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.
The last two days the blog has been busy with the 2? or 4? lot controversy. Two men are at the center. One board member/candidate DeMarchi, and the second, resident Morabit. If you have been following the blog you've seen Morabit's email to the Examiner and to DeMarchi. You've seen the attention DeMarchi gives Morabit. In fact he has done all of Morabit's work at the county offices. A key point to remember as we proceed, is that Morabit spoke in Feb. & March and threatened llawsuits and threatened law suits for loss of property value in his recent email to the Examiner.
DeMarchi was elected to serve all of us, fairly, equally, according to the governing documents, good business practice, and without prejudice or favoritism. The balance of the board members should not only serve under the same standards, but serve as watch dogs to each others actions, and bring issues as they develop to the board table. This article and documentation presents issues on both fronts. First, the actions of DeMarchi for a favored few and his actions toward those he doesn't like. What is worse, is that your board is aware and continues to sit silently by, despite the fact that DeMarchi shows prejudice to individual residents and disdain for the one board member - McBride, who attempts to do his job.
A few months ago, a resident wrote the following:
"We own approximately 220 feet along the main canal. In an effort to protect our property , and to REDUCE siltation into the canal, we, at great expense, bulk headed our property in 2006.
Unfortunately, the WPA owns the property across the canal from us in the form of the rice fields. I am sure that all of the Board members are aware that the WPA holds title to about 45% of the waterfront property and the entire spoils site. None of the WPA property along the rice fields is bulk headed or secured in any way. Twice each day, over acres of WPA owned rice fields; silt is deposited in the canal in front of my home. This siltation is greater than that from our secured property and thus is having an adverse effect on my use of the canal and the value of my home. No effort has been made by the WPA to ameliorate this negative effect." Additionally, this resident writes about a drainage problem resulting in standing water on their lot.
McBride is asked to answer. On September 14th he sends the following response to all board members and Edmund LaFrance:
"(Resident Name) I have been asked to respond to your letter regarding the negative effect on the use, enjoyment, and value of your property caused by the siltation from the WPA property. The WPA Board of Directors recognizes that the Association owns approximately 45% of the waterfront property and must therefore help in the maintenance of the canals. We are talking about a plan to help, financially, with a future maintenance dredge. We do not know how we can help you with the present and continuing negative effects from the rice fields. It would be economically unfeasible to bulkhead the rice fields and the WPA has no plans to do it. If we can assist you in any plans you have, please let us know.
In addition to the property along the canals, most of the storm water from the south side of the plantation, including that from the golf course, contributes sand, rocks, and other debris into the canals. The majority of the WPA property along the canals and all of the drain pipes remain unsecured by any attempt to just let water flow and prohibit the flow of debris. We could, perhaps, look into reducing the amount of debris caused by storm water by the use of silt cloth combined with rocks on the land side of these pipes. I will ask the drainage chair, Al DeMarchi, to look into this matter."
Remember McBride's draft was sent to the entire Board. Immediately, on September 14 DeMarchi responds to the entire board with the following:
"John, Let me address the last part of your response. The drainage problem that (Resident's Name) refers to does not exist. I have sent you pictures showing the flow of water into the the canal on (Street), and it does not run through the (Resident Name) property. The other areas of concern include the drainage ditch on the (Another Resident Name) property and the (Another Resident Name) property."
NOTE: Several paragraphs relating to other residents have been removed as not being pertinent to these issues.
"If you wish to get involved in the drainage issues, I would gladly accept you serving on the Drainage Committee. Thus far I am the only member.
Now, regarding (Resident Name) canal concerns.
