Rabbit War

Bill mchenry Aug 10, 2014 1:50 pm	Re: Snowshoe Resort Area District (RAD) Petition Analysis of the RAD proposal based upon economic theory: During comments to the County Commission I requested a second and third order academic and peer reviewed analysis of the InterWest proposal to determine emergent and unprojected outcomes of implementing the petition. Here is what we know: …the legislation was drafted, lobbied for by I/W and passed by the Legislature without universal input from those most effected, the property owners. …I/W, Fortress continue to service a significant amount of debt with the recent Initial Public Offering generating much less revenue than projected. …the majority of the property owners are not resident within the county, thereby limiting the political leverage of the homeowner. Here is what the academic and peer reviewed literature says: Special Tax Districts are generally not good for homeowners nor the local community , transferring infrastructure costs (both repair/replacement R2 and new initiatives} to current and future real property owners. The first order analysis of this economic trend was termed the Tiebout Effect and dealt with economic mitigating effects; folks would, in a suburban environment where there were competing nearby communities, just move. The second order of analysis, isolating economic/political entities where there is no competition for equal resources from adjacent communities, allows for control and mitigation by political means, A good read on this topic would be STANDING TIEBOUT ON HIS HEAD: TAX CAPITALIZATION AND THE MONOPOLY POWER OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. A well done second analysis by Brian Caplan. Using a differing baseline (rural rather than suburban), Caplan academically defends the premise that rather than economic control, the electorate must then exercise mitigation and control through the ballot. Unfortunately I, and most of the owners in the proposed RAD, do NOT vote in the county and probably the state. So then, at the third order, the only valid form for reasonable control left if there is not economic ( Tiebolt) nor political (Caplan) is to ensure the petition contains reasonable and systemic controls that protect the population. The IW proposal quite simply does not…. Despite the assurances of the corporate representatives…this is a classic example of creating a systemic organization that is predisposed to provide increasing and sustainable revenue to only a segment of the community…( that segment is IW with revenue continuing to flow outside of the county to Vancouver and reducing overtime the county tax base.)THis is a fixed sum equation, the less IW spends (in aggregate) the more profit...the more others spend, the more they make. The arguments that disaggregate the effect (MTA not for profit, etc.) are specious. I was President of the Allegheny Springs Condos for a couple of years. The proportion of voting paralleled the IW petition, and because of the alliance of one (of the three) board members along with the IW representative, operations and efficiency were, in my opinion largely sacrificed at the expense of IW’s profit. And, the probability of this reoccurring, given the proportions of representation that IW desires, is significant. Should IW be sincere in the position of a community partner, then the petition must be modified to ensure that control of funding and decisions stay local. Let the petition be redone and, to protect BOTH the owners and the county, ensure control remains local and reflects the desires of all participants. AND, next time IW wants to get something through the legislature, let all the stakeholders participate… if you want, as a corporate partner, our trust. Bill retired for the Marine Corps after 30 years and subsequently was a GS 15 Program Director for the Corps. He has a Masters Degree in Public Policy and a Doctorate in Organizational Planning.
Frank Aug 10, 2014 4:19 pm	Re: Snowshoe Resort Area District (RAD) Petition A Response to Mr. McHenry's "Analysis" is enclosed within the text below. Facts are important, rumor and mistruth are harmful. Analysis of the RAD proposal based upon economic theory:During comments to the County Commission I requested a second and third order academic and peer reviewed analysis of the InterWest proposal to determine emergent and unprojected outcomes of implementing the petition.Here is what we know:…the legislation was drafted, lobbied for by I/W and passed by the Legislature without universal input from those most effected, the property owners. COMPLETLY FALSE: The legislation was drafted together with representatives of the homeowners. Input was solicited, received, and incorporated into the development at every step of the process. …I/W, Fortress continue to service a significant amount of debt with the recent Initial Public Offering generating much less revenue than projected. A MIX OF FALSE, MISLEADING, AND IRRELEVANT: FIRST: Mr. McHenry has no insight into the private operations of Fortress or Intrawest (when it was owned as a private company by a fund managed by Fortress). SECOND: The amount of debt that Intrawest services is well withing the means of the company as is demonstrated in SEC filings. THIRD: Intrawest's revenue and profit performance is current within its SEC filings, and shows strong growth. FOURTH: Furthermore, all of this is irrelevant to the concept of the Resort Area District, which hopes to help Snowshoe and Snowshoe homeowners manage community assets for which they already share financial responsibility. Trying to scare people into fearing