Post by Poor Richard on Jul 27, 2022 10:48:29 GMT -7
Landowners for Local Control Debut New Website
*** News and Forum Commentary ***
A mysterious group calling itself "Landowners For Local Control" debuted their new website on July 24, 2022 at LocalControlGLA.org. Despite using the Glastonbury Landowners Association (GLA) acronym in its website address, the secretive shadow group claims that its site is not an official GLA site. The Home page opens to a mountain and sky vista that is similar to the official GLA website at www.glamontana.org/ Past GLA President and current Dissolution litigant Dennis Riley is listed as the sole contact. Domain registry information was marked as private.
LocalControlGLA.org features photos of talking animals that present reasons why the GLA should separate. A mountain sheep says that the current GLA lacks fair representation. An Elk echos the phony talking point that 6 plus 6 members lead to deadlock. That worn-out argument ended in August 2021 when Director Dobrowski resigned and litigant Andrea Sedlak became GLA President. The board then totaled 9 directors and a resolution was passed to fill 3 vacant seats.
An antelope states that the GLA is too large to manage. In another section, a lumbering bear discusses separation details while a racing wolf opines about the difficulty of separating North and South Glastonbury.
LocalControlGLA.org echos, word for word many of the statements that were written by Director Andrea Sedlak and distributed with South Glastonbury ballots. Interspersed throughout the site are tourist photos of rainbows, Yellowstone Park attractions, and other sights that attract people from far away. The entire website looks like a tourist journal of a trip to Paradise Valley and Yellowstone.
Neither South or North Glastonbury scenes nor any residents are depicted in the photos. The roads we travel, the places we live, shop and perform our daily routine are all missing. The photos seem to be chosen by a group of faraway tourists who view Glastonbury as a wonderful place for a second home, a great spot for a vacation, and a nature reserve. People who live here full time appreciate the abundant natural beauty but have serious issues that need to be addressed by their Landowners Association. Like poorly maintained roads, assessments that get wasted on legal battles that pit one group of directors against another and lead to tens of thousands of dollars in attorney bills. And Elections where candidates ask landowners to elect them as a director so they may continue to wage legal war with the intent of destroying or dismembering the very organization they asked to be elected to. None of these issues are addressed at LocalControlGLA.org
If the Dissolution litigants are behind the LocalControlGLA.org site, then the very name is misleading. Only one of the four couples who are suing to dissolve the GLA lives in Glastonbury full time. The other three couples own homes thousands of miles away where they spend most of their time. Some are not even registered to vote for Montana state elections. They come here when the weather is warm and sunny, take lots of photos and get thrilled when they see a wild animal. And they all talk about someday retiring to Glastonbury.
Locals have a different view. They have to earn a living here and often drive hundreds of miles per week for work and supplies. Some have children and would like to see Glastonbury create facilities that are child and family-friendly. Many elderly people live here too and they often suffer quietly with isolation, dwindling fixed incomes, decrepit housing, and loneliness. Drug abuse and alcoholism are constant threats to our community. Full-time residents are tough and have often survived the bitter cold and snowy winters and horrific Montana weather. July is a great month, January is not so good and February can see residents blocked in by deep snow for days at a time. Generally, the folks from far away who retire here last a few years at most and then move on. The locals are stronger and they are the ones who form a community we call Glastonbury. Unfortunately, it is the locals who will pay the heaviest price if the Dissolution crew is elected to the GLA Board.
There are many good arguments for separating North from South Glastonbury. They should be debated on the Forum, in neighborhood meetings, and around the kitchen tables of Glastonbury residents. Then a legally binding vote to change the Covenants should be presented to all landowners. The current process by the Dissolution crew to circumvent real local control by asking the court to split Glastonbury is wrong. I believe it is an act of desperation by out-of-state landowners to seize control of South Glastonbury and the millions of dollars of prime real estate in High South. None of the litigants should be granted the right to serve on the board of a corporation they have vowed to destroy or dismember. Unfortunately, it appears that several of the Dissolution litigants will be elected to the GLA Board from South Glastonbury. Just eight candidates are running for six positions. A write-in candidate could bring the list to nine candidates. Still four litigants; Dennis Riley, Andrea Sedlak, Mark Seaver, and Jeffery Ladewig are running. At best just one will win by default. A worst-case scenario will have all four elected as GLA Directors.
Both North and South Glastonbury could be well served by separate boards that consist of Glastonbury landowners that will work together to meet the needs of their distinct communities. All directors must disavow using the courts to circumvent the political process. Directors who sue the GLA should never be given a second chance to win a seat on the board and use their position to the detriment and expense of landowners. Landowners can live part-time in Glastonbury and still serve the community. But they must develop strong local ties and work extra hard to understand the needs and challenges locals live with every day.