Trying to post pictures of WSJ pool between Bldgs 33 and 34

Carolyn · Nov 13, 2012

These are direct links to Photobucket. I am new to this so I am sure there is an easier way. I am using the Beta version. Hope it works

http://i1327.photobucket.com/albums/u662/caribcarol/closeupofgrillwithlighting.jpg

http://i1327.photobucket.com/albums/u662/caribcarol/Stoneworkandwaterfall.jpg

http://i1327.photobucket.com/albums/u662/caribcarol/poolfullview.jpg

http://i1327.photobucket.com/albums/u662/caribcarol/Newgateenteringpool.jpg

http://i1327.photobucket.com/albums/u662/caribcarol/NewVikinggrillswithgranitecountertop.jpg

http://i1327.photobucket.com/albums/u662/caribcarol/tilework.jpg

DeniseM · Nov 13, 2012

Go to your Photobucket Acct and log-in:

-Click on SHARE WITH FRIENDS

-Click on the picture you wish to post

-Click the LINK tab at the top

-Click on the link labeled IMAGE CODE - that automatically copies it.

-Come back to TUG and use the paste command to enter it into the message window.

This is how it the code will look, but I added spaces, so you could see the code. Normally there would not be any spaces.

-Save post as usual

You can turn your links in your message above into pictures, by clicking edit, and then adding the img code before and after each link - with no spaces.

Carolyn · Nov 13, 2012

Try again:

LisaH · Nov 14, 2012

Thnks Carolyn! The pool area looks beautiful!

DavidnRobin · Nov 14, 2012

Thanks a bunch. It is good to see the side of our villa in photo#2. Look at the old photo of B34 that I posted and the new photos with the new siding and roof - what a difference!

We may have paid too much for the refurbish, but the outcome looks great - what are we suing ourselves about again???

jerseygirl · Nov 14, 2012

DavidnRobin said:
We may have paid too much for the refurbish, but the outcome looks great - what are we suing ourselves about again???

Control of the board. That's it, despite what you might have read or heard.

jerseygirl · Nov 14, 2012

LisaH - so glad to see you joining the WSJ family. We may be a little dysfunctional, but we all share a love for the island! :wave:

DavidnRobin · Nov 14, 2012

jerseygirl said:
Control of the board. That's it, despite what you might have read or heard.

Thanks - I have not heard or read anything really as I am not kept informed, and nobody seems to post here regarding these matters which I find funny in a sad way (or is it sad in a funny way?)

So... have they given up suing over the refurbish? From my memory - this was the big issue back when the 'Coalition' started. I did realize that there was effort to counter SVO control of the BOD (as per CCRs - like every SVO resort). tbh, if given control of the HOA BOD to the likes of Tom DeC - I will not vote for it as they/he never wanted the refurb in the 1st place (told directly to me by him and Gene from our 1st TC on this matter) which was counter to my wishes, and the wishes of the Owners who voted (when a quorum was not met).

As you know - I am actually quite happy with the direction things have gone since our lows a few years ago (pre-Phil&Bob) - as well documented in this thread that started (by me) over maintenance issues. I would be surprised (and would bet) if put to a vote by the Owners that ousting SVO would not pass (based only on my feelings). And, I realize that you do not agree with me.

I do find it odd that this subject seems to be very quiet from the Coalition front and the only news that is shared is from Phil&Bob - why is that?

Let me/us know how the case turns out?

jerseygirl · Nov 14, 2012

DavidnRobin said:
Thanks - I have not heard or read anything really as I am not kept informed, and nobody seems to post here regarding these matters which I find funny in a sad way (or is it sad in a funny way?)

I cant speak for others, but i think you know why I don't post about it here .... Broken records, people with no vested interest and all that!

DavidnRobin said:
So... have they given up suing over the refurbish? From my memory - this was the big issue back when the 'Coalition' started. I did realize that there was effort to counter SVO control of the BOD (as per CCRs - like every SVO resort).

Common legal strategy to sue over everything ... But AFAIK, there's only one real goal.

DavidnRobin said:
tbh, if given control of the HOA BOD to the likes of Tom DeC - I will not vote for it as they/he never wanted the refurb in the 1st place (told directly to me by him and Gene from our 1st TC on this matter) which was counter to my wishes, and the wishes of the Owners who voted (when a quorum was not met).

