message board home
Next
1/22/2015 1:45:20 PM
 
Reply
or ReplyNewSubject
Section 4: General Subject: Wood Duck Park Disappears Msg# 911408
|
||||||
|
Alright Bill here we go,
The property owners surrounding the Wood Duck Park WDP got big eyes saying oh! look at this attractive property bordering a beautiful park (WDP). They didn't consider the WDP might just be an attractive nuisance. I get golf balls in and around my property all the time, of course I haven't had to buy a golf ball in ten years! There are pluses and minuses in everything! The property owners surrounding WDP get to enjoy an incredible view with some annoying parking problems with the remaining OP property owners expense. Back in Prince Georges county we called this tough toe nails or similar sayings. You reap what you sew! My first two suggestions were intended to be tongue in cheek. If the property owners keep taking the signs down, why wouldn't a prudent manager make it more interesting or difficult for the miscreants to destroy OP property (the signs). How about hidden cameras, then OPA could require the evil doers to pay for sign removal and replacement. That might make sign removal and destruction less likely. If property has an easement, you the property owner don't control the easement, OPA does. Its on the deed. The problem may not have an easy solution but that doesn't mean there isn't a solution. Destroying OPA property is not justified because the solution isn't obvious or simple. I think this situation is symptomatic of many solutions undertaken in OP land where the repercussions of decisions aren't considered which leads to larger problems that those trying to be solved. It might be called head in the sand syndrome or there about. By the way, most of the parks in OP have similar problems pertaining to access and parking but property owners adjacent to those parks don't seem as prone to vigilantism. As usual Nancy Webber had a good suggestion. |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
For reference, the above message is a reply to a message where: Frank, everything you say is correct (at least down to the question, "How?"). But, it is not a simple problem and viewed from standpoint of the owners bordering the access points is a real headache. Using the example of your property, how would you feel if OPA somehow converted the five foot utility easement down the side of your house to a pedestrian access easement for the golf course? (And multiple vehicles were parked on the street all day.) It's still your property, you have to mow it, but you can't fence it or plant anything on it. That is what the four access points between homes are. They are access easements not OPA owned property. The one access point at the head of the park which is used by the maintenance vehicles is OPA owned. If it were a simple problem, it might already be corrected. Your first two suggestions would require changes to multiple governing documents. Won't happen. Third is happening courtesy of Nancy Weber. (Though not likely metal and concrete) Fourth is a good idea. And lastly, police have no jurisdiction over this issue other than perhaps theft of signs. Bill Z |
| Calendar |
OPA Board Meeting - Golf Clubhouse
1/25/2025 - 9: A.M. |
|
OPA Board Meeting - Golf Clubhouse
2/22/2025 - 9:00 A.M. |
|
OPA Board Meeting - Golf Clubhouse
3/29/2025 - 9:00 A.M. |
|
OPA Board Meeting - Golf Clubhouse
4/26/2025 - 9:00 A.M. |
|
OPA Board Meeting - Golf Clubhouse
5/24/2025 - 9:00 A.M. |