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.
Dear
Examiner,
A number of months ago, I asked to see the
written,legal opinion from Mr. Moody concerning the formation of a canal sub
association. Bob Garrison answered me almost immediately that Mr. Moody had not
put his opinion in writing. I asked Bob about the financial analysis that I did
and the questions I posed. He, Bob, told me that he knew nothing about the
financial questions that I had asked, but Adam would. I did not received a
reply from Adam until recently:
From: adam anderson
[mailto:andersonbodyshop@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October
18, 2012 12:51 PM
To: Kathy Phelan
Subject: Answer to Davis concerns about canal regime
To: Kathy Phelan
Subject: Answer to Davis concerns about canal regime
Kathy,
Please pass this along to Jude Davis and the
board.
Mrs. Davis,
At last Tuesdays meeting you made a comment the ALL of
the board had failed to answer your questions. Your statement made me go back
and look to see if there was indeed anything I had failed to answer. The only
thing I could find that would pertain to me or any of the committees I am
involved in was the following paragraph in an email from
August.
I find it interesting that Adam
is proposing that the board contribute about $40-$50 per household as their
share. At $50 per household, the amount comes to $28,850. This amount is
supposed to ‘cover’ the 45% of unsecured waterfront the WPA owns as well as the
debris added daily by the drainage system. If we do some backwards math, $28,850
is 45% of $64,111 leaving $35,261 for the canal lot residents to contribute or
about an additional $452 per property. Where did Adam get his figures? What is
the cost of the next dredge? At $64,111 annually when can we do a maintenance
dredge? How much will be dredged?
Perhaps I owe you an apology but when I initially read this I
couldn't help but think that these were rhetorical questions. You, along with
your husband Mike understand the issues of the canal and dredging as well as
anyone. You researched this in depth many times before and after the 2009
dredging and have even shared some of your research with me in the past to use
in the water amenities committee as we look into a solution to the issue. I find
it hard to believe you are confused in any way about the proposal. You may not
agree with it or have fundamental differences with its basic premise, but that
is an entirely different thing than not understanding it. As far as specific
answers to your questions, there are none at this time. Everything we are
working on are just ideas and concepts at this point. If you have any input you
would like to contribute in a positive manner, I would be happy to read it. In
fact our next move is a poll and questionnaire that will be sent to all canal
lot owners seeking their interest and ideas on the canal regime
concept.
Perhaps I can clear up any confusion by giving you my feelings
about canal dredging in general. Also let me be clear that these are MY personal
opinions and not necessarily that of the board or any member of the committee.
The 2009 dredging and the events that led up to it were very tumultuous for
Wedgefield. Regardless of which side of the issue you were on it affected
everyone in some way.Friendships were lost, sales of property were lost, and a
general negative image was thrust upon Wedgefield as a whole as a result of all
the conflict. Few residents have been affected by this as much as you. One would
think that you of all people would want the next dredging to be done with as
little conflict as possible. I share that general feeling and believe the only
way to achieve it without fighting is by allowing the canal lot owners to foot
the largest percentage of the bill. There are several possible scenarios in
which this could be done, but I believe the best is this canal regime concept.
It allows the canal lot owners to pay the majority of the expense while the rest
of the community still contributes a small but relevant amount on a yearly basis
through their annual assessment. This would cover the drainage and debris issues
and the 45% of the rice fields that the WPA owns. To argue that everyone should
pay more based on the amount of canal lot frontage the WPA owns seems unfair.
What benefit or advantage does a resident living on Wraggs Ferry or Francis
Parker gain from that frontage? None. The only valid argument is the drainage
and debris that ends up in the canal contributes to the buildup over time. I
think a 40- 50 per lot, per year contribution covers that concern and most
residents would not oppose such a fee. It should be up to the canal lot owners
to pay the rest. I am committed to seeing this done in a way that does not rip
apart our community again. I am on record as far back as 2007 as saying we, the
canal lots, should foot the bill. Yes I supported the 2009 dredging and the
board members that voted for it, but that does not mean I didn't think it could
be done another or better way. I was not in a position of power or even a
resident at that time. All of the information I got during that era was second
hand and days or weeks old by the time I heard it. Having lived here for the
past 18 months and being a board member for the past 9 months I now have a much
better grasp of the sensitivities of this issue. If we try to force some sort of
dredging plan thorough again it will restart this whole process of animosity
that surely no one wants to relive. I very much enjoy my water access and living
along the canal, but I am more than willing to pay a premium for it and I don't
expect my neighbors to chip in any more than they should. Again, this is MY
personal opinion and I remain open to anything that would resolve this in an
amicable manner.
You and your husband Mike are both very bright and intelligent
individuals and could better serve our community in a positive manor instead of
nitpicking everything this board does with a magnifying glass. We are all
volunteers trying to do the right thing. Yes, we make mistakes, but the point is
we are making honest attempts at bettering our community, and I believe we are
succeeding. The constant questioning of peoples motives or intelligence is
insulting and discouraging and probably why you don't always get the answers you
are seeking. Perhaps a different approach will yield better results for
you.
