Advertisement

Estates update leaves much to be desired

Share

Based upon a 2014 survey of homeowners, the San Diego Country Estates Association (SDCEA) Board of Directors (BOD) recently approved an update to the Recreation Master Plan drafted by consultants who were managed by the Parks and Recreation Committee appointed by the BOD. The time and money spent on this effort appear to have been spent for the benefit of special interests, not the overall benefit of SDCEA homeowners.

The committee itself consisted of two members of the BOD, two employees of SDCEA, a former member of the Developer’s team, and a independent homeowner active in park issues. When appointing this committee, the BOD apparently violated its own written policy – one member of the BOD, a representative of each of the six units comprising SDCEA, a representative of each recognized recreational club and organization, and any volunteer homeowners. Objective observers must surely wonder about the lack of committee members who are not closely-affiliated with the BOD – whether committee members were appointed (or excluded) so the committee would reach a predetermined conclusion.

The Update depends heavily upon a 2014 survey of homeowners. The questions on the survey were not objective. The survey was apparently biased by design to limit responses. Survey responses were not managed so as to preclude “voting early and voting often,” so the response rate claimed in the update is a fiction. No measures of whether the responses are representative of overall homeowner demographics were considered. Isn’t this survey an attempt to create the illusions of fairness, inclusion, objectivity, and openness?

The Update purports to integrate “comments and concerns expressed throughout the public planning process,” but there is not one such comment or concern reported. In an apparent attempt to ”pack the house,” school children in the Estates were sent home with a notice about an “outreach” presentation of the preliminary update. No similar effort was made to encourage other interested groups to attend. Indeed, the independent homeowner on the committee reminded equestrians that they were stakeholders in the update and should attend the “outreach” meeting. Vocal equestrians attended the “outreach” meeting in substantial numbers, but none of their comments or concerns are mentioned in the board-approved update. The independent homeowner is no longer on the committee.

The update is mostly a rehash and reprint of widely-distributed information such as a discussion of the previously mentioned “survey,” an aerial view of the Estates, a map of the trail network, some old sales literature, and renderings of such “amenities” as a “playful path, multi-use sports field, and miniature golf course.” Over half of the Update is pictures of sites owned by SDCEA, lists of potential uses to be investigated further, and includes several pages left blank. The update purports to include “preliminary biological, topographic and site constraints analysis of existing open space...”, but only mentions a few such subjects for further analysis for each site.

One key statement, and underlying premise, in the update introduction is “the community’s demographics now include many young and middle aged families, a change that reflects the deflation of home prices between 2008 and 2010 that made home ownership more affordable for young families.” Is the BOD majority afraid that their historical voter support bloc is declining in numbers, and they want to spend homeowner assessment dollars to gain the support of an additional bloc of voters?

The update includes no cost of construction estimates, or cost of operation estimates (including changes in liability insurance premiums associated with skateboard, sports and water parks). There is no discussion of why facilities such as athletic facilities available (or proposed) elsewhere in Ramona should be duplicated, so Estate homeowners will pay several times more to build and operate such exclusive facilities compared to public facilities. Where will the water come from for each of these “amenities,” and how much will it cost? Since homeowners pay nearly 100% of the cost of San Vicente recycled water, shouldn’t the BOD arrange for adequate storage and distribution facilities to use all of that water before building facilities that increase Association needs for landscape water? What about a discussion regarding the need for special use permits from San Diego County to build in the Open Space Easement sites identified in the update?

Isn’t this Parks and Recreation “update” worth less than nothing? It is certainly not worth the $68,000 paid from homeowner assessments. Is this update process the “openness and transparency” promised by directors when campaigning for the job?

Gary Hurst is a Ramona resident living in San Diego Country Estates.

Advertisement

At a time when local news is more important than ever, support from our readers is essential. If you are able to, please support the Ramona Sentinel today.