The gate and camera proposal of June 1, 2023 was voted down by an overwhelming majority on June 21st, 2023. The final vote count was 18 in favor and 126 in opposition.
Residents filled the clubhouse on Wednesday to hear the management proposal and to cast their ballots. The proposal had been announced on June 1st with a vote scheduled on June 7th. But several residents complained in writing that this was not enough time for residents to consider the matter, and the meeting and vote was rescheduled to June 21st.
The meeting opened with a management presentation, but was soon dominated by a question and answer session.
Residents asked about paying up front to avoid finance costs. Residents asked about the number of crimes reported in the park. Residents asked about getting an ownership stake in the park in return for their investment. Residents asked about the owners profit from the park. Residents asked about the wealth disparity between the owners of the park and the residents. Residents asked about splitting the proposal between cameras and gates. Residents asked about the effectiveness of the proposed gates. Residents asked about the lack of signage or patrolling on the owners adjacent properties. Residents asked about the rushed process and lack of resident involvement prior to the proposal. Residents asked about who would be counting the votes. Residents asked what connection the CEO had with the park. Residents asked if the expenditure included the devices needed for access. Residents asked if the management could install the gates without the Residents having to pay for it. Residents asked about the proposal being put up for a fair and open bid. Residents asked about people who were not even aware of the vote. Residents asked about upgrading of the 50 amp spaces to 100 amp service. Residents asked about the promised replacement of the seating area in the main park. Residents asked about the placement of water tanks in the main park. Residents asked about the confidentiality of voting with ballots containing resident names. Residents asked about having a microphone at future meetings.
Eventually the meeting was concluded and the vote counting began. According to management, 63 votes had been cast prior to the meeting. Of the 63 votes cast before the meeting, 14 were in favor of the proposal and 49 were opposed. The final vote count (including those cast before the meeting and those cast at or after the meeting) was 18 in favor and 126 in opposition. The proposal did not get the 111 votes needed to pass.
Magnolia Mobile News 
Really excellent report. Thank you so much.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for the report.
I attended the meeting and was very disappointed by the behavior of some. I had hoped that they would sit still and LISTEN TO THE PROPOSAL – SHOWING SOME COURTESY to the speakers, who would have answered most of the questions and squelched some of the rumors that have floated for days.
Instead, some residents opted to become vocal, interruped constantly, shouted insulting comments literally drowning out any calm and informative conversation. If CME had been given a chance to explain their approach, many, many questions and concerns would have been answered. Would it have changed our minds?? Probably not, but a little respect would have gone a long way.
Many felt the gates weren’t necessary, but it might have been a good idea to have a discussion about security cameras in other areas of the park.
Will the management be interested in hearing additional concerns from Residents concerning other issues like the hope for a Dog Park, BBQ area, Pickle Ball Court or future security options…..? I doubt it.
Folks, that wasn’t a nice representation of our fine Community.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sounds like it was a group of ill behaved teens! I am a renter so did not attend. Glad I was not there.
LikeLike
I asked for permission to make a video recording of the meeting and permission was granted. If anyone would like to view it, please come to one of our meetings (every Thursday at 5pm) and we can arrange for you to see it. Different people may have different views on what is appropriate or inappropriate, but I have watched the video at least twice and I don’t feel that the residents behaved poorly given the history of this proposal and how it was presented to us on such short notice.
LikeLike
In fairness, I suspect that the resentment shown came from:
– The admittedly poor procedural handling of this proposal
– Asking residents for funding while not disclosing any financial need
– A history of not involving residents in decisions within the park
LikeLiked by 1 person
Prior to the meeting concerns were raised in writing about votes being accepted before all sides could be heard at the meeting. It turns out that those concerns were well founded. The math shows that those who voted before the meeting were 4.5 times more likely to vote “Yes” than those who voted at or immediately after the meeting. That’s why voting should never be allowed before both sides of an issue can be heard.
Here’s the math:
Votes cast before the meeting:
14 yes
49 no
63 total
Votes cast at or after the meeting:
4 yes
77 no
81 total
Yes rate before: 14/63
Yes rate after: 4/81
Ratio: yes before / yes after
(14/63) / (4/81) = 4.5
That’s 4.5 times more likely.
The gate proposal was likely to fail either way in this case, but allowing early voting could clearly swing the results in tighter elections. That’s why it should NOT be allowed.
LikeLiked by 1 person