the district by spreading misinformed and irrelevant rumours on the health of Snowshoe's parent company is irresponsible. …the majority of the property owners are not resident within the county, thereby limiting the political leverage of the homeowner. FALSE: political leverage of the non-resident homeowner is actually increased by the RAD concept.Here is what the academic and peer reviewed literature says:Special Tax Districts are generally not good for homeowners nor the local community , transferring infrastructure costs (both repair/replacement R2 and new initiatives} to current and future real property owners. INCOMPLETE and OFF BASE: The infrasructure costs are ALREADY the responsibility of current and future real property owners through the payment of Mountain Top Assessments. This is not a special tax district providing tax relief to a corporation in exchange for development. (A special TIFF district); nor does it set up new taxes to be paid by its constituents. It is a public corporation servicing the needs of its constituents. The first order analysis of this economic trend was termed the Tiebout Effect and dealt with economic mitigating effects; folks would, in a suburban environment where there were competing nearby communities, just move. The second order of analysis, isolating economic/political entities where there is no competition for equal resources from adjacent communities, allows for control and mitigation by political means, A good read on this topic would be STANDING TIEBOUT ON HIS HEAD: TAX CAPITALIZATION AND THE MONOPOLY POWER OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. A well done second analysis by Brian Caplan.Using a differing baseline (rural rather than suburban), Caplan academically defends the premise that rather than economic control, the electorate must then exercise mitigation and control through the ballot.Unfortunately I, and most of the owners in the proposed RAD, do NOT vote in the county and probably the state. WHICH IS EXACTLY WHY THE RAD ALLOWS VOTING BY PROPERTY OWNERSHIP, NOT BASED ON RESIDENCY So then, at the third order, the only valid form for reasonable control left if there is not economic ( Tiebolt) nor political (Caplan) is to ensure the petition contains reasonable and systemic controls that protect the population.The IW proposal quite simply does not…. Despite the assurances of the corporate representatives…this is a classic example of creating a systemic organization that is predisposed to provide increasing and sustainable revenue to only a segment of the community…( that segment is IW with revenue continuing to flow outside of the county to Vancouver and reducing overtime the county tax base.)THis is a fixed sum equation, the less IW spends (in aggregate) the more profit...the more others spend, the more they make. The arguments that disaggregate the effect (MTA not for profit, etc.) are specious. FALSE: RAD funds belong to the RAD and cannot be used for company profit. Snowshoe already spends the same proportional contribution that the homeowner spends on these services, and will continue to do so. The only difference under the RAD is the Snowshoe's responsibility to contribute is actually increased as the primary collector and contributor of resort service fees. I was President of the Allegheny Springs Condos for a couple of years. The proportion of voting paralleled the IW petition, and because of the alliance of one (of the three) board members along with the IW representative, operations and efficiency were, in my opinion largely sacrificed at the expense of IW’s profit. WHILE Mr. McHenry has asserted this position several times, it is false. Snowshoe is a service provider of concierge and valet services to the Association at the Association's request. The association is majority controlled by the homeowners, and this owner-controlled association has continued to select Snowshoe as the service provider. And, the probability of this reoccurring, given the proportions of representation that IW desires, is significant.Should IW be sincere in the position of a community partner, then the petition must be modified to ensure that control of funding and decisions stay local. OUT OF LINE: FUNDING decisions and CONROL ARE both local in the Resort Area District proposal. Let the petition be redone and, to protect BOTH the owners and the county, ensure control remains local and reflects the desires of all part. AND, next time IW wants to get something through the legislature, let all the stakeholders participate… if you want, as a corporate partner, our trust. OUT OF LINE: All were absolutely invited to participate and several did; but, an invitation to participate is not a mandate, and some chose not to participate. The developed concept can only reflect input that was actually provided. Bill retired for the Marine Corps after 30 years and subsequently was a GS 15 Program Director for the Corps. He has a Masters Degree in Public Policy and a Doctorate in Organizational Planning. Mr. McHenry has also stated several times that he believes his role in our community to be that of an antagonist to Snowshoe for the simple reason that he believes that the relationship between Snowshoe and the Homeowners MUST be one of antagonism towards each other's goals. I see no logic in thiis approach. I believe quite the opposite and find it unfortunate that any member of the Snowshoe Community would base their opinions on a mind-set that 'if it's good for them, then it has to be bad for us'. Such an approach only leads to an obstruction and a complete lack of ability to accomplish shared goals.
