**************************************************
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.
***************************************************************************
Readers, I'm always interested in what you have been reading on the blog, and as editor, I'm able to follow through the back pages of the blog, provided to me, what people have been reading the day before, week before, month before, and even a year ago. Again, in the last 24 hours, more than a few readers went back to the article I've reposted.
What was Wedgefield governance like on that day - July 21, 2016? The golf course was closed. The canals had silted in at high speed due to the 2015 1000 year flood. Realtors were posting adds that glorified amenities that no longer existed - one reporting that clients had selected homes, asked to tour them, and then had asked the realtor to "turn around and not bother" when they approached our overgrown golf course on Wedgefield road. A resident had asked the board to hold a golf course meeting, so options could be discussed, and your board had said "no", and Bob Garrison announced in the Wragg, and from the board table, what the board's view and decision was about the golf course, and it was another sort of convenient "no", because it had never been a topic of discussion at the board table, as to when and at what meeting the board made that decision. Additionally, a resident had stood up at a board meeting and said that they felt that the value of our homes were decreasing, and asked whether the board would consider bringing in a realtor to discuss the market in Wedgefield. No, the board wasn't interested in doing that.
By the time I wrote the article below, the board had announced a closed meeting to discuss dredging with the canal lot owners ONLY. When a non canal lot owner asked at the end of a board meeting, if he could attend along with other golf course owners. He was told "no". Yet, at least 5, if not more, board members attended a scheduled meeting that only 79 residents were allowed to attend, and handouts to the canal lot owners committed up to $135,000 of our reserves, by this board in May of 2016, without a discussion, or a vote, at the board table. Canal lot owners invited - all the rest of us kept out. How much again was promised to golf course owners? A big zero, and told they couldn't even attend a meeting - illegal to keep them out, and allow you to see their crookedness! In the mean time I had written the board a letter requesting that we all get to attend. I was answered after this article, and told no, and belittled in the response from the board for asking.
I hope the residents are going back to reread these articles because they are beginning to put facts together before they vote for this year's candidates. We have the chance to start removing this board through the election process. Cline, and Ebert part of the team who helped keep important issues and board decisions away from us, had chosen not to run. That's two seats to get new untainted talent into. McMillin, a board member since 2009, has decided to run again. He has provided so much nonsense at the board table that I don't have time to rewrite it all. Fill his seat with new talent. He helped Cline, Ebert, and the rest of this board keep you out of even hearing how decisions were made about the golf course, and the canals.
We now look at the three new candidates running for board in alphabetic order. Connie Downs' resume has a history of state, and federal contract management, that would be important in cleaning up our contracting mess, and credibility in the fact that she attends board meetings, asks questions, and actually refers to our governing documents. She recently wrote a letter to the blog, and related her experience with the election process from the point of entering it through the nominating committee, right through to a discussion of a conversation Vice President/Legal/Compliance Chair, Garrison had with her the evening of Candidate Night. Go back and read her letter on the blog. Doesn't appear the board wants "her kind". Vote for Connie Downs, she is the only new candidate that even speaks to "respect for the by-laws and covenants and fair and consistent enforcement."
Vote for Butch Williams. His resume reveals his genuine interest in every part of our community, and his willingness to organize and work to bring Wedgefield together. He states on his resume, "I want to make sure that we are communicating with all homeowner/property owners and that all concerns are met with an open mind." To me, at a time when open communication from the board has been so deleted from governance, it appears he'll use our governing documents before he makes his decisions.
I know there are three openings, and four candidates. I suggest that you only vote for two, and give them a chance to win. It should be noted that neither of these candidates have asked for my opinion or endorsement, nor have I asked their approval to endorse them.
