| Welcome to Porthinchinbrook. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| PHS; PHS | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Dec 31 2013, 08:37 PM (119 Views) | |
| Resident | Dec 31 2013, 08:37 PM Post #1 |
|
As a long term resident of Port Hinchinbrook I have seen the failure of the development first hand on a daily basis. The original concept of an Integrated Resort was never completed and years of mismanagement and abuse has resulted in the derelict precinct we have today. I believe PHS should be liquidated! I believe our investment, both financial and emotional will only be realised if PHS is wound up. No one in their right mind will purchase property if this proposal is adopted. We have one opportunity to stop this rot once and for all from further infecting us and our lifestyle. VOTE NO to the draft Scheme of Agreement. |
![]() |
|
| nevmilne | Jan 3 2014, 11:57 AM Post #2 |
|
Residents would not be so upset and angry about the current proposal if they were involved in the decision as to which path we as a community should go down. In the beginning a pole should have been taken before the masses of money were spent. After reading the SOA, in my opinion it appears the only winners are Liquidators, Lawyers, anyone receiving remuneration then creditors at a smaller percentage. The losers are the residents paying both rates, BAML and as I read the constitution, signing our properties over to be controlled by the constitution, no mention of dredging, is that a surprise coming on top at a later date? When you do the math, It looks to me that the first few years of BAML will go to paying the Debt that has been racked up going down a path I don't think many wanted. Who in their right mind would buy a property in PH under a scheme as the one proposed, I think our properties would be unsalable. From the feed back I am receiving, I don't know of anyone in favour, are there only a handful of supporters? . When the Directors where elected we were told that we would receive regular updates and it would be open and transparent, I have heard from a number of people that the Directors have signed confidentiality agreements, is this true ? We are all equal members and should be treated that way and allowed to have an opinion or say in matters that will effect the rest of our lives, just as Gary Scot or David Lane should have the same rights, It seems Gary and David are on the outer because they have an opinion similar to what appears to be the majority. I feel after all we have been through being controlled,some even losing their life savings, ripped off, as Moira states we were used as a cash cow, I just can't believe anyone one in their right mind would continue down a path that to me looks worse than what we had with Williams. Nev Milne |
![]() |
|
| John_B | Jan 3 2014, 07:48 PM Post #3 |
|
I need to read through document again and pick out the key points to discuss. PHS needs to disappear. Further reference to 'PHS' continues to enforce the old WC - PHS handshakes.. Got to keep after WC and PHS from what I read... VOTE NO to the draft Scheme of Agreement........... |
![]() |
|
| « Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic » |






6:22 PM Jul 11