About Clubhouse Subsidies

Real Talk about Subsidies

Mr. Hackler, a long-time POA Finance Committee member and now candidate for the POA Board, recently wrote an opinion piece titled “The F&B Trap”. Unfortunately his opinions appear to have been steeped in the POA’s Kool-Aid of Justification.

I offer you countrpoints to his opinions, based in the reality of our Governing Documents and general business common sense.

1. Subsidy Framed as “Normal” ≠ Subsidy Framed as “Efficient”

Hackler cites Club Benchmarking data to argue that “92% of clubs subsidize dining.” That’s true — but misleading.

• Those clubs are private membership clubs, not mandatory-assessment HOAs.
• Big Canoe’s Covenants were never intended to create a de facto country club; they established a residential property owners’ association, where assessments must be used for common benefit and maintenance, not to offset commercial food and beverage losses.
• The 1994 Amendment to the General Declaration gives the POA authority to regulate amenities and levy charges, but not to run perpetual losses on elective businesses like restaurants.

Counterpoint: Comparing Big Canoe’s Clubhouse to a private club is structurally inaccurate. The POA is a nonprofit community association, not a hospitality enterprise. Operational standards should be based on HOA best practices, not country club benchmarks.

2. The “$500K Subsidy” Ignores True Costs

The cited “$500,000 subsidy” is only the budgeted direct loss. It omits:

• Shared overhead allocations (security, HR, accounting, utilities).
• Depreciation on kitchen and facility upgrades.
• Deferred maintenance costs already funded from reserves. These hidden costs can push the real subsidy closer to $800K–$1M annually. And since food sales taxes are not offset by profit, property owners effectively pay twice — once through assessments and again through meal prices.

Counterpoint: Transparency demands a fully burdened cost analysis. If the Clubhouse can’t cover even its variable costs (food, labor, utilities), its “subsidy” is not investment — it’s inefficiency.

3. Fairness by “Shared Benefit” is Theoretical, Not Practical

Hackler claims that all owners benefit equally from the Clubhouse because it “sustains property values.” But Big Canoe’s own 2021 Voice of the Community Survey found:

• Only 46% rated the Clubhouse as “important personally.”
• Satisfaction with the restaurant and bar was among the lowest-rated amenities (avg. 6.9/10).
• Residents with homes under $600K (63% of population) were least satisfied with Clubhouse value and cost.

Counterpoint: When half the community uses the Clubhouse rarely and rates it poorly, claiming “equal benefit” doesn’t hold up. The subsidy effectively transfers wealth from lower-value homeowners to subsidize a luxury experience for higher-value homeowners and their guests.

4. Community Priorities Show Mismatch

Survey data show where owners actually want money spent:

• Top three upgrade priorities: Post Office, Restaurant, Golf Course.
• But 72% said upgrades should focus on improving or expanding existing amenities, not expanding operations or staffing.
• 53% said they’d only tolerate up to a 10% increase in assessments to fund upgrades — hardly a mandate for ongoing subsidies.

Counterpoint: Residents want improvement, not expansion. Fix the experience, make it self-sustaining, and then stop subsidizing it.

5. “Industry Norms” Are Irrelevant Without Governance Context

Hackler’s use of Club Benchmarking ignores a core legal reality:

• The Big Canoe POA is not a voluntary social club; it’s bound by recorded covenants requiring that assessments serve community maintenance and operation — not commercial risk-taking.
• F&B operations beyond break-even risk violating the fiduciary duty to allocate funds equitably.

Counterpoint: “Industry norms” apply to members who choose to join a club. Big Canoe owners have no choice — making the POA’s responsibility higher, not lower.

6. “Community Investment” Needs Accountability

Calling the F&B loss an “investment in community” is a rhetorical dodge. Investments have measurable returns; losses do not.

• If F&B is truly about “community connection,” success should be tracked through satisfaction, participation, and net promoter scores — not vague emotional appeals.
• The 2021 Satisfaction Survey showed dining satisfaction below 7/10 and only moderate engagement.
• The same survey showed property owners’ satisfaction with POA financial management was just 7.0/10, indicating continued skepticism about fiscal decisions.

Counterpoint: You can’t call it an “investment” if it doesn’t generate measurable value, participation, or goodwill. Community sentiment says otherwise.

7. The “Living Room” Analogy Masks a Commercial Reality

Hackler concludes, “The Clubhouse isn’t a Ritz-Carlton… it’s the living room of Big Canoe.” That’s emotionally appealing — but untrue operationally.

• The Clubhouse serves food, employs chefs, pays servers, and sells alcohol — it’s a business, not a living room.
• If residents want a “living room,” community centers and event spaces achieve that goal at a fraction of the cost.

Counterpoint: The “living room” metaphor misleads residents into confusing a subsidized restaurant with a social amenity. The POA should distinguish hospitality services (optional) from infrastructure amenities (essential).

8. A Sustainable Alternative

A responsible approach would:

1. Set a zero-based F&B budget, requiring each department to justify expenses annually.
2. Establish performance metrics (cost of goods %, labor %, customer satisfaction) published quarterly.
3. Cap subsidies and tie them to measurable community engagement goals.
4. Explore hybrid management — e.g., a professional operator running F&B under POA oversight, reducing labor and procurement costs.

Counterpoint: Accountability and transparency build trust. Perpetual subsidies without performance do the opposite.

In short: Hackler’s article frames subsidy as virtue and efficiency as optional.

The facts — from the covenants, the surveys, and standard fiscal governance — say the opposite. Big Canoe’s dining operation should be transparent, efficient, and equitable, not an open-ended “community investment” that half the community neither uses nor values.

Thank you for reading my platform. I hope you found it informative and helpful in understanding my vision for our community.

Prefer to talk? Book a time with me.

—

J Cornelius — Candidate for the POA Board
jcornelius.com/poa

—

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has. – Margaret Mead