with your G WAGON. What I was saying is that they are disrespectful of possible guests or people that are going to spend money at their resort. I know this has nothing to do with LP but the last time we stayed at SONORAN SKY the security was hassling the hell out of us and my buddy and I were talking about it and I was saying could you imagine that happening at the KIERLAND RESORT OR DESERT RIDGE OR THE POINT TAPATIO CLIFFS OR ANY OTHER RESORT HOTEL IN AMERICA. When I was younger I was a bellman at EMBASSY SUITES PV, and the one thing I learned about the HOTEL RESORT INDUSTRY, the GUEST IS ALWAYS RIGHT. You would never get asked what room or what floor you were staying on IN AMERICA, the HOTEL OR RESORT DOESNT ALIENATE GUESTS OR POTENTIAL GUESTS LIKE THAT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Happens a lot in RP though, why? Because LOCALS WERE USING THE POOLS????????? IM WHITE AND I HAVE MONEY TO SPEND, tell the LOCALS TO GO HOME AND TURN TO ME AND SAY WHAT CAN I GET FOR YOU SIR?????????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not trying to take sides, however you are not entitled (which is the problem here) to be able to got swim and hang out at the pool of any resort in AMERICA as you put it. Try going to The Phoenician, Hyatt at Gainey Ranch, The Four Seasons, The Boulders, etc. Now, you certainly can go hang out at these hotels' restaurants and lobby bars, but not at the pools. Can you imagine paying $700/night and having any rif-raf with $50 hanging out of their pocket come invade the space and privacy that comes with staying at an exclusive resort? Not sure what the deal was at Embassy Suites/motel 6, but at nicer resorts you are not entitled as a local to hang out there. (that's what public pools are for). Security will and does throw you out. I would assume LP, when first marketed and sold, was more of a high-end or exclusive place, unlike Playa Bonita, and owners bought there for that reason. They also expected the place to be packed, as well as the entire town of RP for that matter. Then the economy went to heck and business is off. But, if I originally paid 400-500k for a place, I would not want any old 'Joe' to be able to walk off the beach, take my chair, my place at the swim up bar, etc just because they have a few bucks to spend. The place would be invaded by people who either can't afford staying there or would rather pay for cheaper place and then hang out all day in the luxury of the nicer resorts. Something doesn't add up with that socialist mindset.

By the way, go try plopping yourself in a recliner at The Phoenician (hotel in AMERICA) pool and order some food and drinks. They will ask, EVERY TIME, for your room #. And you can't pull the 'ol, "Put it on the Underhilll's tab" either.

Entitlement is a killer....

 

[dry heat]

I seriously doubt if they can move on to anything. Who in their right mind would buy anything from them now? They are getting their asses sued off by the entities that funded phase III anyway. They are most likely going to lose those buildings.

A lot of the information that is passed around is usually a rumor and not completely true. phase III was funded by a few different institutions, one of the buildings was taken over by the bank- however they are more than likely going to give it back to the developer to finish off once the other building starts delivery (the bank will more than likely control funds or use a 3rd party). the other building was funded by a bank that went bankrupt, as the building was going up the developer was funded on an open line of credit (common among commercial buildings). all of a sudden the bank went belly up and the new institution called the note immediately, the note was not paid so the lender placed a lien on the building and stopped all funding. last I heard the lender is working with the developer to use a 3rd party company to control the finances as the building is started up again.

Its not the end of times, things sometimes hit snags and you have to find a way to make it work. Not everything is gloom and doom. The economy collapse created a trickle down effect on everything. The developer though did a poor job of communicating what was going on and the status of the development. they have had a variety of interest in the development over the last 6 months from US medical facilities wanting to set up operation to developers (ex. trump organization).

 

[curiousgeorge]

You pretty much had everyone on board 'til you waffeled on blocking and unblocking LP from the condos.You took your eye off the ball and identified certain HOA paying owners as cheaters. The cheater has always been and continues to be LP.You had your foot on the throat of the devil and you let him up.They say " we'll play nice now".

Ernesto hits the nail on the head here. You had almost all the owners unified but the SC continues to enforce rules that appear to benefit WWG. See my earlier post on a non rental pool owner who has been fighting WWG after charging a friend $50 per night for her unit. You can not possiblly think she is hurting the resort nor is she advertising low prices online. With all the other problems, it makes you wonder if the big picture is being missed.

 

[dry heat]

Ernesto hits the nail on the head here. You had almost all the owners unified but the SC continues to enforce rules that appear to benefit WWG. See my earlier post on a non rental pool owner who has been fighting WWG after charging a friend $50 per night for her unit. You can not possiblly think she is hurting the resort nor is she advertising low prices online. With all the other problems, it makes you wonder if the big picture is being missed.

The SC represents the HOA. The bylaws of only one rental agency is no differerent than other resorts along sandy beach and in other locations around the world (I have many condo/hotel units and all of them enforce only one rental agency on site). When we have another rental agency, that one will be exclusive and the same rules will apply. If you lease/rent/procure money for the use of your unit, the exchange must be approved by the exclusive rental operator (OLP is the current one). When the day comes we have a different operator, the rules will still apply.

 

[ernesto]

And that's fine by me. I'll gladly pay their % if they DO THEIR JOB. LP never did .Try calling down there now.They can't even answer the damned phone. What the hell is that about?
All the stealing and stuff aside, they wouldn't have had so many renting outside the pool if they hadn't been IMPOSSIBLE to deal with. You see that business ethic (or lack of) all over the world too?

 

[curiousgeorge]

Whatever the problem with WWG, the answer is always complicated....and the SC's hands are tied. But god forbid you lend your condo to your grandmother, and she hides $50 in the fruitcake, the SC is all over your ass.....

If te rental pool problems were fixed, why wouldn't every owner want to rent through the operator?

 

[Tomcat]

You see a lot of these same issues brought up as a description of a word in Webster dictionary.... "Extortion"

 

[ernesto]

Oftentimes hidden behind a thick layer of ineptitude and laziness. Those are exactly the kind of people that are fired frequently throughout their lives. Time for that here and now.

 

[dry heat]

For the time being, at least the operator is paying current rental income. a lot of this is due to the negotiations done by the Surveillance Committee. The main goal is achieving a solution for debt owed to owners and to the HOA, moving forward we should hopefully see improvement and changes. If we could just fire at will, that would have been done, unfortunately it is not that simple. Rental pool problems will be fixed, in the meantime we at least have a band-aid for the current rental situation. I don't think the resort is looking to come down on grandma or uncle bob if they give you money for the use of the unit. they are more interested in the owner that is renting the unit and showing a pattern of having a variety of different last names checking in and all saying they are related to the owner or "friends" of the owner month after month. However, this is a minor issue in the eyes of the SC. the main concern is past debt and control of both entities (for profit side and HOA). The enforcement of bylaws is the responsability of the administrator and operator (if the issue involves them). The SC has bigger issues to deal with.

 

[PintoPoint]

Seems to me that in a time when your investment is loosing money and you take the time to find renters. You should reap the profits. I have seen at the Sonoran Sea and Spa bribes being given to the rental agency to rent out their condo ahead of others. At some point you have to protect your investment.

Rick
Cholla Bay