First, I thank board community liaison, Anderson for his timely response. HERE IS HIS LETTER:
Mrs. Claveloux,
I will attempt to answer your questions as best I can.
There is obvious interest by the membership regarding the appearance of the Wedgefield Plantation Golf course, and the possible purchase of the course by the county. I, and many other residents would like direct information from a county representative, who would answer our questions with first hand information, provided directly from the source. Additionally, residents are concerned for a number of reasons, about how the board intends to survey, and petition the community for the county. Basically, we all want first hand information, and we want every member surveyed.
The board is very concerned about these issues as well. That is why Bob and Jacky attended the meeting with the county. That is why the petition is being prepared and a committee is being assembled to gather signatures. The idea is to see how much support there is for the general idea of the county buying the course. Details are scarce because they are unknown. The county is not in a position to give specifics until they know if the residents are even interested in this as a concept. That is all the survey is. As far as surveying every single member, that is logistically impossible.
Immediately following the April 28th WPA Board Meeting, there were over 1,000 visits to The Wedgefield Examiner, in just a little over 24 hours. Additionally, since then the volume of visits, even on the weekend, has exceeded 100 visits per day, and residents are writing letters to the blog about the potential purchase almost daily, and they are being published. While the board may not like, or wish to acknowledge the blog, it appears that members are turning to it as a vehicle to both get, and put out information. Several residents have contacted me, and I have met with them in small groups, and they want to move forward with a plan to see that we get first hand information, and that every member is surveyed.
To date, I’ve spoken to Brian Tucker, and he has agreed that if a group of residents would like to hear from him, that he is willing to speak to them. The group has suggested that we develop a mailing to every member that would include a cover letter indicating a date time, and place of meeting, and a prepaid post card addressed to Brian Tucker, detailed with a “yes” or “no” on the potential purchase by the county, a place to indicate the # of lots owned by the member, and a signature line. The group is working on the mailing list now, and yes, we have recruited promise of donation of funds for mailing, printing, etc. The overriding question throughout our work has been, “why isn’t our board promoting this kind of open communication, and surveying on an issue that is so important to so many of us.”
I would suggest that you and your group contact the office and join the committee already in place and discuss your ideas openly with the committee. We don't need two petitions going around. That would only create confusion.
This morning, I touched base with some of the people working on the project, and agreed to contact the board, present the fact that Mr. Tucker is willing to meet Wedgefield residents, and ask the board if they would consider taking over notifying every member of a date, and time to hear Mr. Tucker, and at the same time provide a survey tool to every member. Are you willing to do this to unify the sharing of information with every member, and seek the opinion to be shared with the county, from every member? Wouldn’t it be beneficial to the board, all members, in unification and providing answers to the county?
I feel the original idea was to do the petition first to see if the “concept” is something a large number of residents are open to and THEN have a meeting with Mr. Tucker. The petition spelled out the generalities of the concept. I am not personally opposed to anything that is a reasonable idea. Some of your ideas here seem good. Again, I would recommend you join the committee already in place and work with them to incorporate your ideas into what is already being prepared.
Please respond. We’ll continue our work if we must and make our decisions if we must. Shouldn’t we all be working together for Wedgefield?
We are not opposed to anything. We want to see the golf course re-opened as much as anyone else. We recognize there is a void of concrete information on this issue. It is the same for us. There are rumours all the time about potential buyers but nothing we can substantiate. Do you really want us spreading rumours? We can’t and won’t tell you anything we don't know to be a fact, nor would we withhold anything we know to be true. This concept of a county purchase is going to be a long drawn out ordeal. There is nothing we can really do about that. All the while the course is still for sale. It could be purchased at any time by another party. All of this is beyond our control.
I couldn't agree more that we need to work together. And that usually means compromise. I will already assume one of your responses to this letter will be that you cannot work with the existing committee because of its chairperson. To my knowledge Mr. Armistead volunteered to head this effort up. To refuse to work with his committee over a 10 year old disagreement on a completely different issue isn't indicative of a “let's all work together for Wedgefield” attitude. I will guarantee you he be willing to work with you and hear your ideas. So let's ALL put aside our differences and see if we can find some common ground on perhaps the most important issue Wedgefield will ever face.
Adam Anderson
Community Liaison