The refurb is water under the bridge. I doubt anyone is unhappy about the result ... But how Starwood went about it is another matter. Full transparency would have gone a long way. I bought shortly after the vote and was told no looming SA ... Refurb would be done slowly, in stages, with current reserve funds. Oooops ... That sure didn't turn out to be the case. It's the story of my life though ... Never buy a condo after I buy one, as SAs always follow....and I helped finance two new school buildings that DD never got to attend as we moved before completion. I'm cursed.

DavidnRobin said:
As you know - I am actually quite happy with the direction things have gone since our lows a few years ago (pre-Phil&Bob) - as well documented in this thread that started (by me) over maintenance issues. I would be surprised (and would bet) if put to a vote by the Owners that ousting SVO would not pass (based only on my feelings). And, I realize that you do not agree with me.

.

I'm not on a mission to oust Starwood ... I would just be the happiest person in the world if Hilton or Hyatt took over.

DavidnRobin said:
i do find it odd that this subject seems to be very quiet from the Coalition front and the only news that is shared is from Phil&Bob - why is that?

Those who are participating receive updates from the attorney.

DavidnRobin said:
Let me/us know how the case turns out?

Will do .... But I'm sure Bob and Phil will update as well. I too am happy with Bob and Phil ... We just need one more of them on the board to keep things honest.

jarta · Nov 14, 2012

We just need one more of them on the board to keep things honest.

A strange closing comment from someone who has never produced any evidence of past or current dishonesty by the VG board.

Do you mean discretionary board decisions you do not agree with or do you mean actual, intentional dishonest behavior by the board members?

Are you implying that Bob and Phil are not keeping things honest because there are only 2 of them on a 5-member board? Are all the "dishonest" board decisions now 3-2? Bob and Phil have never hinted at anything like that and they have votes to cast in every board decision.

The attitude of the dissidents is what has caused me not to buy at WSJ. Nice place to visit; but VG at WSJ has some horrible owners who are intent on destroying it because they didn't want to make the renovations deemed necessary by the board. (Turns out the board was right; VG was outwardly OK, but disintegrating from neglect.)

There was no special assessment imposed by the VG board. The renovations were paid for by a 3-year increase in the annual, budgeted assessment and the accumulated reserve fund. An increase in the annual assessment is not a special assessment. But, that's water long under the bridge. However, some will not enjoy the improvements at VG and, in effect, sue themselves and everyone else for improving it. Salty

LisaH · Nov 15, 2012

jerseygirl said:
LisaH - so glad to see you joining the WSJ family. We may be a little dysfunctional, but we all share a love for the island!

Thanks jersygirl! Hope to see you and DD at WSJ one of these days. You own a floating week there, correct?

jerseygirl · Nov 15, 2012

LisaH said:
Thanks jersygirl! Hope to see you and DD at WSJ one of these days. You own a floating week there, correct?

Odd years we own fixed, even float. That would be great if we could meet up there - we could start a Hullabaloo reunion!

. Hope you are well!

LisaH · Nov 15, 2012

jerseygirl said:
Odd years we own fixed, even float. That would be great if we could meet up there - we could start a Hullabaloo reunion! . Hope you are well!

Sounds good!
We are doing well...will shoot you a PM later...

DavidnRobin · Nov 15, 2012

Hi jerseygirl - thanks for the response - I do not know how to multi-quote a multi-quote so I will respond as coherently as possible (I wrote quickly so please excuse rambling):

I do know why you choose not to post here. Like you, I also want transparency and strongly pushed this agenda - not because of the refurbish, but because of the dissarray the WSJ VGV maintenance which eventually led to it. I consider myself (thru the WSJ thread) as one of the major creators in the vastly improved transparency that came about of my action on the maintenance issue - as documented in the WSJ thread. So... no one can pull a revisionist history tactic on this, I was the one who started pulling Owners together (see first few pages of the WSJ thread). I did drop out once Phil and Bob were able to gain power, but believe my 'reptilian brain' started pinging once I started hearing the rhetoric (and BS) coming form Tom and Gene (and I am not afraid to say so...) What ever happened to Gene's prediction of where the MFs would be in 2015? {sorry, couldn't resist, but it was like listening to a certain nameless news organization that seems to have their own versions of facts and reality - mixed in with a smattering of fear-mongering}

It is not true that the coalition leadership was happy with the refurbish outcome - this was clearly stated to me by both Gene and Tom when we stated applying pressure on the HOA BOD which in turn resulted in Phil and Bob given the opportunity to run and win seats on the HOA. This is the only SVO resort that has managed this, and something I am proud of.

