By:  Michael Delemma

For those of you who did not or could not attend the Woodlands Homeowner Association meeting last night, it was brought up that our Section Presidents are not attending the Woodlands Neighborhood Improvement District meetings, which is ironic since all but one, voted it into existence.

Only one Section President who did mention this along with one other, vowed to attend in the future.

Let me reiterate how important it is for every Section President to attend these meetings. By attending, they can relay information back to their residents and help alleviate any misinformation and educate them about the District. Once the “mystery” surrounding the WNID is suspended, then we can obtain useful feedback from the community.

Last night at the WHOA meeting, just like a broken record, it was brought up again “Well, this is not Coral Springs.”

Oh don’t worry we will never be confused with Coral Springs, Plantation, Parkland, or Boca. I wish we could compare ourselves to them and aspire to be more like those areas. They don’t have crumbling neglected walls, perimeters with trash and half dead ficus trees, chain-linked fences with vines on them, or weed-ridden shrubs. Oh no, we wouldn’t want to have such high standards like they do, after all we are in Tamarac.

Here is a message to the “No” group of people that constantly try to sabotage any efforts to improve our community. There are many others, including myself who do aspire to higher standards, it’s called pride. Pride in where we live.

The idea that we live in a “Private County Club Community” but can’t get a public wall fixed or painted, because as our WHOA president says, “It’s belongs to the homeowners.” Then tell me this: Why is the city not fining those homeowners, if it indeed belongs to them?

If we neglect our homes. we are given fines. Are we not?

Do we all have to suffer looking at that disgusting wall on Commercial Blvd for years, because the City, the WHOA, and Code Enforcement can’t do anything about it? Are we to believe that we should just accept it because there are those who don’t care or think we are setting to high of a standard?

Last night we were asked to paint it ourselves. Maybe when a house needs painting or a lawn needs mowing we should volunteer to do that work for the neglectful homeowner, that would really show them. This is a bad joke that keeps being told.

Lenny Hixon was right when he said the city spent plenty of money across the street to plant shrubs to hide their badly maintained fences. Why can’t they perhaps step in and help us with the wall?

The truth is, the WHOA has plenty of money to hire someone to paint the wall, but they would rather just say it’s the homeowners responsibility. So just clobber those of us that want to see this place improved.

The only way to improve anything is to first recognize that it needs improvement, discuss it and then take action. There has been lots of talk as the months and years roll by, but very little action.

We bought into a dream here and it has turned into a nightmare, because a few don’t want to see improvements because they are afraid they may have to contribute money towards it.

If condos and other developments don’t have the money in reserves to pay improvements, they charge an assessment. Why should we be any different?

When the taxes and the water bill goes up, do you circulate a  petition against it?

Eventually, as this neglect continues, and the economy eventually improves, residents with high standards and expectations will leave, and the “No” group can be left to deal with the crime, the low element that will be buying in here, the rented rooms situation and the residents who have car repair businesses in their driveways.

We will be long gone and living in a better place, learning from your mistakes.

RE/MAX InterAction Realty

26 Responses to "Editorial: Stop Saying “No” to Improvements"

  1. Yea Michael! The WHOA needs new blood, it needs residents who are PRO-ACTIVE. Any resident looking to upgrade this community needs to attend the WHOA meetings and talk to the WHOA “nominating committee”. Get yourself on board to do something positive for this “Private Country Club Community”. If you are one who complains, then stop complaining and do something to change whatever your complaining about. Again, be PRO-ACTIVE.

  2. Karen. Well done. How many years are we going to talk about “gating” the entrances or at least installing cameras? All many residents do is wring their hands and talk about how bad it is-why not be proactive and do something. Clean up your yard, paint your house, get the extra cars out of the driveways-fine those who should be fined. Why is it so selective as to who does get fined and for what? We could be Cora Springs or Boca and why not-I want my property value to climb. I want my home to be here for my children and grandchildren.