Bill mchenry Aug 10, 2014 5:50 pm	Re: Snowshoe Resort Area District (RAD) Petition Wow! aS the congressman recently said to Leader Pelosi, "guess I touched a nerve." I would much prefer to understand and exhibit by my personal behavior that reasonable folks can see the same proposal from differing points of view. In this context I believe Mr. DeBerry to be an honorable person with a different viewpoint. In my attempt (apparently not successful) to present academic and well founded knowledge was the desire to not evicerate the proposal, rather reach common ground. I believe this, in a democratic system, is the best course of action. Personal attacks I have found distract from the essence of compromise.
Bill mchenry Aug 10, 2014 11:53 pm	Re: Snowshoe Resort Area District (RAD) Petition Bill can be reached at Parafrog9953@gmail.com
Bill mchenry Aug 13, 2014 2:21 pm	Re: Snowshoe Resort Area District (RAD) Petition here is the abstract from the second order of evaluation, by Caplan in a peer reviewed analysis. What this means is the IW proposal is not confined in it's effects on just the S/N homwowners. The proximate result of lowering the sale value of properties DIRECTLY impacts on ALL the citizens of the county through reduction of the property tax base. Abstract.. "Much of the public finance literature argues that local governments behave competitively due to residents' ease of exit and entry. The model presented here challenges this widespread conclusion. Though it is costless to relocate to another locality, the presence of tax capitalization makes it impossible for land-owners to avoid monopolistic pricing of public services by moving; land-owners can only choose between paying the tax directly, or paying it indirectly in the form of a lower sale value for their housing if they exit. In consequence, the only real check on local governments comes through imperfectly functioning electoral chchannels." ..I would offer that given the significant outcomes to the county concerniong revenue production and the provision of public service throughout the county, that perhaps a bit more planning is required before the proposal is approved by the commission in it's "due dilligence" role.
George Aug 13, 2014 3:27 pm	Re: Snowshoe Resort Area District (RAD) Petition It's interesting that Mr. McHenry tries to tie this information about governments to the Snowshoe RAD. The RAD, by WV Law is required to operate in a manner that ensures homeowners, land owners and business are represented. It's a corporation with representatives from each stakeholder group on it's Board of Directors, voted onto the board by the stakeholder group itself. It's not a government body specifically to ensure the stakeholders are represented. I'm sure Mr. McHenry realizes that much of property value is directly connected to the infrastructure supporting the community. The funding for this infrastructure can come from additional MTA costs which would come out of the Home Owners pocket with no say in how it's used, or from a Resort Service Fee that guests would pay and the RAD Board of Directors would control how it's used. With the additional funding from the Resort Service Fee the RAD can make significant improvements to the infrastructure supporting the Snowshoe area and thereby increase property values, increase guest visits and inject more money into the local economy. I appreciate that Mr. McHenry is a fellow Marine but I respectfully disagree with his position. He's spent a lifetime working for government and perhaps this has formed his opinions and ideas. It would have been nice if Mr. McHenry would have used his knowledge in the formation of the RAD instead of offering incorrect information and misrepresentations trying to pass them off as fact.
Bill mchenry Aug 13, 2014 5:26 pm	Re: Snowshoe Resort Area District (RAD) Petition As an infantry officer, my work for the government included viet nam, beirut and desert storm. In this i developed a very strong inclination to data driven decision making and a very low tolerance for opinion. Semper fi.
George Aug 13, 2014 6:06 pm	Re: Snowshoe Resort Area District (RAD) Petition Thank you for your service. You say you have developed a very strong inclination to data driven decision making and a very low tolerance for opinion and yet you share your opinions that are clearly incorrect in some cases and misleading in others as if they were fact. Semper fi!
David J. Cain Aug 13, 2014 7:17 pm	Re: Snowshoe Resort Area District (RAD) Petition Up until now I enjoyed the news and notifications that I received from this site. Because of the continuous RAD bickering and badgering that is allowed to be posted here I am considering withdrawing my e-mail address. Sepper fi!
Bill mchenry Aug 13, 2014 7:55 pm	Re: Snowshoe Resort Area District (RAD) Petition sorry,, Bill
David Litsey Aug 13, 2014 8:16 pm	Re: Snowshoe Resort Area District (RAD) Petition In July of last year - 2013, and again in September of 2013, I raised concerns regarding the vagueness and lack of clarity in the voting and petitioning sections of the WVCode Chapter 7, Article 25. I raised questions regarding issues of second class citizenship raised by suspending constitutional and statutory protections regarding indebtedness. I raised those issues pertaining to the law - no individuals or organizations. Simply - is denying the vote to non-property owner otherwise qualified electors - constitutional; does the State Legislature have the authority to cancel provisions of existing deeds; when land is allowed to vote, must the value of land (exposure to assessment) need to be considered?. I implored our County Commission, and more recently our County Prosecutor to bring in third party experts. This was in addition to the 3 law firms and a Professor of Constitutional law at a respected State University, which I had previously consulted. I will be talking to the law school again this Friday about putting together a consortium of trainers from Charlottesville, Lexington, Morgantown, and Lexington, Ky. who train a large percentage of the attorneys in WV to look at the issues of the Resort Area District concept. My message is simple - as I believe Mr. McHenry's is -as well as Julia (Lockridge) Elbon, our first female WV State Legislator from Pocahontas County - the citizenship is entitled to expert third party opinion. It is my hope that the County Commission will consider this as an option to attempting to implement something of such a potentially troubling nature without the necessity of singling out anyone.