1. She has lived here for 8 years and has never mentioned the siltation problem. 2. When she served on the board, and the canals were dredged, the (Resident Name) had the opportunity to have the silt removed adjacent to their bulkhead. They did not. 3. She claims loss of value on her property, and yet in her court deposition, she states that her home value has increased from $330,000 when built to $600,000 at the last recent appraisal. That is more than an 80% increase in value. Where is the lost value? 4. A potential solution would be to bulkhead (or rip rap) the entire rice fields and retention pond, yet the unbulkheaded properties, not owned by the WPA, along the canal would continue to contribute to the siltation problem. What then? Would the (Resident Name) seek restitution from their neighbors for property damage? 5. The Corp of Engineers, DHEC, and OCRM would most likely deny a permit for bulkheading the rice fields. The cost would be astronomical. The Coastal Conservation League would most likely seek an injunction against the project and we would end up in a court battle like before. 6. Silt is carried into the canals from the Black River as can be seen by the siltation of the North Canal entrance. The laws of physics (and gravity) would contradict the depositing of silt, (solid matter) on an area that is higher (along the bulkhead) than the adjacent areas (the bottom of the canal).
The list goes on and on, yet the WPA and WDM must provide (Resident Name) a response to her letters. As usual, we are caught in a situation where whatever answer is provided, (Resident Name) will present it to her attorney to seek some monetary settlement. The WPA does not need provide that ammunition for another law suit.
Please remember two things John. The WPA can not control the elements, and my personal observations on the issue are not to be shared with others." (Please note: any underlines in DeMarchi's letter were added by me.)
First, I obtained these documents legally, with a written request to review the correspondence file and have copies provided. The documents are in my files and have been properly stamped "copy" from the office. Due to technical problems I was unable to put them up for proper viewing. Additionally, the documents contained too many resident names.
A few more facts should be added. You'll note that DeMarchi claims the resident doesn't have a drainage problem. In fact he discusses it at a recent board meeting. He didn't name the resident but was it an attempt to diminish the resident as though they are imagining the water problem? Further research indicates that the resident told him pictures would be provided. A second visit was made and yes in deed he could see the problem. Why the need to pontificate on drainage in this response to McBride except to diminish him again, to his fellow board members?
Let's move to the canal portion of the letter. Go back and read McBride's writing. Mc Bride shared his letter with the entire board. No one else responded. Yet, DeMarchi treats him like a child. McBride has had a lot of experience working with engineers etc., as it relates to the canals. He doesn't need to be tutored by DeMarchi.
Look at # 3 in DeMarchi's letter. How does he know what the resident testified to during deposition? DeMarchi tried to attend one day but was asked to leave. Who has he been talking to? The only people in the room during the depositions that he is talking about are the attorneys, the court recorder, the person being deposed, and the plaintiffs and defendants, if they wish to be there. I have attended almost all of these. Some of the individuals on our side of the suit work. The three people from our side who regularly attend did not discuss what happened in the depositions. That leaves the Concerned Citizen element of the lawsuit. Who has DeMarchi been talking to about the Morabit lot problems? He writes that it is Ms. Z. Yet, he relates information to the board against this resident, without sound fact. Then he says, "(resident name) will present it to her attorney to seek some monetary settlement." Another attempt to put this resident in a bad light with the Board? I have read this resident's complete letter to the board. THERE IS NO THREAT OF ATTORNEY OR SUIT ANYWHERE IN THE LETTER! Wait threatening lawsuits is acceptable to DeMarchi. He's jumped through hoops for Morabit. His threats are on tape and the Examiner has published his presentation to the Board and his recent letter (at his request).
Finally, remember DeMarchi's final advisement to McBride, "Please remember two things John. The WPA can not control the elements, and my personal observations on the issue are not to be shared with others." When most of us work toward resolution of a problem, and we research, and share what we believe should be considered, we stand by it. We claim it, and we don't hide it. Same thing should apply when we are performing from board seats. What doesn't DeMarchi want shared? When he does these things he insults the very board seat he holds. When your board helps him hide what he does, sanctions what he does, they insult their board seats.
Three of the current board are running for re-election - DeMarchi, Anderson, and Walton (John). Think about who you will vote for. Anderson and Walton have supported DeMarchi in motions he brings to the board table and by their silence, when they don't bring these issues to the surface.
