The following article is the opinion of the author and not the Gem State Patriot
Sometimes you eat the bear, and other times the bear eats you” That was a saying that was often times repeated by my father to his three sons as we were growing up. Another ritual in our family was that would we complain about an issue regarding “fairness” i.e., “that’s not fair”. Dad would then make us repeat “AND THAT IS GOOD’. My Quaker grandfather’s slant on the issue was that there was no such thing as justice. You either get too little or too much because justice administered by humans can never be perfect. Only God’s justice is perfect.
During a legion baseball game when I was 18, I was called out on a third strike that was high over my head. I turned around to the umpire, who I had grown up with as we both moved up the ladder of organized baseball, Auggie was his name; to complain. I heard a voice from behind the backstop say, “The umpire said strike three”. I didn’t know my father was at the game, but the message was clear. There is sometimes no room for argument and there is always no such thing as fairness—PS THAT IS GOOD.
We all spend too much time worrying about “justice”. We will all receive good and bad “calls” in our lives, but no matter the “call” what happens next is more important than what we had just experienced. A bad call by a referee or umpire in an athletic event, a bad decision by a city council, an HOA, or a judge, requires adjusting and getting ready to play the next play. Great competitors, great businessmen and women adjust to the events by moving forward with a plan that will improve their chances of getting better results and succeeding in the future.
Greatness is defined more by how one deals with adversity, than by how a person deals with success. The greatest golfer of all time Jack Nicklaus once opined that the great golfers he had observed in his lifetime were different in how they played “THE NEXT HOLE”. Average golfers after making a birdie or a bogey on a previous hole, were more likely to make a bogey on the next hole, because they were thinking about their past success or failure on the hole just played. The great golfers focus more and are more likely than the average player to score well on the next hole simply because they focus more and block out the events of the past. THEIR FUTURE IS NOW. We have seen this example play out recently on the PGA Tour as Scottie Scheffler has made his now historic run winning 2 majors, five Signature events and now likely the Fed EX Cup in one calendar year. When he scores a birdie or a bogey, he is more likely than any other golfer on the tour to achieve a birdie on the next hole. “Next hole= next play”
Our battle against the California developer that wants to build high density housing on our Plantation Golf course seems to be winding down. At issue was a right of property and a right of contract that was clearly spelled out in our Master Declaration Contract (MDC) that every property owner—including the owner of the golf course, had to agree to sign onto. Our group called “preserveplantation” took the (MDC) before an Idaho 4th District Judge and asked for Declaratory Judgement (DJ)—Do the words of the contract apply to the Golf course we asked? After receiving several favorable preliminary rulings on motions, our trial date was set. Apparently perceiving that our side would prevail in a court of law, the representative of the ownership syndicate enticed the HOA Board and called an emergency election of the HOA to amend the (MDC), thus potentially “mooting” our case before the court. A well-orchestrated and contrived and controversial proxy political campaign won the day for the California developer. Out of 252 votes our side fell 12 votes shy preventing an amendment changing the terms of the (MDC) contract.
As Lee Corso would say “Not so fast my friends”. The now unburdened property that was valued 8 years ago at less than $10 million, is now valued according to statements made in court by the developer’s lawyer, at $300million. The promise of protecting and respecting the open space property and developing a new golf course is a promise of stewardship that may become problematic. The potential temptation of leveraging the value of the property into investor accounts—maybe even a hedge fund in Hong Kong or a venture capital group in Seattle, may prove to be tempting and catastrophic for property owners. The interests of various parties including property owners may be unique and varied and sometimes allied with the principals involved in the project, for any number of reasons. Payments in kind or cash can be difficult to sort out especially if they come in the way of a political contribution, consulting fees, or a cash infusion to a non-profit HOA. The fungibility and legality of such transactions does not conceal their purpose. The motives of those choosing to participate in such transactions does not disguise a lack of virtue or a willingness to exchange selfish interest for the property rights of neighbors most impacted by the project. The very meaning of the word fiduciary should preclude such self-serving actions. Idahoans have traditionally understood such moral concepts that define relationships between friends and neighbors.
I was recently attacked verbally as a member of the audience from the podium at a recent HOA meeting. The speaker noted my conservative bona fides—he is a contributor to the Idaho Freedom Foundation and a supporter of the California Developer. He said that I was not respecting the “property rights” of the California Developer, while failing to recognize the contract right and “right of property” of every landowner that was written into the (MDC). He seemed to not understand that this “right” written into a contract was just like a water, mineral or oil right of property. Make that same argument to an Idaho farmer or irrigator who relies on such rights that “run with the land” to survive and see what happens!
The Judge in our case noted in a motion hearing, was disposed to state that ours was a simple case of property rights meeting contract law. Correct I say. Precisely what we have been stating for 8 years.
In the end I am comforted by rereading James Madison’s 10 Federalist Paper—The Right of Faction. Most people don’t understand that his concern was for the “faction” of the majority”, not the faction of the minority. He was concerned that the majority as in a democracy might overwhelm the rights of the minority, hence, the need for checks and balances.
Over and again and forever this tension will be played out. Even as we lost this battle, I have been grateful for our being able to present our side of the story, even while attempts to silence our dissent came from many quarters—including and especially in City Hall in Garden City.
STRIKE THREE for this round. I only wish that justice could have been served by having an Idaho JUDGE make the call. And THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN GOOD!
