Proposed Community Vote

June 2, 2025

Dear PBNA Members:

The purpose of this email is to provide additional background and context for South Street Partner’s email distributed on Friday evening May 30^th.  We will cover three topics: Background: Initial thoughts on critical issues; and What to expect from the PBNA going forward.

Background

Two years ago, SSP attempted to unilaterally make PB Club membership optional without holding a PB property owner vote as required by our Recreational Covenant. While there were likely multiple motivations of SSP to make this move, the legal authority to make this important change to our community was challenged in court by five PB property owners.  That lawsuit argued that the amendment process in the Recreational Covenant required a majority of PB property owners to vote to approve such changes were not followed. Therefore, the change to optional PB Club membership was invalid.

In those legal proceedings, the PB property owners prevailed, and on March 14, 2025, the Special Referee issued his ruling that the mandatory membership waiver by SSP was invalid.  It now appears SSP has accepted the court ruling and is proceeding with a vote by PB property owners to approve a change in PB Club membership to non-mandatory.  However, SSP is combining the non-mandatory membership vote with other unrelated amendments to the Recreational Covenant, such as repayment of costs usually paid by the developer to SSP from PB Club with interest, future Joining Fees to go to fund new amenities, and Financial Audits of the PB Club. None of which appear to be related to the non-mandatory membership issue.  In other words, SSP appears to be trying to create a quid pro quo to entice members to approve a fundamental change to the PB community.

Initial Thoughts on Critical Issues

We see several issues and risks associated with this amendment such as:

• Potential for an economic “death spiral” if too many property owners resign from the PB Club which will shift more and more costs to fewer and fewer PB property owners.  Other communities have had this problem when they suddenly made membership optional.

• Potential risk of bulk sale of developable land to national large-scale homebuilders.

While SSP may argue they do not plan to do this, they (or a new owner) may change their minds.  SSP’s original business plan called for bulk land sales of undeveloped lots.  Non-mandatory PB Club membership makes this far more feasible

• SSP could retaliate against members and potentially remove them from the PB Club

• SSP could sell PB Club memberships to nonresidents without limitation

• Potential to forever change the character, membership mix and culture of our community.  PB could become a group of itinerants and empty lot speculators

• Putting Joining Fees into the PB Club and providing Financial Audits of the PB Club appear to be required by SC law, and if so, not an incremental benefit to PB property owners.  In other words, the proposal offers something the community should already have.

In the petitioners’ organizers’ (who support the developer) earlier presentation to members of the community, they state “Mandatory and guaranteed membership in the Club and the recreational facilities, programs, services, and amenities provided by the Club increase the value of our property.”

Importantly, SSP has not articulated any significant benefits to PB property owners from a change to non-mandatory PB Club membership. The fact that in two years only 19 PB property owners have purported to have opted out of PB Club membership demonstrates this. If members have hardships, that can be addressed by the developer in more careful and direct ways.

What to Expect From the PBNA

We will continue to listen to PB property owners and research potential issues and related pros and cons. We anticipate sending out at least two additional emails:

1. Prior to the small June group meetings, we will circulate a list of potential questions which could be raised by PB property owners at the meetings.

2. After these meetings and prior to the vote, we will analyze any feedback and provide additional thoughts and information.

In our opinion non-mandatory membership is not in PB property owners' best long-term interests. This is a serious irreversible change for our community that has benefited from mandatory PB Club membership for 20 years.

For any further discussions please feel free to contact any PB volunteer board member or send an email to pbna2020@gmail.com.

PBNA Volunteers

Cathy MacKinnon, John Meltaus, Frank Riddick and Allen Roth