Volunteerism - CRE style

[ladyhawk]

CRE should hold the musuem responsible for the damage that they caused. The musuem was just stupid. I don't care if they are cash strapped. Those on the board who support the musuem have a conflict of interest and should step down. The CRE board is supposed to represent CRE residents and not favor the musuem. Any dime that CRE can get from the musuem is a dime more for CRE and CRE residents. To hell with the musuem. To hell with the musuem supporters on the board. To hell with the musuem supporters who are board member want-to-be's.

Considering I am not a supporter of the Museum and/or the County and based on your comments I assume you live along the cliffs which means maybe you would consider letting POACRE collect a special assessment from those living along the cliffs to continue the litigation on your behalf.....

"Calvert County is a peninsula with water on two shores, the Chesapeake Bay to the East and the Patuxent River on the West. Average prices are about $957,903. Much of Calvert County waterfront properties are "CLIFF" lots that overlook the Chesapeake Bay and have a spectacular morning sunrise. Average price for all Single Family $476,205."
(WATERFRONT HOMES IN MARYLAND and the "WATERFRONT PREMIUM", Lenn Harley, MD, VA Foreclosures, First Time Buyers Grants, CDA Loans MD, Rehab Loans MD & VA: WATERFRONT HOMES IN MARYLAND and the "WATERFRONT PREMIUM")

Wow, what a difference in price.... Wonder why?
People can't keep bailing their neighbors out everytime they (the neighbors) make a bad decision...

The "dime more for CRE" will be just that. POACRE might be able to prove damages but even if they did, I doubt that POACRE will be able to recover enough to break even on the costs.

The only way to really fight this issue is through the Political process. The environmental laws are set which also prevent shoring up the cliffs. But even if they didn't exist, who will pay for it?

Sorry to say it, but from what I hear people have lost jobs, their homes and others have tightened up because they had to....The last ballot for a large increase in fees was turned down although we did get agreement on the CPI (COLA) increase...

As I said before, they bought their homes just as the rest of us did..
Just because they didn't consider the erosion, doesn't mean the rest of the community should pay for their oversight or held responsible anymore than if I purchase a home, car or whatever and oops, I was just so excited, I didn't read the contract.

June

 

[hotcoffee]

CRE should hold the musuem responsible for the damage that they caused. The musuem was just stupid. I don't care if they are cash strapped. Those on the board who support the musuem have a conflict of interest and should step down. The CRE board is supposed to represent CRE residents and not favor the musuem. Any dime that CRE can get from the musuem is a dime more for CRE and CRE residents. To hell with the musuem. To hell with the musuem supporters on the board. To hell with the musuem supporters who are board member want-to-be's.

I think you misunderstand a major portion of this issue..... the members of CRE don't have the $60,000 + dollars to spend on this law suit that only benefits 92 members.....

We [the rest of the Asssociation] don't stand to get anything from it....

There's nothing to get.....

This is just about .....King John only wants his "day in court"....

 

[slaphappynmd]

I think you misunderstand a major portion of this issue..... the members of CRE don't have the $60,000 + dollars to spend on this law suit that only benefits 92 members.....

We [the rest of the Asssociation] don't stand to get anything from it....

There's nothing to get.....

This is just about .....King John only wants his "day in court"....

Roadkill is a moron don't pay him any mind. Just let the 92 cliff property owners pay for the law suit. It is all about them anyway. They are trying to get permission to stabalize the cliffs. I don't live on the cliffs so I don't care. Let them "stabalize" the cliffs, they are still going to fall just as frequently. Our resident cliff property owner and self appointed erosion authority is a freaking moron who knows nothing about erosion.

 

[ohsnoes]

Eney's hell bent on bankrupting the Ranch Club. It's that simple.

 

[BOP]

I didn't vote for them. Just not enough people who care. But the whale and other things will cause more trouble for them. i just hope that they get it straight before it's too late.... oh wait they are already up the creek without the necessary equipment.

Okay, what's the deal with the whale that everyone keeps mentioning? Did somebody blow up a whale on the beach and ruin someone's car?

YouTube - expwhale's Channel

 

[ladyhawk]

Okay, what's the deal with the whale that everyone keeps mentioning? Did somebody blow up a whale on the beach and ruin someone's car?

