Pickleball Controversy

I've been trying to gather more information about the pickleball court brouhaha.  No... I am not an agitator poking into every possible controversial issue to roil peace and harmony in Cape George. 

But, there is unquestionably a history of the
Board opting to make decisions in ways, that are secretive, heavy-handed, overreach covenants, tilt toward favoritism, and encourage favor-seeking.

For instance, the President used the August 2015 newsletter to openly champion a resident and former Board member who wanted a neighbor to clear-cut old growth trees targeted as a "hedge violation". Sadly, propelled by the current Board's absurd interpretation, the resident was compelled to cut all but two of the targeted trees to the ground. The Board's actions were in complete violation of our covenants and completely ignored the windowing and thinning suggested in the Building Rules.

Had the resident targeted by the Board's overreach lived in state, she would have taken the Board to court. Multiple atty's, including those of a prestigious law firm in Seattle, have examined our covenants and written strongly adverse opinions about the legality of the Board's actions. For more about the issue: see post here and another here.

But, back to the Pickleball controversy. If you linger around the mailboxes, you will notice that pickleballing can be loud. Very loud. Imagine you live in an adjacent home, say one on Cape George Rd. or those just above the court on Quinault Loop. You'd be mad as hell and demand a few answers.

As I understand it, there was no engagement of the community as a whole in the decision. No announcement with a clear plan of action. No statement of alternatives. Just one fine day, a crew breaks ground for a new pickleboard court.

Was there perhaps some lobbying behind the scenes by a few "select members" who enjoy the sport...say an ex-Board member or prominent volunteers for instance who feel a sense of entitlement. Totally baseless speculation you may argue... Besides who wants to play the "Grinch" on the issue of a wonderful, fun-filled pickleboard court...  

But the issue is not project worthiness but rather a lack of  community involvement. What other sites were studied? Impacts? Costs? Amenties? Would badminton or tennis have been favored over pickleball?

Noise travels well uphill so did anyone poll
neighbors, research decibel levels, solicit community suggestions, call for a vote, or
even briefly consider adequate bathroom access?

As it turned out, I understand there was a constant parade of pickleballers dancing into the Cape George office for bathroom breaks. Did the office administrator suddenly decide enough was enough. Whatever unfolded, several pickleball players were spotted taking leaks behind the barn until a resident's threat forced a port-a-potty rental.

Reasonably, I think, a few questions should be asked.  What other sites were considered? If not, why not?  Why wasn't the community permitted input... why not a vote?

Was the large open field adjacent to the clubhouse in the running?  After all, it would have been only a few yards to the clubhouse bathroom. There's even a bathroom accessible outside the clubhouse. Definitely more access to parking. And, arguably fewer would have been impacted by noise since the clubhouse site is more isolated from homes. 

Was there an "executive" decision made by our corporate-wannabe Board about the relative benefits to certain residents - both decision to build and choice of site. Another baseless speculation... well, maybe but when Boards go "dark" about decisions and imagine they have some kind of pseudo-corporate purview to do whatever they choose, then there will be dissension.

The pickleball court is an unfortunate example of what can happen when planning is poor or non-existent. Or, even if carefullly planned, nothing is made public. It's also what tends to happen when decisions are made by a Board which doesn't choose to engage the community; is especially opaque about even routine issues; holds numerous closed door meetings; and has no compunctions about dubious interpretations of the covenants and rules.