Come on!  The first referendum for the $3.9 million and paid for by the sale of assets just passed by 214 votes.  Then they add $1.5 million for less product and money out of the membership's pockets and it fails.  What part of that equation don't you understand?

Ok, you want to look at the first referendum as a failure because it only passed by 214 votes. The point is it "passed". The majority of property owners voted "yes" even in the face of a very stiff, well organized "no" campaign. What part of that equation don't you understand? We both recognize that the second referendum failed. The difference seems to be you want to tie in what you see as an "almost failed" first referendum with a second "failed" referendum and simplify it as a mandate that Ocean Pines property owners do not want a Community Center.

I view it differently. The first referendum for a CC passed and reflected the desires of the majority of the property owners to have a new CC. The second referendum, to anyone paying even a little attention was voted down simply as a rebuff to the then Board of Directors who had handled the CC issue so poorly that the Community was fed up with them and sent a message via the referendum vote. I wasn't the only one that predicted that the second referendum would fail well in advance of the vote. It was pretty obvious due to the mood of the Community at that time. [other than to some on the Board who just had no clue].

There is a wild card in this whole deal relative to property owners wishes and that is how any new CC would be financed. Little has been said about the 589 property and internal OP lots during this entire discussion. Much of the impetus, I will admit, for the first referendum approval was the fact that it was implied that the land sales would pay the tab. Personally, I had never been in favor of the amount of space proposed for that first CC which came with a big price tag but that was all we had to work with at the time so I supported it. I am hoping that any new proposals are scaled down from that first effort but would prefer a new building that would have updated architecture and be larger than our current Community Hall.