YouTube - expwhale's Channel

I actually saw this on TV in the news some time ago... Eeewwww

June

 

[Redmane]

It's unfortunate that this whale litigation is costing POACRE and the county so much money. Why can't it be settled? What is the end goal? It certainly can't be shoring up the cliffs because that's not what the litigation is about. It's about trespassing and the ownership and value of the fossil.

In my opinion, discussing the 90 someodd folks on the cliffs and their erosion needs is irrelevant to this topic. The erosion topic is a political topic and can't be addressed in the "whale" courtroom. The corporate attorney also said we aren't going to get a settlement to pay for our fees. It's not an option with this type of litigation. What are they thinking? I want to understand!

 

[chesapeakewndrs]

It's unfortunate that this whale litigation is costing POACRE and the county so much money. Why can't it be settled? What is the end goal? It certainly can't be shoring up the cliffs because that's not what the litigation is about. It's about trespassing and the ownership and value of the fossil.

In my opinion, discussing the 90 someodd folks on the cliffs and their erosion needs is irrelevant to this topic. The erosion topic is a political topic and can't be addressed in the "whale" courtroom. The corporate attorney also said we aren't going to get a settlement to pay for our fees. It's not an option with this type of litigation. What are they thinking? I want to understand!

Did you read the CRE newsletter that came out? It specifically noted that CRE's goal was to get permission to put in cliff stabilization. It said nothing about the value of the whale or trespassing. They brought up the issue of the kid that was killed years ago...irrelevant because people have died on CRE roads and because of the CRE airport. They should all be shut down and blocked off with this way of thinking. Oh and lets make freezers illegal too, we don't know what people might store in them.

 

[Jbeckman]

Did you read the CRE newsletter that came out? It specifically noted that CRE's goal was to get permission to put in cliff stabilization. It said nothing about the value of the whale or trespassing. They brought up the issue of the kid that was killed years ago...irrelevant because people have died on CRE roads and because of the CRE airport. They should all be shut down and blocked off with this way of thinking. Oh and lets make freezers illegal too, we don't know what people might store in them.

The litigation (in the newsletter) says to get stablization, but the court ruling is reference "convesion - theft" tresspassing, and the value of fossil. Red is right...no legal fees can be re couped. And if judgement is found in "poacre favor" it will not "open the door" to getting the stablization approved. Seems the hope is the $$$ of value of the fossil and somehow this will be granted/awarded from the co/cmm to poacre (which will in turn just give us back the fossil)...the fossil doesn't even include the head...

So does poacre take it and hope some $$$ will come from ebay or something. And even if $$$ comes, would still have to get approval (for poacre or poacre members) to install the stablization.

 

[stsssn]

Is it time to rewrite the covenants? Make them right for all owners.

Stop all litigation!

Re-evaluate the STD with all homeowners involved with its formation?

Are there enough members interested, more than have been interested in the history of POACRE.

 

[ladyhawk]

The litigation (in the newsletter) says to get stablization, but the court ruling is reference "convesion - theft" tresspassing, and the value of fossil. Red is right...no legal fees can be re couped. And if judgement is found in "poacre favor" it will not "open the door" to getting the stablization approved. Seems the hope is the $$$ of value of the fossil and somehow this will be granted/awarded from the co/cmm to poacre (which will in turn just give us back the fossil)...the fossil doesn't even include the head...

So does poacre take it and hope some $$$ will come from ebay or something. And even if $$$ comes, would still have to get approval (for poacre or poacre members) to install the stablization.

From "COMAR" Annotated Code of Maryland

"08.07.06.18 Relics, Treasures, and Metal Detectors.

A. The policy of the Service is to safeguard the archeological resources under its care. The guidelines in B and C of this regulation shall be followed.

B. Without a permit from the Office of Archeology, Maryland Historical Trust, Department of Housing and Community Development, and the Department, an individual may not dig in search of buried relics or treasures, remove prehistoric or historic artifacts, or use metal detectors, except as provided in §D of this regulation, within the boundaries of lands, beaches, or under waters controlled by the Service.

