On August 14th I reviewed the Correspondence File at the WPA office. I'm not provided with copies, so I hand wrote the following which was written by Canal Sub Committee Chair, Adam Anderson. If there are typos, they are mine and not Anderson's. THE POSITION STATEMENT FOLLOWS AND WAS NOTED "FOR THE CANAL SUB COMMITTEE AND THE WATER AMENITIES COMMITTEE":
"The canal dredging issue at Wedgefield has been the single most divisive and damaging problem our neighborhood has ever faced. While the mood and overall attitudes in the plantation has improved since its peak of a few year ago, a relaxed approach will certainly bring us back full circle if we don't address this issue now and bring the canal dredging problem to some sort of resolution. The water amenities committee started a sub committee back in January to look at any and all possibilities and scenarios.
The canal sub committee has come up with what we believe is the ultimate way to resolve this issue. Some of these are not new ideas as they have been talked about before. Several things have to happen in order for this to work and the cooperation of everyone will be needed. Here is our plan.
1) The canal lots need to form their own regime. It's only purpose would be canal maintenance. The canal lots would still belong to the WPA and everything else would be as it is now. The new regime would have its own by-laws and board, much like the condo regimes within Wedgefield.
2) Through a new by-law that would need to be approved at an annual meeting by 2/3 of the membership, the WPA would commit a set amount of money on a percentage of its yearly budget to the new regime. The details of this would need to be worked on a little more but the number we are currently looking at is in the $40-$50 per lot range.
3)The WPA would then be relieved of any financial obligation to the canal lot owners. It would then be up to the canal regime to find the remaining amount in whatever manner they decide.
This would allow the canal lot owners to handle their own affairs regarding canal maintenance and would alleviate the WPA from having to deal with the controversial aspects of this issue. It would end the pitting of neighbor against neighbor that has hurt the property values and reputation of Wedgefield in the public eye. The cost of setting this up would be minimal. The biggest hurdle will be getting everyone on board. All of the canal lots and 2/3 of the participating voters at an annual election will need to support this in order for it to work. We believe there is no better way to resolve this. It puts the majority of the expense on the canal lots where it should be, and still allows for a small contribution from the entire community to cover the drainage and debris that the entire plantation contributes to the filling in of the canals. It is fair to everyone."
As stated in a previous article, I don't agree with this and we will never agree to sign on to a sub assosciation, as a canal lot owner. After eight years of living with irratic WPA boards, we are not going to put another entity in line, to harm our comfortable life. There are a number of concrete reasons not to support this.
1) My own investigation says it cannot be done legally - form a sub association after the fact.
2) I don't like the way the option was put together. It started with secrecy, avoiding the Chair of the larger committee - John Mc Bride, Chair of Water Amenities.
3) This was not the proposal the Canal sub committee took to discuss with Garrison's Legal Committee. This was Garrison's proposal.
4) I don't agree with the statements contained in this option. The WPA owns the spoil site. What happens with maintenance of it? Where would the canal sub association put the debris if they did dredge? The WPA owns over 45% of the frontage on the canals. The WPA adds debris everyday running their inefficient drainage into our canals.
5) The by-law addition to be voted on doesn't have a life time guarantee. Remember, we now have a by-law submission that if approved, would mandate one vote only, no matter how many lots you pay assessments on.
6) We already have a legal means - Individual Assessment, to assess canal lot owners and any other group and their circumstance, without playing Garrison's game. There is a bridge in Brooklyn attached to buying this option.
There are many more. Perhaps you will write and add to the list.
Anyone is welcome to write to The Wedgefield Examiner via email: wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com. Remember to note whether you would like your name published with your article. The option is open to anyone who writes.
