Thank you Matt, for opening the door to broaden the conversation on "yes votes" and "no votes", and the "no-to-all vote."
I haven't calculated all the possible ballot scenarios that a voting member may submit, but I realize there are more than two -- as we can vote for a single or multiple individual projects of the 5 listed; or vote no-to-all; or a proxy appointment as discussed in this thread.
Currently, my household is a no-to-all vote. But we do not fit neatly into one of the buckets you describe:
1. If you are one of the contributors to this forum that advocates with glee to vote against everything, then you are someone (whether you will admit or not) that believes the dockage needs no repair and the roads are fine.
2. Or, alternatively, you believe that by some alchemy those projects will somehow be cheaper once you have finished using your vote to vent your spleen.
There is no glee to my vote, aside from being thankful to live in a community where I can vote and have my vote counted, and discuss with my neighbors (sometimes calmly, sometimes heatedly) those things which are most important to me and the longevity of the home and place that I love.
I do question pricing. I always question pricing. I believe nearly all of Haig Point residents are quite savvy about pricing, costs and all manner of finance... and that it is a heavily weighted variable in why they purchased here. It strikes me that prospective members, young and old, married and unmarried, with children and without children, golfers and non-golfers, those who love pickleball and those who will come to love pickleball -- will all consider costs when choosing Haig Point Membership vs. "the other side of the water." I think you have hit on an important subject here which touches many topic areas -- too many to review and debate concisely, in a productive manner, without delaying our assessment vote indefinitely.
Which brings me to my personal "bucket". If it isn't a gleeful red sharpie, nor a hearty and naive spleen, then what is it?
Assessments.
I try often and earnestly to speak with those like minded and non-like minded (to me.) I've read HP published materials and non-HP published materials. I've google'd to ask if I were joining a gated community with dues and fees... -- as if I were a 40 or 50 year old starting this journey for the first time.
A shout out here to Tom Donohoe, Adam Martin, and numerous committee members for taking time to speak with me in the most civil and pleasant of all manners. You've bought me my first coffee in the Mansion Starbucks, brought me pizza on a particularly hard work day, chatted late into the night by a warm fire, and on and on. I learned so much from each of you and you listened to, and sometimes shared my concerns. Thank you.
It is my belief that a history of Assessments, not tied to an emergency (e.g., a hurricane) Assessments which vary in timing and size, greatly discourages new buyers/members. I believe that new buyers ask, scrutinize, and will often choose to buy somewhere else if they see the ease at which a vote could determine an assessment in the future.
So this is my #1 concern for proceeding with the vote, and the reason for my "no-to-all" vote. The impact of Assessments on potential buyers and new memberships. This is my bucket. I absolutely want to fund these projects. So all the ancillary and important discussions on how and when, I am happy to participate in those discussions that come after this vote.
Elizabeth Stone