C. Permits are issued to archeologists and other qualified individuals who present a plan for scientific investigation to be carried out under provisions of the Maryland Archeological Historic Properties Act, Article 83B, 5-623-----5-628, Annotated Code of Maryland. Copies of the law and application for permit can be obtained from the Chief, Office of Archeology, Maryland Historical Trust, 100 Community Place, Crownsville, MD 21032.
D. Metal Detector Exception."

Then of course another code which prohibits Land clearing and Construction activity within beach erosion control districts...
(08.09.01.02 Prohibited Activities or Uses in the Beach Erosion Control District)

A thought...
If this kind of activity is PROHIBITED, then how can they issue permits?
Maybe the Cliffs are not considered in the Beach Erosion Control District....

Further thought...
Our association fees fighting against our county taxes?

June

 

[stsssn]

Further thought...
Our association fees fighting against our county taxes?

June

That is the most disturbing part of this whole thing.

We are paying to watch, or not watch, lawyers fight it out over the idea that we should pay ourselves.

Only in America!

 

[slaphappynmd]

From "COMAR" Annotated Code of Maryland

"08.07.06.18 Relics, Treasures, and Metal Detectors.

A. The policy of the Service is to safeguard the archeological resources under its care. The guidelines in B and C of this regulation shall be followed.

B. Without a permit from the Office of Archeology, Maryland Historical Trust, Department of Housing and Community Development, and the Department, an individual may not dig in search of buried relics or treasures, remove prehistoric or historic artifacts, or use metal detectors, except as provided in §D of this regulation, within the boundaries of lands, beaches, or under waters controlled by the Service.

C. Permits are issued to archeologists and other qualified individuals who present a plan for scientific investigation to be carried out under provisions of the Maryland Archeological Historic Properties Act, Article 83B, 5-623-----5-628, Annotated Code of Maryland. Copies of the law and application for permit can be obtained from the Chief, Office of Archeology, Maryland Historical Trust, 100 Community Place, Crownsville, MD 21032.
D. Metal Detector Exception."

Then of course another code which prohibits Land clearing and Construction activity within beach erosion control districts...
(08.09.01.02 Prohibited Activities or Uses in the Beach Erosion Control District)

A thought...
If this kind of activity is PROHIBITED, then how can they issue permits?
Maybe the Cliffs are not considered in the Beach Erosion Control District....

Further thought...
Our association fees fighting against our county taxes?

June

The whale is not an archeological relic or treasure. Those are in place to protect Native American sites and early American sites.

 

[hotcoffee]

Is it time to rewrite the covenants? Make them right for all owners.

Stop all litigation!

Re-evaluate the STD with all homeowners involved with its formation?

Are there enough members interested, more than have been interested in the history of POACRE.

What? Are you calling for a time of reason?

Good for you!

I'm in!

I'd love to see our money spent as it should be for a change.....

It's been years since we did a major project that updated, upgraded, or maintained the commonly owned property!

 

[ladyhawk]

The whale is not an archeological relic or treasure. Those are in place to protect Native American sites and early American sites.

I'm sorry I must have misread what I found. I did not see where this was specific to Native American or Early american sites....

I thought these types of rules would apply even with construction, or excavation along the beaches... The cliffs are along the beaches? or at least thats what I see...

And regardless of why these laws were originally put in place, the whale, sharks teeth, ect... are considered fossils and would fall under the same laws....

 

[hotcoffee]

I'm sorry I must have misread what I found. I did not see where this was specific to Native American or Early american sites....

I thought these types of rules would apply even with construction, or excavation along the beaches... The cliffs are along the beaches? or at least thats what I see...

And regardless of why these laws were originally put in place, the whale, sharks teeth, ect... are considered fossils and would fall under the same laws....

June... the way I read the COMAR you offered... it's intended to keep the "individual" from destroying a site that has archeological interests.....

I had a friend in Lothian that was clearing a hill to put in a retaining wall [widen his driveway]... during his dig [by hand... a major dirt bank too!] he uncovered a human skull.... immediately there were people from the crime lab and when they decided the skull was about 100 years old... they took the rest of the skeleton out for him... to preserve it.... [turned out it was probably a civil war era body that had been buried in a hand made box (nails) in his uniform (brass buttons)].....

The COMAR also has a metal detector exception... I would guess because one would only have a shallow signal with the average metal detector.... that also leads me to believe this COMAR is for the individual....