However, I find it very odd (but not surprising) that it is the 'coalition' that lacks transparency - because they only represent a small percentage of Owners and one would think that more owner support (if attainable) would be a good thing (if it truly were and not just 1 lawyer with an agenda) - and (IMO) leaders that have an agenda that doesn't align with mine or for the betterment of the VGV HOA (IMO), and I suspect many others agree if they were aware (which they are not...). I believe this to be the reason for the coalition's lack of transparency.

If they truly had such a worthwhile cause - they would politic that issue to build support. The WSJ thread has >100K views, and from my experience (via PMs and interactions with others) many of these are concerned owners as who do not know what is going on, and would like to from their perspective. And of course have to debate and defend...

I agree that the refurbish is water-under-the-bridge. However, the real issue to me (and others) was the lack of momentum on getting it done. The pre-Phil/Bob HOA managed to accomplish it, and while their tactics were not transparent and likely did not meet the standards of the CCRs - never-the-less it finally got done. Had the Owners waited for a quorum, it would likely be even more of a mess (and no cheaper to rectify).

Look what we have now versus the time when the WSJ thread started- a refurbish both inside and outside, 2 'real' owners (non-SVO puppets -regardless of propaganda), and much improved transparency.

It is not correct that the refurbish was ever going to be done slowly, in stages with current reserves. The reserve funds at the time were totally inadequate for the massive refurbish performed. There were 2 attempted votes that didn't meet quorum standards - while the cost stated during these votes was lower than what ended up being spent - I doubt that the amounts proposed were ever realistic, and did not contain funds for siding and roofs (a major improvement). The alternative was to increase MFs for 3 years to pay for the refurbish (it was never a special assessment), and then as clearly stated by Phil/Bob in their Owner Update letters to bring the reserves up to the levels needed to keep VGV well-maintained which the previous adminitration failed to do (along with the loss of SVO subsidy).

This is where we are 5-6 years later with a refurbished resort, and at least 2 owners looking out for the well-being of the HOA. Except, we have a small percentage of Owners suing the HOA/SVO for control without transparency of their intent or what they intend to do once they get it. Better transparency? Better economics? A better resort?

You may prefer a non-Westin, but a suspect many like me bought the name and all that goes with it (accounting that it is in StJ afterall). If we lose that, I will likely bail out.

While I know you have blocked a certain someone's posts - he does make good points (although he seems to attack the individual versus the group...) - Where are the facts of the dishonest board anymore? If anything - thanks to Phil and Bob and outspoker concerned owners (coalition included) - our resort is leaps and bounds better than I had even hoped for in this period of time. IMO - this comes from working together and not obstructionism (hmmmm... sound familar?)

anyway... I sure wrote more than intended - easy when one feels passionate about a topic. I hope to see you again sometime - I keep up with DD and DB on FB - seems like they are doing well.
Take Care.

jerseygirl · Nov 15, 2012

David - thanks for your thorough post. I'm aware of the history and disagree with a few small details - but they're on the opinion side and I think we agreed to disagree a long time ago!

. We both have the resort and owners' best interests in mind, we just disagree on how best to govern things in the future. I'm way over the past (and fully supported the refurb, for that matter - I just didn't appreciate being lied to, by Starwood representatives, about how it was going to be handled).

I certainly never meant to imply that Phil and Bob are dishonest - I too have been, and remain, one of their supporters. I simply used a very common phrase (e.g., when Anderson Cooper does his "keeping them honest segments," i don't think his intention is to label people liars/thieves/etc). And, i believe i used the phrase "keep THINGS honest!"

I know you know that the original CCRs, and the majority of condominium laws in the US, call for owner, not developer, control of an HOA when X% of a development is sold ... and the owners didn't vote to change that clause when Starwood took over (just because language is inserted in a legal document doesn't make it automatically legal). And, while I too enjoy the Starwood quality (would i own as many Starwood resorts as i do if i didnt?!), I think if you owned a Hyatt or Hilton resort, you'd understand my greater admiration for those two companies. But, again, that's opinion ... and, if we all had the same favorites, there would be no vanilla ice cream!

No one will ever be able to convince me that an independent board isn't in everyone's best interest. Now, to quote Forrest Gump, "That's all I have to say about that." I like you way too much to argue with you about it (and I like your better half even more - tell her I said hello!).

DavidnRobin · Nov 15, 2012

She definitely is cuter... (and less opinionated)
Not arguing directly to you, but the principals - especially when it comes to costing the HOA (us). Hope to see you at some point. It has been tough for us to fit in StJ (Robin's job). It will be interesting to see what happens to WSJ in a few years from now.
Watch out for what you wish for - it may come true...