The third new candidate is Steve Vasey. I've met him a few times, and he appears to be a nice neighbor, and a nice man. That isn't enough to fill a board seat. He gives us a three line resume. The last line is quite revealing, "Presently I am assisting John Walton on the Water Amenities Committee and I am serving on the ARC Committee." Think a minute. He serves on the very committee that is a arm of the board that wouldn't allow all of you to attend the dredging meeting in 2016? He sat on the ARC committee that abused the resident who made a complaint about a fence in violation of our governing documents, who the ARC members, and board retaliated against by making false claims that numerous people had made complaints against his dock house, to the point that the resident sued the ARC chair. Remember, your board had no dock house complaints in the correspondence file, no recorded answers to the resident's complaints in the correspondence file, and had not reported any thing regarding this issue in their community liaison reports from the board table. They only reported when the resident filed a lawsuit. How can we expect this person to be anything else but a clone to the vacant seats on this miscreant board? Don't give him a vote.
Now you have the "rest of the story", and as Doctor Laura says, "now go out and do the right thing".
Thursday, July 21, 2016
IS IT TIME FOR RESIDENTS TO UNITE, AND ASK THE BOARD TO FORM A PRESERVATION COMMITTEE FOR WEDGEFIELD?
While I wait for an answer from the board as to whether they will open a meeting to ALL residents, that includes the Water Amenities Committee, the board, and 79 canal lot owners, I fear for the Wedgefield Community. At this point, no one who bought property here, has what the real estate add said they were buying into. The misleading adds continue today.
Here's two, but you look, and select any that you would like to analyze.
*"owners have access to a private boat ramp, and membership is available for golf course, tennis courts, and pool."
*"boosts gorgeous views of golf course."
*home on a HUGE (typed as printed in the ad) deep water canal lot."
What has changed is that most potential buyers, fooled by the written hype, can easily drive through, and see that it just isn't so. No one can argue as they have in the past, that the decay, or improvement of the asset in your back yard, doesn't do a thing to the value of my property.
What is worse, is that for the most part, there is concern, and sadness concerning the very individual property we each call home. Perhaps, it is time we meet, and explore through a special committee, what will make Wedgefield whole. Perhaps, there should be exploration to the idea of buying the golf course, projecting costs of maintenance, circumstances of operation, etc. Isn't it time we left our individual selfish motives, and agendas, to a bigger picture, and wrap up the security of the PUD, and make Wedgefield whole again? It doesn't mean it could be accomplished. I do think that it is time we unite, and at least explore it.
If you have thoughts, for - or against it. You can email The Wedgefield Examiner at wedgefieldexaminerthe@yahoo.com. I'll be happy to share your comments, but your name will be removed to protect the writer.
In the mean time, I'll wait for an answer from the board. Without any intention of being vindictive, I firmly believe that calling a meeting, and including only 79 residents, violates our governing documents. Our community should not be divided. We should all get to hear first hand, on any issue, let alone dredging.
Here's two, but you look, and select any that you would like to analyze.
*"owners have access to a private boat ramp, and membership is available for golf course, tennis courts, and pool."
*"boosts gorgeous views of golf course."
*home on a HUGE (typed as printed in the ad) deep water canal lot."
What has changed is that most potential buyers, fooled by the written hype, can easily drive through, and see that it just isn't so. No one can argue as they have in the past, that the decay, or improvement of the asset in your back yard, doesn't do a thing to the value of my property.
What is worse, is that for the most part, there is concern, and sadness concerning the very individual property we each call home. Perhaps, it is time we meet, and explore through a special committee, what will make Wedgefield whole. Perhaps, there should be exploration to the idea of buying the golf course, projecting costs of maintenance, circumstances of operation, etc. Isn't it time we left our individual selfish motives, and agendas, to a bigger picture, and wrap up the security of the PUD, and make Wedgefield whole again? It doesn't mean it could be accomplished. I do think that it is time we unite, and at least explore it.
If you have thoughts, for - or against it. You can email The Wedgefield Examiner at wedgefieldexaminerthe@yahoo.com. I'll be happy to share your comments, but your name will be removed to protect the writer.
In the mean time, I'll wait for an answer from the board. Without any intention of being vindictive, I firmly believe that calling a meeting, and including only 79 residents, violates our governing documents. Our community should not be divided. We should all get to hear first hand, on any issue, let alone dredging.