  3. Well stated, Michael.

    I try to attend as many Section HOA, WHOA and WNID meetings as possible, and I’m always disappointed at the very small amount of people who care enough about their community take the little time it takes to even attend these few meetings, much less actually involve themselves in taking positive action for their community and ultimately themselves.

    I have also seen a few that DO attend every meeting, for the sole purpose of shaking their heads at ANY suggestion, even before it is completed. Constructive feedback and criticism are always welcome, but should include a counter proposal. Just being stubborn for it’s own sake and saying no to EVERYTHING without offering anything yourself is of no help to anyone. Those who oppose any measure because it carries a cost ignore the fact that NOT taking measures may cost them a lot more down the road in crime and decreased property value.

    I LOVE the Woodlands. We are a small island in an otherwise rough sea that WILL swallow us if we do not take proactive measures SOON. This is up to US. If our HOA or WHOA isn’t responsive, REPLACE THEM. Attend those meetings. Give your feedback and let your voice be heard.

  4. Glenn very well stated, I knew that there are many of our residents that feel the way we do, and glad to see that my article has sparked some flames. You are right, no action taken now, will only bring us down that road later, only to cost more or maybe it will be too late.
    At the meetings, residents like myself are treated by the “no group” as I call them, to feel we are a minority in our thinking, but I know differently. Many of us feel the same way, that this is a place worth fighting for and we will not back down, and continue to fight for what our community deserves. We need more residents to attend these meetings and be heard. Thank you Glenn, Karen, Sharon, Ben, and Jill and the many others who have voiced their opinion that we need improvements here in the Woodlands.

  5. Michael’s editorial is well-written and has a lot in it that makes sense. Unfortunately, it completely skips over what I (and many other residents) consider to be the core issue.

    We just received another “survey” in the mail today from the WNID. Like the previous “survey”, it is a heavy-handed piece of propaganda, quoting crime statistics, and then following it up with questions that amount to “so, since crime is so bad, don’t you think becoming a gated community would help”? Please.

    This “survey” makes it clear that the WNID’s top priority is the same as it always was: to pursue this gated community idea. The discrepancy here is, of course, that while Michael’s editorial says we should be supporting “improvements”, many of us don’t consider putting gates on the Woodlands to be an “improvement”.

    When I first read this editorial, I briefly had hope that WNID had changed its tune, and that it truly was interested in working with the residents to find meaningful improvements and make them happen. But the latest “survey” makes it clear that WNID still has its same old agenda.

    Glenn and Michael talk about the “No group”. Here’s the thing: I am a “No” when it comes to gating. But pretty much all of the other improvement ideas I’ve seen mentioned EXCEPT for that one seem reasonable, and the sort of thing I’d be willing to support, and yes, pay my fair share for. I suspect that I’m not the only resident who feels this way. But as long as gating remains a primary agenda of WNID, I honestly can’t get behind WNID.

    Glenn also mentions the small number of people that attend the meetings. I can only speak for myself, but since WNID positioned itself as the “gated community” group from the beginning, and I am strongly against gating, I saw no reason to attend the meetings. If I see evidence of change in WNID’s focus, then it’ll be worth my time to go to the meetings.

  6. Thank you for the compliment about my editorial, however, the WNID has many goals for improvement, gating only being one of them. Don’t write off the WNID because you disagree with one out of many ideas for improvement. How often does everyone agree on everything. Right now the focus is on installing cameras, but the survey was designed purely to find out what the residents consider a priority when it comes to improvements. If you are interpreting it that the WNID is only about gating or its prime objective is gating you are wrong. How else are we supposed to know how the residents feel without the survey? If you have a better idea, come to the meeting and see for yourself. Don’t let the survey convince you, you convince the WNID, by responding to the survey. Also, may I ask why you ( Jim )are so against gating?

