It is also important to note that this email was sent to the resident member of the Legal Committee. Perhaps it went to our legal chair. I say perhaps, because some of the email addresses hide their owner's identity. I've asked repeatedly why we have members on the legal committee who were involved in sabotaging the collection of assessments, by writing letters to every resident suggesting they put their assessments in an escrow account. Is this just a misguided attempt by some on your board to deny any attempt at canal maintenance?
This survey took months. No date to return, no place for the canal lot owners to sign, no return self addressed stamped envelope, and now the writer of the email notes that the board didn't even bother to sign this half baked document.
From:
(Removed Name)
To:
wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com
FYI
Subject: Re: NO ONE should pay for
State's canals AGAIN......................
Hi Everyone,
SCROLL TO BELOW THIS E FOR MY PREVIOUS E AND COPY OF LETTER ON WPA STATIONERY.
This is proposed to be a by-law amendment to be put up for vote at the annual meeting, so EVERYONE will have the ability to defeat it.
Why is the Board continuing to push for ANYONE to pay for more dredging. How responsible is that! Please encourage everyone you know to send a CLEAR MESSAGE TO THE BOARD THIS TIME!
Want the State's canals dredged again? Apply for State and Federal funding as originally presented to the community before the financing blunder. (Name removed)
-----Original Message-----
From: (Removed Canal Lot Owner Name To Protect Writer's Identity)
To: (Removed Z's email address to protect their email account)
Sent: Thu, Nov 22, 2012 9:38 pm
Subject: NO ONE should pay for State's canals AGAIN......................
Hi Carol,
Please pass this E onto the members of your mailing list and anyone else, with my permission.
I received this letter, below and attached, that suggests canal owners should form their own sub-association to pay for future dredging with a one time handout from the WPA. Don't fall for this. Don't allow the creators of this unsigned letter MAKE YOU THINK THERE ARE ONLY TWO CHOICES ABOUT THESE CANALS ----ANOTHER OPTION IS NO SUB ASSOCIATION, NO FUTURE DREDGING AT OUR EXPENSE, NO PAYING THE STATE'S BILL FOR MAINTAINING THE STATE'S PROPERTY.
To even suggest that canal maintenance should be included in our by-laws as part of individual assessments would then have placed maintenance of the State's canals on our shoulders. Why was that proposed amendment even fostered by the Board? And didn't the resulting defeat of the proposed amendment send a message? Why is the Board stilll pushing for who should bear the expense of more dredging?
DIDN'T THE BOARD GET THE MESSAGE, LOUD AND CLEAR, THAT THE FIRST DREDGING AND EXPENSE WAS OVERWHELMINGLY OPPOSED AND UNPOPULAR? Too bad they didn't solicit community opinions first before plunging the community in debt and then billing the residents for the Board's premature actions.
I suggest that NO ONE should be stuck with this again, and especially not JUST canal LOT owners, NOR ANY LOT OWNERS. ASK THE STATE TO PAY FOR THEIR OWN DREDGING, NOT THIS COMMUNITY, OR ANY ONE PART OF IT, AGAIN.
Carol Zieski, George Wilson and Fred Thomas fought for everyone to PROVE, IN COURT, BY THE STATE'S OWN ATTORNEY, THAT THE STATE OWNS THE CANALS. THREE PEOPLE FOUGHT TO PREVENT ANY OF US FROM PAYING FOR DREDGING AGAIN!
The FIRST DREDGING AND FINANCING FIASCO was FORCED on everyone, shoved down our throats was the best description, by the actions of two individuals without the required meeting and approval of the Board of Directors (there was no notice of meeting to some board members and there is NO RECORD of any such meeting !!) and MORE IMPORTANTLY WITHOUT FIRST LEGALLY DETERMINING THE OWNERSHIP OF THE CANALS.
What next? Golf course lot owners forming a sub-association to take over maintenance of the golf course in the event of the golf course owner's bankruptcy?? Why not? The community doesn't own the golf course either, but if people are forced to maintain State property that the community doesn't own, why not the golf course, too? Does this remind anyone how they felt when the course was in bankruptcy and bordering lot owners were extremely concerned about the future and values of their properties?
Why didn't the Board get a million dollar loan to save the golf course lot owners? Why didn't the Board do anything to maintain the golf course when it was in bankruptcy? They didn't because the community DOESN'T OWN THE GOLF COURSE, JUST AS THE COMMUNITY DOESN'T OWN THE CANALS.
I urge anyone who received the undated, unsigned letter to use good common sense and NOT SUPPORT ANY FURTHER EFFORTS TO FORCE ANYONE IN THIS COMMUNITY TO PAY THE STATE'S BILLS. NO CANAL SUB-ASSOCIATION, NO OTHER SUB-ASSOCIATIONS !!(Removed Canal Lot Owner's Name and email address)
