Food for Thought

First off, we did NOT take a democratic vote on the road project. We took an “advisory” vote to “gauge” support. I do not understand why there are homeowners who don’t understand that. There is a discussion on the website where Annie Whittenberg and Jim Becker clarify that the vote we took was an “advisory” vote. Then in the November 2020 special meeting minutes on page two, you will see it states, “Each property owner is being sent a secret ballot to gauge support for the board proposal”. You will also see that it was an “advisory” vote in the treasurer’s report for February 2021 where a check was written to Ryder Election Services for the “Advisory Ballot”. Please explain to me how we took a democratic vote to move forward with the project. You can not tell property owners they will get an advisory vote then turn around and tell them they took an actual vote. It's absurd. If homeowners had known it wasn’t an advisory vote they may have voted differently. I have provided the links to the documents that prove we took an “advisory vote”. https://www.panoramicroads.org/_files/ugd/1e391d_af35efe025c94c78877d63f337290358.pdfhttps://www.panoramicroads.org/_files/ugd/1e391d_dd6b019f3c7e4e3d91dbb5a18bd4e687.pdfVoting Guidelines | Panoramic Access Spe (panoramicroads.org)

I understand there are times where the homeowners have no say and don’t get to vote on a road project. However, there are times where a road project must have a vote by the electors. One of those times is when the board is issuing a bond to fund a project. Look at the Oregon Revised Statues and ask the SDAO. I understand that doesn’t sit well with a lot of homeowners because that would exclude some homeowners from voting but that is the Oregon law. From my understanding we can not fund the project via a bond if we want all homeowners to be able to vote.

Jim made a comment that it is fair to divide up the costs equally because all homeowners benefit equally. How is it fair for an elderly woman who doesn’t drive or own a car to pay the same amount as someone who has four drivers at their property? Or someone who has a business out of their home with more traffic coming in and out? I know a homeowner who doesn’t even own a car and relies on a neighbor to take her to the grocery store.

Mark’s proposal is a bit risky in my opinion. Especially after hearing how easy it is. It’s not that simple. We need to make sure that would be a legal option before moving forward. What happens if we go with Mark’s proposal and there are homeowners who refuse to sign the promissory notes? Since there is a 9% interest rate on this proposal, are the homeowners who are fronting the money gaining from the interest? If it is the homeowners who do receive the interest and hold the liens to our neighbors’ homes, I am completely against this. Why should our neighbors/community members be able to financially gain from this road project? Is that why some are so adamant about funding this project?

I think it’s time our main-focus should be on Buck Horn then Panoramic rather than how to get a hard surface. Of course the board still has the right to look into a hard surface, I'm just stating our focus should be getting Buck Horn fixed, then Panoramic.