  7. Hi Michael,

    Regarding the survey: I have no problem with the idea of a survey – I think it’s a great idea. However, I have a big problem with the specific survey that was just sent out. If you truly want an accurate assessment of the desires and priorities of the residents, the survey that was sent out is not the way to go about it. The whole “Did you know:” list of bullet points at the beginning was totally inappropriate for a survey, as the material in the bullet points directly feeds into the questions asked in the survey. It will therefore skew the results of the survey. I can’t believe that the author(s) of the survey were unaware of this, therefore I must conclude that the survey was constructed in this manner with the deliberate goal of skewing the results in favor of a predetermined agenda. To be blunt, if you want people to take you seriously, you simply cannot use tactics like this.

    However, despite our objections to the format of the survey, my wife and I did in fact fill out the survey, and it’s on its way back.

    Regarding gating: There are many arguments against gating, which have been gone into at great length on this web site, and I’m sure in other forums as well. My reasons are in line with those already expressed, and I don’t want to turn this thread into another rehash of those arguments. So I’ll try to just list them briefly:

    1. I do not believe that gates provide meaningful improvements in security; they only provide the illusion of security. Studies show this, and I’ve had personal experience (a friend of mine had his car stolen from a gated complex).

    2. The Woodlands was not designed to be a gated community. Retrofitting to add gates will be expensive to build. It will also be expensive to maintain. The increased taxes/assessments needed to pay for this is a major concern.

    3. Turning the whole of The Woodlands into a gated community will require closing off one or more entrances. I live in Section Two, and the entrances I use daily are almost certainly on the list of entrances that would need to be closed off. This has multiple consequences:

    – This will be a significant hassle for me every single day, as I’d need to drive some distance through the development to the nearest gate every time I enter or leave.
    – I am the parent of a special-needs child. During the first couple years of her life, we had to call EMS multiple times. The fact that our home is easily accessed from Commercial Boulevard gives us significant peace of mind, because we know the EMS vehicle can easily get to our home. Closing off access will increase the EMS response time, and erode this peace of mind.
    – Once entrances are closed, traffic will need to be routed through other sections of the development to get to the designated entrances. I feel bad for the people currently living on quiet streets, who will have to deal with this increased traffic.
    – Having guests over to our house will be a big hassle, for them and for us, to get in through the gate.

    4. I object on philosophical grounds. I don’t *want* to live in a gated enclave, shut off from the surrounding community. If I wanted to live in that type of housing development, I would have bought a house in that type of development in the first place; there are certainly many to choose from in our area.

    Sorry, I guess that wasn’t very brief (though I could go on longer). Again, I’d rather not turn this discussion thread into yet another debate on the pros/cons of gating, since it’s such a hot-button topic.

    But that brings us back to the core issue that prompted me to comment in the first place. You say that WNID has many other projects/ideas/plans/priorities – great! However, there is still a *perception* out there that “WNID” equals “gating”. Gating is such a controversial topic, that like it or not, if you want people to join in the discussions about the other issues, I believe you need to figure out how to get past this perception problem. And sticking a bunch of questions about gating in your survey is not the way to do that! The result is that people (like myself) have a knee-jerk reaction as soon as they see those questions. I have some ideas as to how you might go about dealing with this issue, and would be glad to discuss them with you if you’re interested. Please let me know if you’d like to discuss this further (publicly or one-on-one, I’m fine either way).

    • Jim, regarding your statements:
      “1. I do not believe that gates provide meaningful improvements in security; they only provide the illusion of security. Studies show this….”

      People say these things ALL the time, but have you ever compared the statistics yourself? Do you know what the actually crime stats are for Woodllands compared to a neighborhodd that is gated? You need to some real homework. Call the BSO and give them boundries of the Woodlands and the boundries of a “gated community”, and they will send you crime stats. Until you have real facts, it’s a bunch of hot air.

      2. you state: “The Woodlands was not designed to be a gated community.”

      You need to drive by neighborhoods in Oakland Park “that were not built for gating”; drive east on Commercial Blvd. just east of Dixie Hwy on the south side. You will see what they installed walls and now their streets are blocked with fences and potted plants.
      And ANOTHER community just east of Woodlands along Inverrary Road in Lauderhill. They too have built walls.
      Take a wild guess why neighborhoods are doing this.

