THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1994, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, December 4, 1994 TAG: 9412010193
SECTION: CAROLINA COAST PAGE: 07 EDITION: FINAL
COLUMN: Another View
SOURCE: BY ANN G. SJOERDSMA
LENGTH: Medium: 86 lines
In engineering ``approval'' for recreational development that a majority of its members did not clearly support, the Southern Shores Civic Association recently claimed a tainted victory.
As a Southern Shores resident, property owner and SSCA member, I am not opposed, per se, to building a playground. I am strongly opposed, however, to the biased, result-oriented means that the SSCA Board of Directors pursued for its end. Integrity of the process was sacrificed.
Lost in the months-long, acrimonious playground dispute, falsely portrayed as young-versus-old, are these important facts:
1) At no time did the SSCA board of directors survey the community to ascertain its recreational needs.
2) At no time did the directors involve members in developing its initial recreational proposal.
3) At no time did the directors submit the recreation plan to the general membership for a vote.
The Kitty Hawk Land Co., which developed Southern Shores, conveyed to the SSCA in 1976 all of the community's ``common properties,'' including the 2.7-acre block at issue here. In a crucial Oct. 5, 1976, agreement between the parties, the tract now known as the Sea Oats-Hillcrest-Hickory Rectangle was designated as a ``park.''
According to art. 11, sec. 2-2.1 of its by-laws, the SSCA is: ``To own, manage, maintain and improve the common properties of the SSCA. However, the use of the properties, without time limit, shall be consistent with the uses laid out in the agreements dated Oct. 5, 1976, and April 23, 1982, between the SSCA and the Kitty Hawk Land Co.''
In advocating its recreation plan(s), the SSCA, a private, non-profit corporation, neglected to tell its members of the park designation and repeatedly invoked sec. 2-2.1 power, each time omitting the qualifier.
On its own, the board of directors decided a ``centrally located'' ``playground facility'' was desirable, and appointed in 1991 an ad-hoc planning committee to recommend a location. The SSCA never surveyed the community's needs; never identified its children and their recreational needs; and never explained how and why the Hillcrest dunes site would best serve children or why the voluntary dues-paying members of the SSCA, and not the town, should pay for their recreation.
Seventy-seven percent of those who responded (982 people, a 32.7-percent return) to a 1990 town survey of property owners ``strongly agreed'' that Southern Shores ``needs to preserve more open space in forested and other vegetated areas.'' The SSCA ignored this sentiment.
The Board of Directors conducted all business relating to the Hillcrest site behind-the-scenes, developing a ``conceptual design'' with the advice of a paid professional consultant, but without member participation.
SSCA members got a first look at the board's proposal in the March 1994 newsletter. The sketch showed two basketball courts, a volleyball court, space for two future tennis courts, three large parking lots and a grassy play area.
Although members were led to believe they would vote on the board's plan at the March 14 general meeting, president Victor James circumvented strong local opposition by resorting to an ``absentee ballot,'' which would include non-residents. He offered a ballot resolution reading: ``Proposed Hillcrest Recreation Area: Funds already targeted in the 1994 budget for `Recreation Improvements' and `Recreation Survey' may be used in a flexible manner to cover the cost of the survey and initial work on the site.'' (yes or no)
The confusing resolution assumed work of an unstated nature on a project that presumably had not been finalized or approved. It simply sought funding and passed narrowly, with a 56.8-percent return. Unbeknownst to members, the ``specific recreational facility plan'' was approved by the board at its Oct. 20 meeting.
By Nov. 14, when SSCA members - residents only - voted on the SSCA budget, which incidentally included a line-item for playground construction, the board had already taken its site plan to the town Planning Board, which last week recommended it, with conditions.
Like many of my neighbors, I appreciate open space and believe the recreational opportunities for children in Southern Shores are plentiful; but I am open to reasoned argument. I see little reason, however, to renew my support of a residents' association that is unresponsive, even disrespectful, to many of its members, and cannot be trusted. I urge all members to reconsider their commitment to the SSCA. MEMO: Ann G. Sjoerdsma, a resident of Southern Shores, is book editor of The
Virginian-Pilot and Ledger-Star.
by CNB