Bill mchenry Sep 1, 2014 6:44 pm	Re: Snowshoe Resort Area District (RAD) Petition I am heartened by the recent decision of the Commissioners, not for the decision itself but the desire to gain more information as to the probable outcomes or an immediate decision. Economic outcomes can in fact be projected; there is not new economic science here. The IW proposal is not in its entirety economically unsound. Rather it is the desire to retain absolute control of funding and the ability to levy assessments on the part of IW that are arguably worth discussion. But, in context, profit is their job and I do not casually discount that... but I do realize that. Is it not possible to find middle ground between the tax revenue of the county, the property owners and the developers? Let us work together for the common good, reach consensus where all get some yet no one gets all?
Bill mchenry Oct 10, 2014 8:45 am	Re: Snowshoe Resort Area District (RAD) Petition Just a few points that illustrate why the Commission, in its due dilligence role, would mandate refinement of the petition submitted by I/W: The Commission has received a letter from the W/V Banker's Assn and Community Banker's Assn expressing SERIOUS (their word) concerns. In context "... proposed RAD will affect economic development and general availability of credit and have SERIOUS concerns that should be addressed by modifying the proposal." Bottom line... contrary to the statements by corporate representative, there are significant implications for the entire county as far as decreasing tax base and county revenue. I have been given to understand that SNowshoe provides @41% of the current property tax revenue. A good read would be "Intrawest Resort Holdings, the Perfect Storm of factors for destroying shareholder value .... on the website " Seeking Alpha," Of note, Intrerwest stock has decreased in value by some 30% over the last 9 months ( currently 9.06/ high 14.67) with a capitalization of $400m and debt of $700m.
Bill mchenry Oct 16, 2014 5:37 pm	Re: Snowshoe Resort Area District (RAD) Petition hopefully the following request will provide some degree of knowledge as to what happened or did not happen during the legislative process; and what should take place during the next iteration of RAD legislation. 14 October 2014 Attorney General State of West Virginia Custodian of Records (FOIA) 1900 Kanawha Blvd E Charleston WV 25305 Under the West Virginia Freedom of Information Act, §29-B-1-1 et seq., I am requesting all communication(s) during the period January 1, 2013 to July 1, 2013 between the Senate of West Virginia and the House of Delegates of West Virginia and the office of the Attorney General or other relevant state government or public entities (Associations, etc.)or agencies regarding the Constitutionality and effects of HB 2600 as authorized which has become WVC 7-25-1 through 24. Specifically: … the imposition of a sales fee on selected transactions with a general geographic area to provide general governmental services but excluding from the voting/petitioning process otherwise qualified voters who are not property owners. . ..the structure of the proposed district governing body in relation to the relative value and proximate interest of improved residential property owners versus commercial property owners in the determination of the portioned composition of the district board of governors. … the effect of the legislation on existing contracts and mortgages by subordinating current and future mortgages to resort area assessment liens and the proximate effect on availability of credit and tax revenue throughout the establishing county. …the initial petition process, who or what casts ballots or countable expressions of protest/support in the initial petition and formation process. …the potential risk(s) to property owners and the county (through decreased tax revenue) because of litigation against the district by third parties. …the suspension of constitutional and statutory limits on the amount of borrowing by the proposed district and/or the rate of interest paid on loans. If there are any fees, please inform me if the cost will exceed $ 100. However, I would request a waiver of fees in that the disclosure is in the public interest and will contribute significantly to the public’s understanding of the process of the evolution of the legislation and the level of due diligence applied in its passage. This information is not being sought for commercial purposes. The West Virginia Freedom of Information Act requires a response to this request be made within five business days. If access to the records I am requesting will take longer than this amount of time, please contact me with information about when I might expect copies or the ability to inspect the requested records. If you deny any or this entire request, please cite each specific exemption you feel justifies the refusal to release the information and notify me of the appeal procedures available to me under the law. Thank you for considering my request. Sincerely, Bill McHenry