      Your concern about “increased taxes/needed to pay for this is a major concern.” This would only be for a short time until a project is complete. Did you know that the homes in the neighborhoods mentioned above, have increased in value because of the “privacy and safety” measures they took?

      If I were you, I would be more concerned for my children. What if they were hit by a speeding car or hurt during a burglary? I personally, would be more concerned for Their safety.

  8. Jim you brought up some excellent points. I agree, the survey could have been better written. It’s a flawed survey when it has leading questions with the factoids in the beginning. Taylor should have just written the survey with none of that.

    There was also no area on there to write about what sort of non-security improvements we would like in the future. This would have been an excellent fact-finding survey for that.

    Me personally:

    Gates aren’t going to fly here. I see NON OBTRUSIVE video cameras at entrances and strategic locations.
    I also support closing off some entrances. First: White Oak and Banyan. I think we need to connect to 64th Ave and have residents enter and exit through 64th Ave where they can safely go through a light. This is not going to be much of a drive. Commercial Blvd is extremely dangerous and everyday you make a left turn onto that road is taking your life into your hands. We don’t need people coming off the streets and using the nearby homes as shelter on rainy days.

    Ok that’s just a start for me, I’m turning mine in as well. I hope people didn’t throw these out thinking they were junk mail!

  9. Jim, while you bring up some valid points you also bring up some points that Karen, stated above that refutes some of your points. When you say that you don’t want to live in a gated community, well when we all bought in here things were different. I keep hearing this same statement that the “Woodlands was not designed for gating”, well that is a matter of opinion, not a fact, because things change and we have to adjust the Woodlands to the sad reality that is happening now. Crime is up, don’t you see what the neighborhoods around us are like? Do you ever go to Walgreens after 8pm at night and see the crowd that hangs out there? We need to maintain and protect our community, and an inconvenience or two is a small price to pay for safety. I put my trash out late one night, and someone came zooming down my street, blasting music, shouting and cursing. If we had cameras and gates that kind of situation would be eliminated as well as other people coming in here and casing the place to rob. We hear every week that strangers are lurking around, even ones with back packs with tools to rob a home. The Woodlands was built at a time when things were different, now is now, we have to move into the sad reality of the 21st century and address these issues head on, not burying it in the sand to ignore it. It may come a time if this progresses that you will have to move your family, because your family was not “designed ” to live in such an unsafe area.

  10. Could you please publish a number or an address of someone I could reach regarding the fact that we have not ever received a survey? There may be others who have not gotten one either. Thanks.

  11. Michael,

    I’m sorry to say that you’ve completely lost me here.

    You mention that some of the things I said are a matter of opinion. That is true. But what is also a matter of opinion are many of the statements you make regarding the level of threat that we face. It is clear that your perception of this threat level is very different from mine.

    It appears to me that our differences in perspective in this fundamental matter are simply too great. Now that you have clarified your perspective and motivations, I realize that I cannot in good conscience support the WNID in its current form.

    Best of luck,
    Jim Burmeister

  12. Whether you think gates and cameras are an effective deterrent or not, whether you think the community’s design makes gating even possible or not, whether you think the cost and hassle are worth it or not, we all need to accept the fact that not everyone sees things the same way. Until a feasibility study is conducted and there is a concrete proposal on the table, this “discussion” is going nowhere. Fast.

