Our canal lot survey arrived today. I've provided a copy for those of you who live off the canals (see below).
FIRST PARAGRAPH: "How do we please everyone?" Pleasing everyone, or those your board identifies as "their everyone", is not their responsibility. The board is responsible for serving in the best interests of Wedgefield Plantation Association, according to our covenants and by-laws. "The water amenities committee has come up with a concept that will come as close to pleasing everyone as we will get." Why a new concept? They didn't say it was new but why drag this into the mix, except to delay? Anyone who is willing to go back through the WPA achieves will note that the formation of a sub association has been considered several times. Why not go back to the governing documents and to Individual Assessment? After all the havoc, the truth resides is the 2011 Annual Meeting Minutes that were just approved. Item # 6, page 3, "The $5,000 assessment was confirmed as a legal assessment and collection of these past due assessments continue." It was only the Concerned Citizens who drove the lawsuits, disputed it's use for their own purpose, and then settled the lawsuit. The final order states, "The parties, other than the State, also advised the Court that the claims of the Plaintiffs, as members of and on behalf of Wedgefield Plantation Association against the Board of Directors of the Wedgefield Plantation Association, Karl Gettman, Jude Davis, Madeline Claveloux, Larry McMillin, Bob Arendt, Johnny Huggins, Brenda Martin, Ruth Reames and Scott Marlow, or their heirs, have either been previously dismissed or were being dismissed at this hearing..." The entire final order is attached to the minutes because it was read at the 2011 Annual Meeting. As far as "members of and on behalf of Wedgefield Plantation Association", when did they ask you if you wanted to sue the board as an entity, and as individuals? As to your board trying to please everyone. Who is everyone? The plaintiffs never had a majority, and certainly not near everyone. As one of them was deposed they stated they sued in behalf of the 242 people who signed the petition. Even that doesn't count because after the lawsuit dragged on many of those people stated they didn't realize what the lawsuit entailed. They thought the plaintiffs were seeking a declaratory judgement.
Your board hasn't even surveyed you and waited for the canal lot owners responses. They claim this is "as close to pleasing everyone as we can get." RUMOR has it that the board finally got the survey out to silence the Concerned Citizens. It was stated by some on the Water Amenities Committee that the entire committee, minus one, thought this was a good idea. Now individual committee members are stating that THEY didn't think it was a good idea. I was a member of the canal sub committee and this idea didn't get 15 minutes of our time, and was tabled at our first meeting. I was present at the meeting with the legal committee, when Individual Assessment was quickly moved aside. Garrison wanted this. Garrison also said, "it's not going to happen that way again" (Individual Assessment). Is he king of the board? The others are acting that way.
NUMBER 1 - 3:
This is the survey they kept us waiting months for? Please! When the canal sub committee met with the legal committee, they knew there would not be 100% participation. We discussed it during the meeting. Now, they tell us we need 100% participation by the canal lot owners. This requirement has been the problem anytime this has been considered. Read the records.
We need another by-law amendment to make it work and "the WPA would commit a set amount of money or a percentage of its yearly budget, probably somewhere in the $40-$50 per lot range, to our new regime. The WPA would then be relieved of any financial obligation to the canal lot owners for canal maintenance." Where did they get that figure? Out of the air!
What if we committed ourselves to this? Please realize there isn't any permanance to their promises. By-laws can be amended and there we would be standing alone. The association would be free and clear of responsibility and running their drainage system into our canals, causing more silting than nature ever could, in some areas.
"We would still be a part of the WPA much like the condo regimes already in place within Wedgefield." Canal lot owners have been the step children of this association. Additionally, we aren't anything like the condo residents. We bought our property under one association. The condo residents bought theirs under two. Personally, I will not intentionally put my property under the power of another ruling body - never.
Where did they mention ANYTHING about the spoil site? That is a major key to the dredging. Without it the figures to dredge and haul away are six to seven times more, and that is on OLD research. The WPA owns the spoil site. Jude Davis asked the board what they were doing about maintaining the spoil site at the annual meeting. She didn't get any answers. Was the question too hard? I fear the answer is that they have done NOTHING. WPA owns it. It is related to those "canal people" and it gets nothing. Yet, if you attend board meetings you will note that your board spent approximately $9,000 to repair a bulkhead, fill a cave in, and grass over it. It was one of the lots that the association owns the frontage on the canal that is directly connects to a private lot owner. They are going to sign it over to the lot owner at no cost. In fact, they paid the lot owner, who owns a business to do some of the work. Where was their contract with Great Lawns? The lot owner has not even paid their $5,000 assessment. The key words are they did it because they own it. They own the spoil site too!
"At this point the water amenities committee needs your input. We would like to know your feelings about such a proposal..." Really?? When? Because this is so important and they have been stalling long enough? They didn't even bother to put a return by date on it. Maybe you can answer it when spring arrives. Please don't delay any more. Be sure and write your questions and your feelings about this effort - or lack of. They didn't even bother to ensure that each and everyone of us got it at the same time. They claim 19, mine included, were held because they were out of stamps. I'm not so sure it was 19. Regardless, we weren't as important as less than half a dollar each, and a little effort, if that was the case.
A SUGGESTION & AN OFFER TO THE BOARD
I am attaching this article to my survey. No reason to do duplicate work.
BOARD: I'd like to suggest that you contact every canal lot owner and first make sure they got the survey. Second please provide them with a reasonable return date.
OFFER: Board I feel it is important that we get past this exercise as soon as possible. I also think that the responses from the canal lot owners should be tallied and every comment made available to any resident who wants to see it. My conviction is so strong that I am willing to sign a Confidentiality Agreement with a notation that it applies to this project only and remove resident names and compile every comment and the count, into one document. Please advise me as to whether you are willing to do that, in writing.
