I walked into the room of people, seeing familiar faces known for over thirty years. Plates of food - cheese cubes,
grapes, dip - made an inviting centerpiece on the coffee table. Neighbors clustered around on stools and folding chairs, creating a close conversational circle in the small living area of a summer cottage. We were gathered for the annual rite of a meeting of a small homeowners association at a seasonal beach community.
These events over the years have rarely been free of controversy. Heated discussions have turned a short agenda into a marathon six hour session. Unit owners have turned these meetings into venting opportunities, thinly veiled in civility. The controversies initially were seemingly minor issues, much ado about nothing. There was once a claim of 'stealing a corner of the sky' when a minor renovation altered the view of another. There have been cries of 'light pollution' caused by garish outdoor lights, one fixture defended as a 'nightlight for my granddaughter'. The flagpole controversy pitted two households against each other, feuding about the
height and the noise of flapping halyards. Political parties have emerged as a result of landscape decisions: the barren 'I'm allergic to pine'
faction; the 'I love the wild, unkempt, natural look' group; and the 'Let's hire a professional
landscape design firm' pretty boys. The major result was a $7000 planting of trees along the dirt road where no one could see them, trees now for lack of care are naturally entangled in vines . Discussions have led to motions made and withdrawn; to decisions made with incomplete information, spurred by the emotion of the moment; and to little recollection or documentation of what really occurred - democracy at its messiest. All this pontification ironically often led nowhere, to nothing
being done. This group has revisited many a controversy again the next year. While the association
ostensibly follows Robert's Rules of Order, the results usually reflect an unruly propensity to emotion, opinion, and inaction.
In the last ten years the stakes have heightened considerably. The real estate value of this seaside community has increased geometrically. Jealous claims of
viewscapes now threaten more than visual investments. In 1995 we rebuilt our little shack, winterizing it, making a summer cottage into a modest year round escape. It triggered a volcanic reaction - new controls in height, land use, gardening limits. A board of a few began to introduce strictures and to dictate new rules to hold change in check. My husband sued everyone, including me, claiming abuse of governance. By including me he wanted to make it clear I was not party to his suit, not the way I choose to solve petty problems. Despite this curious situation, we have remained married for 39 years. The dispute was ultimately resolved by arbitration, and the group returned to guarded civility, the early summer memories of shared clam chowder and common biking adventures long gone.
The year's Columbus Day meeting opened on the backdrop of a second lawsuit. This time I joined with my husband. I know all friendship has been lost, so my goal now is to clarify our operations so the next generation has a framework for making
decisions. Relationships may mend over time but are more likely to heal with our children when the days of the 'troubles' are more distant memories. Although this step has been painful, my goal is to balance emotion and opinion with legality as we may decisions.
The lawsuit grew out of a decision to deny a modest increase to our home. Since we rebuilt our house, four other families have renovated or restructured their houses. These changes to homes, all bigger than ours, have been approved and resulted to major changes in the overall community. Our attempt to gain a hearing for a minor enhancement to our house fell on deaf ears and was delayed for over six years, not even able to get on the agenda, until it was ultimately denied last fall. Reasons - or emotions - flooded the airwaves: 'Not your turn.' 'Legality.' 'Fairness.' 'Lack of clear ownership.' 'No need.' 'Encroachment.' The message was clear; we would not get a fair hearing, and we sued, not only for a small increase but also for improved governance.
This backdrop of anger and emotion colored the atmosphere of this year's annual meeting. Although we were greeted and seated like old times, the body
language of a few who chose to sit apart and outside the circle conveyed the real message. As usual, we debated the mundane, reviewing old minutes, controversial over several years, no one caring about the content but editing the words, as if the correct adjective will correct the wrongs. We deferred the items of major concern, increased well expenditures and insurance anomalies. The central focus of the conversation was a proposal from yet again another house, requesting a
reconfiguration and new construction. We had mentally prepared a litany of reasons to object, issues raised against our proposal - footprint, encroachment, bulk - should any of them be considerations? We ultimately voted to support the request because we believe they have the right to make this change, just as we believe we have that right.
The air cleared a little. We were invited to tour the new house under construction. We had brief conversations about fishing and winter plans. I was thanked profusely for work I had done over the past few years, work put on hold by lawyers. This veneer of small talk in no way covers the fissure that divides this group. Regardless of the outcome of negotiation, arbitration, judges or juries, we are now outsiders, shunned by the group. Healing will take a long time.
Labels: I