I never thought...the real threat to the Parkland would be of an invasion led by HOA Trustees

Here is my letter to the Trustees of the HOA. 

This is the covering email:: 

Your scheme is flawed and the way you have gone about it can only be interpreted as disdain for the homeowners. 

Why does your scheme get the full treatment in you email presentation while opposing views get only a few selected (by you, needless to say) paragraphs? There is no justification for this unequal treatment.  It smacks of bias.

I want my email be sent to all homeowners.

I am not asking that you hand over the mailing list, but you are obligated to allow opposing viewpoints be presented in the entirety by email, like you presented your scheme. 

In anticipation of a probable reply that opponents can do that at the AGM, I reject that.  There is not enough time to do that at the AGM. Letters, such as those written by Rolf and Jacqueline Lamprecht and Jennifer Wilkinson need time to be read and to digest. 

I look forward to your reply to this letter and my email.  

I, and many other homeowners, are also waiting on your response  to my brother, Gray's letter. 

Here is my letter:

Date: 27 November, 2014

To: The Trustees of the Thesen Islands Homeowners Association

From: Ken Rutherford – P79

I worked in the Thesen Islands Sales Centre for all the years the stands were being sold. A number of “up country” buyers were nervous about having Parkland near their house - a kneejerk reaction to squatter invasions. I would say to them: “Look at the open space as free ground. You get to enjoy looking over it, the birds will love it, your kids can play on it, you don’t have to maintain it and…. it will never be invaded!”

I never thought for one moment that the real threat to the Parkland would of an invasion led by HOA Trustees.

When a number of you Trustees bought your stands, I was the one answering your questions. I represented to you what the development would comprise by means of the Master Plan and sales literature. You bought on what was represented to you.

Say you had come back into the Sale Centre a few months later and found that there was no longer a waterway in front of your future home. Or the open ground near your home was now earmarked for more stands. Or that no main beach, no clubhouse, no tennis and no squash courts were going to be built.  You would have been outraged.

You would have said “Ken that is not what was represented to me when I bought my stand. It is completely unacceptable. You cannot take away part of what I bought.”

And I said to you: “Well, we have polled the other buyers and half of them don’t want the (fill in the blank) and you going to get a rebate of R (fill the amount of money saved by not building the (fill in the blank) divided by all the buyers).”   Would that have made you happy?  I don’t think so.

But with your proposed development scheme, you are advocating taking away from what your fellow homeowners bought into.  Surely, being a trustee means looking after the interests the homeowners?

I don’t know the owner of P89 but this stand borders the Parkland and has wide views over it. It is a lovely position and I considered buying it. You now plan to build a house on the Parkland next to his home.  Do you not realize that the enjoyment and value of his home would be substantially diminished?

Did none of you think that some, if not all, of the homeowners on the Eastern end of Plantation Point probably bought there because it was a cul de sac with only a few houses?  Yet you plan to take away from what they bought by adding 13 houses. I live on a cul de sac and the limited number of houses beyond me was a major reason we bought there. 

One of the reasons we, and others, decided to make our homes on Thesen Islands because there was Parkland. Yet you propose that if half of the homeowners want to cut up the Parkland, those of us who want it to remain as it was represented to us when we bought our stands, must accept it. We will not.

As Trustees, you must know the history of the contamination and remediation of the Parkland area and the ongoing environmental monitoring.  This is the very area where you plan to develop stands. 

Have you not wondered why P89 and P90 are the most easterly stands on Plantation Point? Why didn’t the Thesen Islands Development Company develop more stands there?   The Thesen Islands Development Company did not develop stands there because of the contamination and remediation. But this is where you plan to develop 13 stands.

You have failed the homeowners. You should resign and let new Trustees take your place. Let us have Trustees who understand what looking after the interests of the Homeowners means.