 

[ladyhawk]

June... the way I read the COMAR you offered... it's intended to keep the "individual" from destroying a site that has archeological interests.....

I had a friend in Lothian that was clearing a hill to put in a retaining wall [widen his driveway]... during his dig [by hand... a major dirt bank too!] he uncovered a human skull.... immediately there were people from the crime lab and when they decided the skull was about 100 years old... they took the rest of the skeleton out for him... to preserve it.... [turned out it was probably a civil war era body that had been buried in a hand made box (nails) in his uniform (brass buttons)].....

The COMAR also has a metal detector exception... I would guess because one would only have a shallow signal with the average metal detector.... that also leads me to believe this COMAR is for the individual....

Yes but that started as a crime investigation.... which is a completely different set of circumstances...

June

 

[hotcoffee]

Yes but that started as a crime investigation.... which is a completely different set of circumstances...

June

Actually.... he called them in to verify it was a human skull and they were the only ones available at the time.... they quickly called in the others when they saw the location, depth and the state of the skull itself....

Maybe Veronica can shed some light on the general intention of your COMAR...

At any rate.... the Calvert Marine Museum employees would indeed be the local archilogical source to deal with the discovery of a marine fossell from the cliffs.... they have been excavating them all up and down the cliffs in Calvert County.... remember it was Eney who stopped them from re-inforcing the cliffs after the dig.... If the cliffs were to fall in now.... it's on Eney and not the museum [in my opinion] The Marine Museum employees have an accepted method for removing these fossils and re-inforcing the cliffs [or clean up after] the dig.... Eney is the one that stopped them from completing the action they started....

While I was a little upset with the "treaspassing on the beach to the cliff" because of the danger of cliff collapse and potential for injury or even loss of life.... I see no reason the marine museum employees should have come to CRE for permission when a the "obvious" landowner entered into an agreement with them. Considering the whale was located in an area below the landowner's house, it was, in my opinion, reasonable for the Marine Museum employees to believe they had the permission of the owner of the property....

As a matter of fact, once the excavation began... it would have been negligent [in my opinion] for them to leave without filling in the area of excavation....

From the beginning.... I did not believe there was a civil action here..... and I certainly have not been convinced otherwise.... remember... in civil court... the burdon of proof is only reasonable.....The Museum employees could easily be working within a reasonable assumption.... AND we don't even have monetary damages.....

 

[slaphappynmd]

I'm sorry I must have misread what I found. I did not see where this was specific to Native American or Early american sites....

I thought these types of rules would apply even with construction, or excavation along the beaches... The cliffs are along the beaches? or at least thats what I see...

And regardless of why these laws were originally put in place, the whale, sharks teeth, ect... are considered fossils and would fall under the same laws....

Those were examples. I'm sorry you don't know the difference between Archeology and Paleontology. What you posted is in reference to all things archeological (involving human interaction). Fossils such as the whale are paleontological.

Glad to see such a rude ignorant biatch is helping run CRE, no wonder we are screwed.

 

[Jbeckman]

Those were examples. I'm sorry you don't know the difference between Archeology and Paleontology. What you posted is in reference to all things archeological (involving human interaction). Fossils such as the whale are paleontological.

Glad to see such a rude ignorant biatch is helping run CRE, no wonder we are screwed.

I think you may have gone a bit far...




Hotcoffee...Eney did (with the board/cmm discussion) request not to "reinforce" - you words - the cliff...however the question was the type of reinforcing materials, whether appropriate and the danger of people reentering the cliff area. However, CMM did go back and do this reinforcement anyway because they never heard back from the BOD President.

But all in all, no recoup of legal fees, could just as well be handed the fossil, it is not an entire fossil and of what value will it be? There is confusion, as this had been touted as a means to garner support for the homeowners to get permission/permits to shore up the shore line. But the case isn't heading that way..just a "you dug on our property (now supposedly the boundaries show the property is POACRE,not homeowner owned), needed our permission (whether ARC with homeowner support or POACRE in general), you stole, you caused the cliffs to possibly erode more quickly and/or caused damage to same, and we POACRE want the court to order you NEVER to dig (no "we didn't know) the POACRE clifflines again.

This (all above) will not increase the chance of permission/permit to stablize the cliffs. Certain cost plenty, and piss many off who POACRe and/or homeowners need support from.