  13. Jim if you attended the WHOA or WNID meetings, there an is officer from BSO who talks about the crimes for the previous month. Also Karen above explained where she received her information regarding crime. Also I was robbed last November in the same fashion as the other robberies were execute. I am out a lot and I observe our neighborhood and the areas around us. Have you not noticedm that there are no fine restaurants or high end business that open in Tamarac? The Chase bank that opened a few weeks ago was already robbed. Even Big lots moved to Coral Springs. I also mentioned that Denny’s and Cheddars are experiencing problems due to the element that is frequenting their establishments. The managers and help told me about it first hand. My opinions are based on this information. If you choose to ignore it, then fine. Most condos and associations find out what is needed, come up with a plan and charge the residents, they don’t wait to get everyone to agree to it, because that will never happen. If you don’t want to support the WNID, then fine, you are entitled to do that, however, certain things will pass even if you don’t agree with it. I don’t agree paying certain taxes because they don’t apply to me, but I have to, and in the end it is better for the whole than the individual.

  14. Jim, I could not agree more with the points you raised and because I think you expressed the concerns of many Woodlands residents quite well, I won’t take up more space here by stating the same things. I do, however, have a few comments to add. I have lived in the Woodlands for 14 years, a lot longer than some of those in favor of gating. Over the years we have been asked several times to voice our opinions as to whether or not we want a gate. It seems that no matter how many times the question is asked and no matter who asks it, the results are the same. Be it based on facts, opinions, fears, etc., the majority of residents do not want a gate. Because those residents in favor of gating could not get a majority of residents to support their position, they decided to get the City to back them. The City of course is more than happy to back this position because it means more revenue for the City and the City is never going to turn away the potential for increased revenue, regardless of how that revenue is generated; hence, the creation of the District. The District and those that support gating continue to state that their objective is not just gating but other “neighborhood appearance” improvements. Then the District sends out the survey that we all just received, which is similar to literature we have received in the past, and it becomes evident that it is clearly just about gating. When those of us that do not support gating voice our opinions to that affect, those in favor of gating suggest that we are not concerned about our children or our neighbors’ safety, that we don’t care about the Woodlands or some of the needed repairs and maintenance, that we just want to cause trouble or that we are just full of a “hot air.” I haven’t heard a whole lot of facts from those in favor of gating so I’m not sure what makes their opinions any less “hot air” nor any more valid. Opinions are opinions and we all have them and I think it’s rude to suggest that someone’s opinion is “hot air” simply because you don’t agree with it. This however, has been the general attitude of the District and those who support gating. If you don’t agree with them, then you’re wrong; if you don’t support gating, then you must be in favor of crime; if they send out a survey or schedule a vote and don’t get the results they like, they cancel elections, discard petitions, etc. Those in favor of gating have talked a lot about security but what about the condition of many of the homes in our community? What about the two houses, for example, on either side of me in Section One that have been vacant now for years and are both in a serious state of disrepair and in desperate need of basic maintenance? What is being done to address this issue that exists throughout our community? I have contacted the City, the association, the District, the owners (one is a bank and one is a private owner) many, many, many times, all to no avail. Anyone who believes that my property value will increase because a wall is put up around the community, while the condition of homes like these continues to worsen, is in serious need of a reality check. As long as the District and those who support gating continue to exhibit this “our way or the highway” attitude, that if you do not support gating, you must not care about the Woodlands and your opinions are just “hot air,” I also cannot and will not support the District in its current form.

  15. Liz and Jim, it seems no matter how myself, Karen, or the Wnid try to ask your opinion, we get shot down. If you people have better ideas of how to find out what the residents truly feel, instead of you telling us how they feel, then come up with a viable solution. Attend the meetings and voice your concerns and opinions. You would rather go here and complain that all our efforts lean towards gating and therefore, proves that your opinion is correct. It is neither right or wrong, we just want to know how the residents feel about certain key issues and concerns. Stop turning the survey into a written law, it is just a survey. You never take surveys over the phone from companies wanting to know what phone carrier service you use or if you use the yellow pages or google or whatever? I take surveys all the time they are a useful tool in business. why else are companies, and in this case our community going to find out how its residents feel, if we don’t ask through a survey. We can’t ask your opinions at a meeting because you don’t attend, so then what?
    The truth is that no matter what we do, that a certain percentage of the Woodland’s residents will either, not attend meetings, not answer a survey and never agree on anything. You can not please all of the people all of the time, and this is extremely evident here. The majority will rule and you will just have to accept it as I will. As for the city, they must agree with the WNID to a large extent, oherwise they would not have granted its existence. If you think the WHOA can haddle the issues you brought up, it is obvious they can not. Yes, gating will not bring up home values alone, we never said that, but along with better security, walls/gates, cameras, omproves landscapingand lighting and other improvement, yes the hoem values will improve. We have tried it your way (the no group), now give some new ideas a chance. This sinking boat needs a life raft…

