The proposal is "a betrayal of our trust...and a threat to our quality of life as well as our financial investment" - Rolf and Jacqueline Lamprecht's letter to Brian Sears, Chairman of the HOA

From their letter below:

We see the proposal as a betrayal of our trust in these matters and a threat to our quality of life as well as our financial investment in our property.

“How would New-Yorkers feel if Central Park is to be sacrificed to raise funds for the city?”

                                       P97,  4^th November 2014

RESPONSE TO THE PROPOSAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SOUTHERN PARKLAND

Dear Brian

Thanks for briefing us on the proposed development of the southern parkland.

It is with great alarm and considerable concern that Jacqueline and I read about plans to develop this area.

Thesen Islands is a high-density development where public areas serve a vital role in the success of the venture. They have an aesthetic, recreational and environmental function. In many ways they are the life-blood of the community.

When we decided to buy a property and settle on the island, the parkland and the opportunities it offered was one of the main considerations. The greenbelt was more attractive to us than living on a canal. We were particularly attracted to our erf as it is in a quiet cull de sac with little traffic. We believed that these areas were sacred, protected from development at all costs.

We see the proposal as a betrayal of our trust in these matters and a threat to our quality of life as well as our financial investment in our property.

You state that the area is “underutilized”. This is simply not true. Our family constantly make use of this space. We love to walk and play there. We enjoy the magnificent views across the lagoon and above all the open space. Many others do the same. It would be exceptionally short sighted to develop this area. While the golf course itself is underutilized, and I understand must be a considerable financial burden to maintain, it could be re structured to natural wetlands similar to the pond area north of the dog run.

How can the addition of 15 houses possibly “beautify” one of the only open and fairly natural parts of the islands?

Having broadly explained our feelings, we would like to list our concerns:

1)     The conversion of public parkland to housing is a major blow to the nature of our environment here on Thesen Islands.

2)     Doing this is a breach of the trust we place in the custodians of our estate and comparable to a government changing the constitution of a country to suit their current strategy.

3)     We and other homeowners will loose a large part of our “lebensraum”.

4)     Our road will carry much more traffic ( at least 30 more cars), disturbing our peace and threatening our children’s safety.

5)     The area earmarked for housing is an important habitat for birds, notably the Orange-throated Longclaw, Levaillant’s Cisticola and the Spotted Thick-knee. All above-mentioned birds breed in this area. This area has, for the first time, a resident Spotted Eagle-owl.

6)     It would be short sighted and reprehensible to develop housing in a green belt when we live in an area where nature is protected within the area of the Garden Route National Park.

7)     We have more to gain in the long run by leaving the area as communal parkland than building houses on the only truly open area on Thesen Islands.

8)     During the construction phase, which will last many years, there will be major disruption to our local environment and quality of life.

With regards to future budget planning and paying for the continued upkeep of the estate, our feelings are as follows:

The estate was originally developed fully to its current extent. Planning for the upkeep should be possible within the current structure with sound financial planning and management without altering the core structure of the estate. If additional funds need to be raised this should be done without changing our environment profoundly.

The real beneficiaries of the proposal for development of the southern parkland are not the homeowners but the service providers for the development.

We prefer options 1 and 2 in your list of proposals.

Some of the proposed changes to the parkland are good and will enhance the lifestyle of the homeowners but the proposed new housing will certainly not. Within the context of the current proposal including the additional 15 properties, we see the positive proposals as mere “sugar-coating”.

We hope you consider this letter and see it as constructive criticism. We appreciate the work you do and the need for you to plan for the future. We all have the best for our environment of Thesen Islands at heart.

“How would New-Yorkers feel if Central Park is to be sacrificed to raise funds for the city?”

Yours sincerely

Rolf and Jacqueline Lamprecht