THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1994, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, December 11, 1994 TAG: 9412080204
SECTION: CAROLINA COAST PAGE: 07 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Another View
SOURCE: BY ROBERT SIEGEL
LENGTH: Medium: 90 lines
Ann G. Sjoerdsma's ``Another View'' column in The Carolina Coast of Dec. 4 regarding the Southern Shores Civic Association Hillcrest Recreation Area contains so many inaccuracies, misrepresentations, innuendoes and misstatements of facts that it cannot be left to stand without an answer.
The SSCA Board of Directors and I had hoped that with the recent overwhelming 3-1 vote in favor of the board's plan for the Hillcrest area, all the past divisiveness, anger and acrimony would be laid to rest, and that we could finally move on to build a park we would all enjoy. Unfortunately for our whole community, if Ms. Sjoerdsma's intemperate remarks are any indication of the mood of the opposition, such will not be the case.
To answer Ms. Sjoerdsma:
There was no behind-the-scenes development - board meetings are open to all, and for those who do not attend, newsletters are mailed every other month.
Last May, the membership by a 51.6 percent majority agreed that the board should spend $10,000 for initial surveys and site work on a conceptual plan for the Hillcrest area. This plan was presented at the March 1994 membership meeting, and also set forth in the March newsletter. Yet according to Ms. Sjoerdsma we somehow ``engineer(ed) approval for recreation development that a majority of its members did not clearly support.''
If the dispute was ``falsely portrayed as young-versus-old,'' to quote Ms. Sjoerdsma, it was one of the leaders of the opposition to the board's plan who first brought up the young-versus-old concept in an interview reported in The Virginian-Pilot on Nov. 16, 1994. The board has always considered the area as one that all ages would enjoy.
Contrary to what Ms. Sjoerdsma states in her item No. 1, the SSCA board did survey the community in November 1993, to ascertain its recreational needs.
It is difficult to follow Ms. Sjoerdsma's reasoning in her allegation that the SSCA board did not submit the recreation plan to the general membership for a vote. On the one hand she complains in reference to the May vote that the board ``circumvented strong local opposition by resorting to an absentee ballot, which would include non-residents,'' and then in her item No. 3 chastises the board for excluding non-residents in the budget vote at the November membership meeting at which spending on the final plan was authorized by a 3-1 majority. Which way does she want it?
The conveyance dated Oct. 5, 1976, does limit the Hillcrest area to use as a ``park.'' This was never an issue as far as the board was concerned since definitions of the word ``park'' include its use for recreation purposes, whether for children's swings, a field to throw a ball or a hoop for basketball. Ms. Sjoerdsma implies some nefarious reason for the board ``neglecting to tell its members of the park designation.''
There have been a number of discussions regarding the choice of the Hillcrest site as the best area to serve the community for its recreational needs. The area's safety, central location and size were major factors, as was the May 1990 study compiled by the SSCA Long Range Planning Committee. Among the uses suggested by the committee were ``a recreational area accommodating anything from a picnic area to such things as tennis, an outdoor basketball court or a playground.'' One of the leading opponents of the present plan was a member of that committee.
Though the 1990 town survey did indeed find that the SSCA members wanted to ``preserve more open spaces in forested and other vegetated areas,'' the approved plan is in complete accord with these sentiments. We have been scrupulously careful in placement of the facilities to disturb as little of the natural growth as possible. No more than one or two small trees will be affected.
I've searched the March 1994 newsletter, and I have absolutely no idea to what Ms. Sjoerdsma could be referring when she says that the sketch showed ``two basketball courts'' and ``three large parking lots.'' What that conceptual plan did show was one basketball court and one 14-space parking lot with additional future parking for 10 cars, not ``three large parking lots.'' In any event, that plan was abandoned in favor of one that would ease some of the opponents' apprehensions.
The divisiveness has not come from the board. Even after having personally met with the opposition leaders in an effort to effect a compromise, and having been turned down by them, the SSCA board of directors has listened to their concerns. The board has altered the first conceptual plan so that it is now close to the original counterproposal of the opposition. The opposition did not offer a single concession.
Ms. Sjoerdsma's efforts to further split the community by urging members to reconsider their commitment to the SSCA is completely uncalled for. In spite of differences among us, or maybe even because of them, the SSCA has been a vital and important part of what helps make Southern Shores such a wonderful place to live. MEMO: Robert Siegel is president of the Southern Shores Civic Association.
by CNB