Section 5 of the CMP lists 6 roles HSV could take on development projects: Developer, Activity Equity Partner, Silent Equity Partner, Ground Lease, Assembly/Facilitator and None. Due to risk, it does not recommend Developer, Activity Equity or No Role. That leaves “Silent Equity Partner” as one of the default roles. That is a bad idea. This defeats the commitment of transparency that we hear so much about. Also, why wouldn’t Villagers be more supportive, not less, of a particular development if it was known that the Village was an equity partner? How could any board member who ran on a platform of transparency even consider approving the CMP with that provision? Not only should that option be removed, the CMP should be amended to prohibit that possibility.
I have noted on the HSV website that this issue is listed based on feedback comments, but when I asked when CMP changes would be published based on the feedback, I was advised that all feedback was under consideration. In other words, we won’t know what changes, if any, are made until after it is approved. Why ask for feedback if we’re not going to report changes that were made based on that feedback?
Further, why are we pressing to have the CMP approved at the April BOD meeting? There are a lot of long-range issues here. Why not postpone the vote on this until the new board members are in place? That would at least be more representative of the most recent opinion of the property owners as to whom their board members should be. If a BOD vote is needed to pay the consultants, OK, but approving a roadmap for our future should wait for the new board.
Hopefully, the Hot Springs Village Voice will report how each board member votes.

Rick Allen
Hot Springs Village