from my days on the clubs committee - - dealing with some of our "current stellar group of leaders" (ie board liaisons) - - I can tell you that they rationalize every bit of spending by thinking in terms of "it's only x$ per property owner".  thus any spending - - no matter how ludicrous the project (food truck, java bay café) - - is justified in their minds.

a pet peeve of mine is the fire pits at the yc.  now we have two places where folks can sit and not spend a penny . . . sure they are nice, and I don't fault the folks for enjoying them, but to make that investment and subsequent cost to operate with no concern for a return on said investment is ludicrous, especially considering the point joe raised about the 600k (I believe brett hill also commented on 'priorities'). 

the tiki bar awning is another matter . . . the tiki bar is were the spenders congregate, it's an investment that will benefit those who basically pay their own way, folks who buy alcohol and food, folks who tip the staff.  of course, joes point re being well over the referendum amount is something that we all should have expected, it was part of the plan (or some might say 'scheme').  we were given a 4.5 mil starter project, and the priority from day one was the banquet hall, an 'amenity' that is not an amenity at all.  most assessment paying property owners probably have never seen the inside of that banquet hall.

comic relief: speaking of the YC/cove/firepits, I have an idea how we can settle the manklin meadows cost-overrun issue: why don't we move the playground equipment from manklin meadows and place it next to the firepits.  no worry about storm water management, no 750k price tag, and eventually we could also move the racquet sports to the veranda.     

steve lind