I am going to ask again: The question is simply this: Where the original boundary map, that was originally presented by the municipality committee, had all properties included west of Little Cove Point Rd to Cove Point Rd to HG Trueman Rd, the new boundary map now excludes many properties that were originally included. The properties that have been excluded are known to not have water service provided by the CRWC. Why was this change made? Very simple question. Why is it so hard to get an honest straightforward answer from you people?
I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. The boundaries of Calvert Shores were decided before September of 2014 and were submitted to the Board of Elections and the Attorney General for approval of the construction of the petition at that time. The map attached to the petition has remained exactly the same since that time. It is the only map that was ever published as the proposed boundaries for the petition. So, there has been no "change".
It is possible and even probable that during the very early discussion phase, before I was asked to join the committee, that the area you speak of was contemplated. But it has not been included at any time that I've been involved.
I did participate in some of the discussions about including and excluding certain areas as I was asked to before I became involved in the petition drive. The boundary that resulted was a consensus of about 15 community members that all stepped forward. There were probably 15 different opinions considered during the process. It ended up with nobody getting exactly what they thought was right and everybody giving on some point. Deb Thomas actively asked for and even sent requests for opinions to the neighboring HOA's that we could find that had some kind of governing body or representative. We got little or no response other than a couple of "We'll sit back and see how it goes" comments.
We begged for people to be involved both in and near CRE. There were letters to the editor. Phone calls to community leaders NOT in CRE. We've met with the Lusby Business Association and asked them to participate. Absolutely NOBODY can complain that they weren't given the opportunity to have a say in the end results. There is still at least one public hearing and an election coming up. If, when the time comes you still feel this way, simply vote against it.
As we were and are an Ad Hoc committee, there were no "official minutes" taken. We were not an official committee until we were recognized by the County and then we still aren't considered a public agency for this process.
If you don't like it, don't blame the organizing committee, blame the legislature of 1954. They are the ones that came up with the cokamaymee process that requires that the town be named, the boundaries established, and the charter completed before you can even take it to the public for hearing. The process is obviously deliberately designed to frustrate all but the most absolutely determined from succeeding. And that's why nobody's done it for over 30 years. But we are doing it.
The named committee on the petition were the core of the group at the time and date of the petition notice about October 1 of 2014. Deborah Thomas was the original charter chair. She succumbed to cancer last year. I joined the party in November '14 but wasn't a recognized member of the group until sometime in early Summer/late spring '15. I was originally consulted as I was one of the petitioners from 13 years ago and it was thought I could help keep them from repeating mistakes...like taking on too much territory, or more than necessary if it might create hostility on the boundaries.
It is too late for any neighborhood to get in on original incorporation. They would have to have been added before the petition was written and filed. But, annexation is not that difficult a process if they affirmatively wish to be annexed.
