Last night we had the pleasant surprise that our Board held an information meeting in which, although on Zoom, they allowed open discussion. They did not use the “mute” button and they did not restrict discussion. In my opinion, having a more open meeting did a lot to lower the temperature of the level of disagreement in the Airpark. If we were to continue with this openness, we could perhaps accomplish a lot toward resolving our situation. In fact, perhaps we could simply meet in person, not to vote, but just to talk. (BTW, for those interested in such an idea, we will have another Town Hall tomorrow, 14 May, 6pm, at the Suddarth hangar).
As grateful as we are for the opportunity to finally discuss the vote for dissolution, we still have the topics in front of us and much more discussion would be needed to properly resolve them. I will address these in subsequent blog posts and I hope that a robust discussion can continue in the comments.
A recurring theme made by the Board, the Working Group and their allies, mostly people not living in the airpark, is that the SAEPOA has too much contention between residents. Some were even claiming that they felt that their personal safety was in jeopardy. (Although I personally have never seen such a thing, I will say that I cannot evaluate another persons feelings of security or insecurity.) The Board is now saying that one of the main reasons to dissolve is to end infighting. The problem, however is, even if we dissolve:
- We still live in the neighborhood together.
- We still have the same roads and common areas
- We still have the same obligations (e.g., paying ruway access)
- and, most importantly, we’re still the same “us”.
The above four truths remain, no matter what our form of government is:
- “The Republic” – What we have now, SAEPOA, where we are all automatically “citizens” by right (and obligation) of living in the neighborhood. We have governing documents, a board, and we all have regulated voting rights.
- “Anarchy” – This is dissolution of SAEPOA, followed by “nothing”. We don’t know what happens to things like roads, and we have no way of organizing, short of choosing another form of organization with enough collective will to enforce it.
- “Volunteerism” – This is one of the ideas proposed by the Board, that low-level tasks like maintenance be performed by residents who donate their time, and perhaps money to the common interest. This is likely to fail.
- “Loose Confederation” – This involves ideas like voluntary associations to deal with issues like collective covenant enforcement. This still does not resolve issues like road ownership and management.
- “Dictatorship” — Someone takes charge by controlling our roads and common properties, with or without our consent. For example, someone could prevail over the town commission and pressure us into accepting a public bond, or force us into a larger HOA. People may even desire this over “anarchy”, but probably not over our “republic” if they knew this was among their choices, but it might be too late once the threat emerges.
Between the options, I would certainly favor “the Republic” (SAEPOA), as it provides a balance between preserving our interests and giving us representation and stability. It’s hard to imagine that switching to one of these other options will magically solve problems associated with personal relationships among neighbors. In other words, our real problem is that “wherever you go, there you are.” If we have neighborhood relationship problems, we should address them, rather than eliminate the structure that provides order, representation, and a means of securing our investment. Preserving our “republic” (SAEPOA) is of particular note because the decision is irreversible.
The Board seeks dissolution, as fast as possible, as a cure to contention, although most of the contention has been a direct result of this very push toward dissolution and the prior avoidance of open discussion. We need more openness, not less. We need more time, not less. Bring the temperature down. Work with your neighbors. Even if all arguments in favor of dissolution were true and compelling (and they are certainly in contention at the very least), I would vote against dissolution because the process is irreversible and the neighborhood deserves adequate debate, proper voting process, and time to evaluate. Anything else increases the very contention that the Board now claims it will eliminate by dissolving our one tool in which we work out our differences, the SAEPOA.
Finally, I want to suggest that there is no reason to wait for creating a better airpark. This is why EVERYONE is invited every Friday to our home. This is why all pilots are invited on the first Saturday morning of every month. This is why we’re doing town halls. This is why we’re starting up Young Eagles again in the airpark. This is why we’re organizing a fly-in event. Rather than snip at each other, we can come together. Although nearly every one will back the idea of doing these things (at least when in public), we are finding that those who favor keeping SAEPOA are the most likely to participate. Maybe this is because SAEPOA provides a means of interaction and order. Is it perfect? No. Is it better than “anarchy”? I would argue that it definitely is.