  16. I do not understand why everyone is complaining about this survey. It is a tool to learn exactly what people want in the community. I keep hearing “no one wants gates” – how many people are we talking about? It seems to be the same 5 or 6 voicing this, so what is the real number (thus the survey). I keep hearing “we need to have gates” – again, how many people are we talking about. Seems to be the same 5 or 6 people (thus the survey). I wish people would stop complaining about the survey and just respond to it. If you do not want gates or security cameras or whatever, then respond accordingly. If you want gates and and security cameras or whatever, then respond accordingly. There is no need to nitpick over the format of the survey or the manner in which it was written – we’re all adults and think for ourselves; just complete it if you have an opinion (I assume that those who do not return the survey do not care either way). The responses will then be tallied and the WNID can have an idea (a true idea, not words from the mouthpieces speaking for others) of what the community wants.

    • Jennifer, THANK YOU!!!!! your answer to Liz is perfect!

  17. Michael, you assume that the residents who are not in favor of gating oppose any and ALL improvements and that is just not the case. I am not part of your so-called “no group,” but rather I am part of the “NO GATE group.” It would serve you well to learn the difference.

    If you want to talk crime stats, how about some specifics such as these: In 2011 there were 528 burglaries in the entire city of Tamarac but the projected number for 2012 is 431, a decrease of 97. The City of Miramar reduced its overall crime rate in 2011 from the prior year by 22% by simply putting more officers on the street, tracking down known offenders, etc.; they didn’t gate all the developments in Miramar. And I too have spoken to members of BSO who say that gating is actually an illusion of security and has no real affect on the crime rate in a given community. Maybe those should be included in the next survey.

    As far as the real reasons the City of Tamarac supports the District, well it doesn’t take a genius to figure that out. No city is ever going to reject the possibility of taking in more revenue. It doesn’t matter whether we want beautification improvements, gates and walls or to hire a clown at every entrance for entertainment. If the City can collect more money, they will support it.. it’s very simple.

    You are right about one thing though. Things do change Michael. We now have younger, working class families living in the Woodlands, many with young children. At the District meeting where the election was canceled, I heard the word “affluent” used to describe the community. And outside the meeting, one of the members of the “gate group” actually made a comment that he did not want to “live near poor people” (I seriously hope that was not you, Michael). I don’t even know what was meant by these comments exactly but I have an idea and I couldn’t help but wonder if there is actually something else behind this push to gate.

    I am sorry, Michael, that you were the victim of a crime. That is a terrible thing that no one wants to experience nor see their neighbors experience. But the reality is that the majority of residents have not been victimized and not all of us wish to live paralyzed by feelings of fear, paranoia and insecurity. You can put up a big wall and put up gates and even have armed guards at every entrance if you like but if you are truly that afraid to live here and to visit places like Cheddar’s, Denny’s, Walgreens because of the “element” as you say, then I’m afraid no security features will comfort those feelings. As Jim said, not everyone sees the level of threat the same as you and in actuality, the poor condition of the many vacant properties affects a far greater number of residents than the crime rate, which compared to many other cities is low. So if you want to talk about a majority, why not use the District resources for things that affect a majority of the community and not just the few unfortunate residents who have been victimized by crime. We are ALL victims of the neglected properties.

