Letters, letters, letters

* * *

To the Editor:

The Crossroads annual meeting at the fire hall (June 26) was the best example of a controlled vote that I have ever seen. Thirty minutes after the meeting my resignation to the board as a board member was typed and signed.

What bothered me the most about the meeting was not the hypocritical attitude of some of the board members and not the slanted options presentation that was given (with no chance for rebuttal), but the board's refusal to continue discussing issues that were being requested from the floor.

The proxy votes controlled the vote and not the majority of owners at the meeting. The board, when asked for a straw vote, refused. They didn't see where that was pertinent. No kidding; they had the controlling votes in their pockets!

Prior to the Saturday meeting I was still in favor of the Holders removing their garage from the setback. That was before I was made aware of some past board members being in violation of similar offenses. If the Holders must move their garage then all violators must be forced to do the same. I'm not aware of a statute of limitations for enforcement of the CC&Rs.

I feel the majority of the property owners at the meeting were in favor of moving ahead and putting the Holder matter behind them. Some owners also questioned the spending of more money just to save the amendments.

A question was asked: "Was the board representing the majority of the residents of Crossroads or was the board doing as they saw fit?

It was indicated by a board member that a survey conducted in 1997 basically gave them carte blanche to do what they wanted because the majority of the property owners gave them the authority by responding "yes" on the survey. However the "yes" basically said that the majority of the owners were in favor of continuing the association.

Less than half of the homeowners were represented, either by presence or proxy, at the annual meeting. In the best interest of the property owners, an independent survey needs to be sent out, with a little more clarity to it, in order to find out how the majority of the owners really feel on each individual issue.

After all, many ownerships have changed since the 1997 survey, and shouldn't the new owners have a right to voice their opinions?

Ben Nelson,

Owner and ex-board member

* * *

To the Editor:

The upper Metolius River above Lake Creek (near Camp Sherman) is designated as a "Recreational River Area." Roads are consistent with its use, as explained in the Wild & Scenic River Management Plan Decision of Record, issued by the Forest Service in May 1997.

The Forest Service proposes to permanently close an important road section know as the 1419-700 Road, from the west side of the Tract C bridge to just below the confluence of the Metolius and Spring Creek.

This section of road has existed for well over 50 years. It provides an important access to over 45 recreation residences, private property and recreational opportunities along the upper river. If this access is closed or otherwise restricted the people who use the upper river will have their lives and property at greater risk than they do today, as noted in the Forest Service Decision of Record.

The Forest Service offers its reason for closing the road as, to "provide riparian and water quality benefits." However, the Forest Service admits never having undertaken a formal study to determine if the water quality of the Metolius or the local fish population has been harmed or needs protection.

The members of the Forest Service have suggested they will put into place plans that will mitigate the risks or hardships borne by the users of the upper river, should the road be closed. How can this be accomplished, given the poor financial resources at their disposal?

The plan to close the Road 700 should be scrapped until the need can be verifiably demonstrated and only after the risks to life and personal property can be adequately reduced.

Mark Dohrmann

Camp Sherman

* * *