Sincerely ,
Adam Anderson
As you can see, my questions remain
unanswered, specifically:”Where did the amount of $40-$50 per house hold come
from if my other questions have not been investigated. I would like to remind
everyone in this community that the 2009 Board, specifically me and Karl, did
everything out in the open. WE DID NOT INITIATE THE LAWSUIT---CAROL ZIESKE,
GEORGE WILSON,AND FRED THOMAS DID! The 2009 Board RESPONDED with a counter
suit. If Adam wants to blame someone for the hurt feelings, loss of property
sales, etc., he should start with the those three individuals and their
supporters in the community and on the Board. At no time did anyone on the 2009
Board call the media or initiate violence.
It is my understanding that Water Amenities the sub
committee for funding was NOT in favor of a sub-association. The idea came from
Bob Garrison. Individual assessments were okay when Carol Zieske’s Board
assessed them in 1998-99 for ditch maintenance. She, Carol, has repeatedly said
that they were to be used only for small amounts? No one has been able to
provide proof this caveat to me or to anyone.
I responded to Adam:
Please distribute to all Board members except, by his request, Jason and
put a copy of my response in the correspondence file.
Dear Adam,
I am unsure as to why you thought my questions were rhetorical when Bob
Garrison answered my question as to the legality of a sub-association. You are
correct in stating that I have researched the canal dredging issue and
understand it as well as anyone, probably better. I remain confused as to how
you arrived at the number of $40-$50 per lot. In order to come up with that
amount, or $28,850 annually, I assumed you had some idea as to when the next
dredge would happen, how much it would cost, and what the canal lot contribution
would be. Once again, where did the $40-$50 per lot come from?
Please remember, the entire spoil site is legally owned by the WPA . Some
maintenance annually would probably save us a major expense in the future. As
far as I know, nothing has been done to the spoil site in almost two years and I
can’t find any mention of this area in the 2013 budget. In addition, both Janine
Cline and Bob Garrison made statements at the September 2012 meeting that the
assessments for 2014 would go back to $450.00 per household. Where do comments
like that leave any money for canal maintenance?
The actual dredging cost, not the spoil site revamp, for 2009 came to
approximately $750,000. We budgeted for $405,000 from 81 lots and an additional
$345,000 from 577 lots. If you do the math, canal lot owners paid about $5600
versus everyone else paying about $600. How is that not the largest percentage
of the bill?
Adam, I am not now,nor have I ever been, one who is unwilling to pay my
share and more! I agree wholeheartedly that canal lot residents should pay more!
Please remember, I did not file the first lawsuit. The people who did, including
some of the people whom you seem to support, did not want to pay any money for
dredging! What makes you think that these same people have changed? I am proud
to say that this whole issue has not cost me the friendship of anyone who
matters. My friendships today are better and stronger than ever.
I do not believe that a sub association is the way to go for a variety of
reasons. If, as your sub committee originally believed, the individual
assessment was the way to go, an amount could have been in place for 2013.
Instead, you accepted Bob’s idea of a new regime of volunteers and another year
(2013) will fly bye without anything happening. The legality of individual
assessments has never been adjudicated. In fact, it was used by the 1998-99
Board. I have reached into my pocket more than anyone else to make voluntary
contributions towards the canal issue but will do so no more. I will, however,
pay any amount assessed my property by the WPA. I have made repeated suggestions
as to what the WPA could do to help reduce some of the debris that is washed
into the canals from the roads and been ignored.
You seemed to have joined the ranks of those on the Board who excuse their
behavior towards me by saying that I nit-pick. I have offered my help to Jacky
Walton and asked to be on the ARC. He ignored me. Because of the lack of
consistency in enforcing our ARC rules, we lost the suit against the too high
fence and curb on William Screven. Mike volunteered to serve on Ruth’s finance
committee until Bob Garrison and Jason Barrier called her to tell her they would
not support him because he was ‘too controversial.’ We both offered to help
Janine and were told that she had everything under control! This month was the
first financial report since February that approached completeness! I worked on
the Compliance Committee until the Confidentiality Agreement came up. It wasn’t
until I pushed the issue with Al that he finally admitted that the
confidentiality agreement he presented to you as having been approved by a
previous Board was just a undated piece of paper found in the file cabinet. I
have made repeated suggestions as to what the WPA could do to help reduce some
of the debris that is washed into the canals from the roads and been ignored.
When the attorney makes pronouncements based on ‘fact’, is it too much to ask to
see the documents he is referring to? I am still waiting to see the deed he
called Master! Do you really think that it’s okay for Board members to violate
the confidentiality of residents or do you just want me to ignore it when it
happens? I watch any combination of Janine, Al, Bob, Jacky, or Jason violate the
Code of Ethics you all signed on an almost monthly basis in their treatment of
John McBride. I watch the rest of you sit on your hands. You went outside the
Plantation to find an arborist to examine the trees when Peter from Great Lawns
is certified.
I do not expect any answer other than the truth, and sometimes the truth
hurts.
Sincerely,
Jude Davis
I am still waiting for answers to my questions,
but I’m not holding my breath! Do I nit-pick, maybe—but to accuse Mike of nit
picking is ridiculous. Perhaps this Board needs to examine the discriminatory,
yes it is discrimination, way that I am treated because I disagree with some
members of the Board when the residents who do agree, or hold multiple votes,
have Board members jumping through hoops.
Jude Davis
