************************************************
Do you have information, or an opinion - agree, or not, you can email The Wedgefield Examiner at wedgefieldexaminerthe@yahoo.com. We'll remove your name to protect the innocent, and publish it . P.S. If you would like your name published, please note that on your email, otherwise we leave your name out.
***************************************************
HERE IS THE UNEDITED LETTER:
HERE IS THE UNEDITED LETTER:
Madeline,
Jamie sent this letter to the board. He would appreciate it if you would post a copy to the Examiner on his behalf. Comments welcome.
Thank You. Connie
There has been a lot of talk around the community for quite some time concerning the canals. Mention "dredging" and it seems, everyone immediately takes sides. No one, to my knowledge, has ever taken up the essential issue in an open way-- preferring to cast the issue as either a money grab by a few well connected owners looking to prey on an ill informed majority, or as simply a matter of neighbors taking care of neighbors for the good of all. To my mind, the core issue is one of responsibility. If these canals require ongoing periodic maintenance, whose responsibility is it to make it happen? As to the need, clearly it is there if the canals are to remain being canals. They need to be dredged periodically, or they will disappear. But is it the responsibility of the HOA-- the community at large, or of the canal lot owners? There are no other options, since the state has no interest in keeping our canals navigable, nor do the town or county. Even the Army Corps of Engineers, who have been credited as "owning" the canals has no interest. Wedgefield Associates is gone, so they are out. The possibilities are two only, but which of the two?
On the one side, it is simple to say-- "they aren't everyone's canals because not everyone lives on them." There is logic to this approach, and it would seem to sum it all up, but is that all there is to it? Let's address the alternate approaches and see.
I have heard-- "they were there when I bought my house, so they are the HOA's problem." While this might seem to lead to a situation of false promises, it really does no such thing. As an example, the sewer lines to our houses were all there when we bought, yet their maintenance is clearly on individual owners. Another example is when the areas around your home are all nicely wooded, but then get built up, destroying your sense of privacy and seclusion that you enjoyed. Just because something is there when you purchase your house does not create a responsibility for it to remain there.
I have heard-- "these canals raise all your property values." This is perhaps the most often repeated rationale for everyone bearing the cost. Since the canals have no direct influence on most non-waterfront lots, the effect must be indirect. Sort of, they make Wedgefield more upscale generally, which helps everyone. This is tough to argue, since there is no possibility of proof. No comparison can be made between values with and without canals of any property. We can, however, compare values of waterfront vs. landlocked properties, but doing so only establishes that waterfront comes at a price premium, not that having waterfront properties nearby raises all values. However, it isn't disproven, either. The problem comes when a dollar value needs to be applied. Again, I offer an example: if all your neighbors drive Bentleys and other exotic cars, it makes your neighborhood appear more upscale. Does this obligate you to help pay for their expensive tune-ups and repairs? Isn't that an expense that comes along with having and enjoying the car? Why is it so clear with Bentleys, and so unclear for canals?
I have heard-- "everyone can use the canals." This seems to me a bit disingenuous-- as if launching your boat at the ramp and then traveling the canals is at all like living on them, but I will continue with it. When looking for compensation for a benefit, it is necessary to show that the benefit is somehow beyond that of mere existence. Sort of, you need to pay extra because you are getting extra. Clearly, launching and traveling through the canals is something available to anyone in the area who has a boat. Just as I can put in at East Bay and explore the Sampit, or Hobcaw's creeks without an extra fee, so can those who are not residents explore our canals without
a fee. Why then should Wedgefield residents pay extra to travel the canals?
I have heard-- "we can't afford to do it on our own." On the face of it, this seems totally true, and a powerful reason to spread the burden. Truly the "neighbor helping neighbor" concept. The calculator, however, tells a slightly different story. There are 81 canalside properties. There are "about" 580 total properties. These numbers, as written, have been declared facts, previously, in a court of law. Less clear is the cost of dredging, but published reports (Sun News, Georgetown Times) have the last round at 1.2 million dollars. If the
maintenance cycle is as often as every 12 years (most say 15 is normal), this means one hundred thousand dollars a year. One hundred dollars a month from 81 properties nets 81 hundred dollars a month. This comes to ninety seven thousand, two hundred dollars a year-- very nearly the required monies. Now, I will not belittle a hundred dollars a month, but in today's world, it is often less than the monthly cost of internet and TV-- bills I would bet most everyone reading this pays because they want the services. No one likes these bills, but the alternative is worse, so they are paid. If the alternative of the HOA paying were not there, the choice would be like cable and internet-- you want them, this is the monthly bill. Or you can find a cheaper alternative. Slips downtown cost more than one hundred per month, whether in water, on a lift, or in dry stack. A mooring comes with it's own set of drawbacks, as does trailering. A hundred a month to dredge beats those choices. Surely there is an alternative to fund dredging? Presently, there is only one-- coerce the HOA to cough up money, which right now seems to be plan A as well as plan B. Helping neighbors afford something they can't afford to do otherwise is fine thing-- witness what Butch made happen with the golf course mowing, but what about when the only reason they can't afford it is because they chose not to plan ahead? I'm reminded of the old story of the squirrel who worked all summer hoarding food for the winter and the hare who loafed all summer. Was the lesson there that the squirrel needed to be generous?
To sum it all up, I still firmly believe that the burden of dredging the canals should rest with those that truly enjoy the benefits. With organization and planning (basically commitment), it would be achievable, and support from non- canalside owners should be solicited on a voluntary basis (as Butch did with the mowing), by the canal owners. A dredging assessment system should be set up (again, by canal owners) to fund the bulk of the expense, and the HOA's coffers could be offered only as a way to make up small shortfalls, since these monies would be going to a project of unproven value to the community as a whole.
Since no attempt has yet been made to even try and pay for dredging themselves, and it's always been "let's hit up the HOA" it still seems like an attempt to force other people to fund an exclusive benefit, and that is why I am against the idea. As long as the HOA board pays, there will be nothing but a cycle where dredging threatens to tear apart our neighborhood good will every twelve to fifteen years. It's time for the canal properties to step up and admit that dredging is a challenge that comes with the benefit of living on the canals, and to figure out how to get it done themselves. It IS possible, and if landlocked owners saw a real effort, their response might be surprisingly good, instead of the bitterness we have too much of now.
Jamie Downs