Bill mchenry Nov 22, 2014 7:16 pm	Re: Snowshoe Resort Area District (RAD) Petition During the process of evaluating the Resort Area District petition put forward by Intrawest/Fortress, citizens raised significant concerns regarding its constitutionality and the economic and social impacts upon the citizens of the county. Of significant concern were the unknown “emergent consequences” of implementing the petition request without the benefit of “due diligence” by the Commission and the long term effects on county tax revenue that funds schools, libraries, health care, public safety and other important functions of county government . My discussions with a representative of the State Attorney General indicate their office was not contacted during the drafting and legislative process nor subsequently by the county for comment. This is especially germane concerning tax issues and constitutionality. The representative expressed the A/G’s willingness to assist the county, without fee, in evaluating the impact of the RAD legislation as written and petitioned especially in matters of taxation and constitutionality. Although the petition has prudently been deferred by the Commission, the legislation itself has not been determined to be seriously flawed and returned to the legislature or the Attorney General for refinement. I encourage the Board too take this action. To this end, a draft legislative remedy that does support the creation of a RAD but addresses the structural defects in the current legislation has been provided to the Board. Here is what the revision changes from the Intrawest/Fortress petition and current legislative language: Everybody in the District gets to vote; the owners of improved real property (proportionally based upon tax assessment value) and otherwise qualified voters (mainly rental full time residents) within the district. It establishes two categories of interest, private and commercial and three categories of voters, Owners of Residential Improved Property, Non-owning otherwise qualified voters who are residents of improved residential properties and Owners of Commercial Improved Property. It eliminates the ability of the district to borrow or pay interest above the limitations set by law for municipalities (Intrawest/Fortress wanted no limits). It does not permit any borrowing which collateralizes real property and restricts the source of income produced by this legislation to a piggyback sales tax or fee. It requires the membership of the board and voting thresholds reflect proportional interest and liabilities based upon assessed tax value of property. Property tax records will establish who has how much invested according to tax assessments. Basically, pay to play. Intrawest/Fortress wanted to control four of seven votes without valid justification. It eliminates the “meeting” for board nominations and voting and requires nominations and voting to be confidential, conducted by an impartial party and by mail since most residential owners would not travel long distances. Intrawest/Fortress wanted a mountain top “meeting” with only those present able to nominate and vote. It removes the veto authority that would have been exercised by the Intrawest/Fortress controlled board. It removes the requirement for a district to have undeveloped parcels, since the district boundaries can be adjusted with development. Undeveloped parcels place no demand on services nor do they contribute to district revenue. Hence those holdings by Intrawest/Fortress are or no consequence in the funding and support of the district. It gives the county commission the power to disestablish the district. It eliminates the “Ranger” program understanding public safety is an inherently governmental function. I would hope the Board will act quickly to return the flawed law to the Legislature for action based upon the attached draft language. Thanks, Bill McHenry
Bill mchenry Nov 26, 2014 11:57 am	Re: Snowshoe Resort Area District (RAD) Petition The Commission will receive a briefing on the alternate RAD proposal on Tuesday at 9:45 the 2d of December. The brief will present remedies to the current language, rationale for the recommendations, and a recommended way ahead. Of note, the briefing will cover changes that will, in the future support like actions in Cass, Green Bank and other county jurisdictions which under the current language would be impossible. Thank you and if possible please attend.
Don Nov 28, 2014 5:16 pm	Re: Snowshoe Resort Area District (RAD) Petition It's great to hear an alternative to the S/S RAD proposal is being presented to the County Commission. There is nothing wrong with a RAD as long as there is no provision for money to be borrowed using home owners as collateral and the representation on the board is proportionate to the real developed property owners. Other concerns are were other resorts in WV consulted when the RAD passed the legislature, how many other resorts even know RAD legislation even exists, and what effect does the RAD in its present form have on other possible areas in the county and the state such as Green Bank and Cass, should there current status change in the future. If the current RAD was written in broad terms to include other resorts, the end product does not reflect that concept. We do not need another form of Govt. to tax and control home owners, as the borrowing proposal in the current RAD legislates. Do you not think that the federal,state,county and local governments, home owner assoc. fees and the MTN are enough. I believe it is time for Snowshoe to show some fiscal responsibility and spend their money on the resort they bought and stop trying to pass on what are their costs of operations on to others. They know what they bought as we did when we bought, does S/S subsidize our home owner associations, then why should we subsidize them. They have a responsibility as a resort owner/developer and need to operate as one,and pay for their operation as other resorts are doing. The service fees from 2% to 5% on sales is as far a RAD should be allowed to go in raising revenue, if that is not enough then the resort owner is not being fiscally responsible.