    Finally, this discussion reminds me of something that Albert Einstein was once quoted as saying … Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. You and your “gate group” keep trying to scare people into believing that we are all being preyed upon and need to put up gates and walls and I, and others, keep trying to explain that there are other much more needed improvements that should be addressed first. Neither of us are getting different results. Regardless, I truly hope you eventually somehow find the peace of mind you so desperately seek.

  18. Liz thanks for the laughable comments and different angle in trying to persuade others and yourself into thinking that we are trying to “scare” residents and that we are paranoid in our thinking. After the chuckle, I found it sad that you would actually imply that I might have said that I din’t want to “live near poor people.” You sound like a Romney ad, if you say it enough it then becomes fact. I love what Jennifer stated above, couldn’t say it better myself. as for you, Liz, don’t quote Enstein, stick to the bagels, you are better suited for that. It is not insane by your quoted definaition that you keep saying the same thing and expect a different out come? People in glass houses…I can quote also. It doesn’t require a genius to figure out that something needs to be done here, you admit times have changed, but you skillfully leave out the bad parts, like the crime and the element that is around us, and no I do not mean poor people. I never said that privately or publicly and resent you implying that I did. The information concerning Denny’s and Cheddars was first hand information by the managers there, not “paranoia.” Get real, smell the coffee and see what is going on around the neighborhood. You conveniently left out that Chase bank was robbed after only being opened a few weeks. You mention if there is perhaps somehting else going on behind the push for gates, well now who is acting paranoid. Karen and I give you facts and what do you give us, ” I couldn’t help wonder if there is actually something esle behind this push for gates.” Yeah we have nothing else to do with our time but “push for gates” for some sinister reason. Oh and the city is going to make all this money on us by us putting up cameras and gates and improving our community? So far the “sinister city of Tamarac” has the fountain up and running better than ever, re-landscaped the main entrance area, cleaned and maintained our canals and you say that they are behind something because they want the Woodlands to succeed by okaying the existence of the WNID. I don’t follow that, sorry. I hope you recognize the need for better security and improvements here so that we can all benefit from it by having a safe, clean, and beautiful community.

  19. Liz, Do some homework and call or email the Mayor’s and City Managers for Oakland Park and Lauderhill. Ask them what they are doing for their communities to help them deter crime. Ask about their “Safe Neighborhood Districts” or the reasons for “street closures”. Ask them if those communities “were built with gating or street closures”.
    Mayor Anne E. Sallee
    City of Oakland Park
    1971 NW 34 Street, Oakland Park, FL 33309
    954-253-0850: AnneS@oaklandparkfl.gov
    AND
    John Stunson, City Manager
    City of Oakland Park
    3650 N.E. 12 Ave,
    Oakland Park, FL 33334
    Email: JohnS@oaklandparkfl.org
    Tel: 954.630.4209 Fax: 954.630.4215
    AND
    Richard J. Kaplan
    Mayor, City of Lauderhill
    Office: 954-730-3016
    City Clerk: 954-730-3010
    City Hall Fax: 954-345-8793

  20. It’s truly amazing how so many residents who lives here have something to say about everything, but when we ask them to voice it on a survey, we only receive a small percentage. Please everyone fill out the survey and return it. Make sure to print your name and address also, we have received a number of them without it. If we are to get a fair idea of what is on your mind, then we need the completed surveys. If for some reason you tossed it out in error and need another one, let us know. The deadline has been extended in order to get accurate feedback. We appereciate everyone’s input.

  21. Maybe the people who have voiced an opinion are the ones who have returned their surveys… I would suggest that anyone who has not responded really does not care either way.

  22. Jennifer if people don’t return the survey, or don’t care either way then the people who have returned them become the majority and the basis for what we believe to be the true feelings of the residents. WE are not mind readers and should not assume that a non returned survey means anything either way. People who do not vote on purpose, should not complain later when things happen that they don’t agree with. They have a chance not to voice their opinion and if they choose not to then so be it. You can lead a horse to water….. Like the lottery slogan, “you have to be in it to win it.”

  23. I mailed in the survey so I am assuming it was received.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.