Recently the community learned that the owners of property enhanced by the $500,000 streetscape project voted ‘no’ on assessments to maintain landscaping and streetlights. One owner explains what she knows about what has happened-and then another one chimed in.

By Sharon Witt, Frazier Park

I live in probably the only residence within the Frazier Park commercial district streetscape beautification project, "The Crows Nest."

When I received my ballot to approve the maintenance and electric bill, I voted ‘yes’ on the electric bill and ‘no’ on maintenance because the landscaping wasn’t done. Had the landscaping been done I would have voted ‘yes’ on both.

I was quite surprised to get a ballot at all. It was my understanding that my property would be taxed about $300 a year for the cost of these improvements.

Last year, or maybe the year before, I attended a meeting to discuss the beautification project.

The late Mr. Jim Wainright and Mr. Sigmund Lichter were there as well. They owned the majority of the commercial property and had the majority vote. All three of us had the opportunity at that time to oppose the project and the associated costs. We all agreed.

I was sent information from time to time which I signed and sent back. I assume they did as well, because the project went forward, and as far as I’m concerned, is a huge success.

I am fully prepared to pay my share of the maintenance and electricity costs now that the project is done. I agreed to it all along.

What I don’t understand is why is paying for this now optional? At the initial meeting it was clearly stated that we would have to pay additional taxes to cover the costs. I signed—and assume they did too—that I agreed to the project going forward.

If either one of the majority property owners would not have agreed at that first meeting nothing would have been done and the project would have been dropped.

I spoke with Emily Wainright. She wanted me to add that she also voted to pay her share of the maintenance costs. She agreed that all of the commercial property owners had plenty of opportunity to back out of this long ago before all the work was done.

To tell the truth my one vote would not have made a difference, but someone with 13 votes could kill the whole thing.

When I shake hands and give my word you can take it to the bank. The opportunity to back out has long since passed.

See another side of this story

This is part of the October 09, 2009 online edition of The Mountain Enterprise.

Have an opinion on this matter? We'd like to hear from you.