Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Fw: Follow Up <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />Subject: Fw: Follow Up <br />From: "Julie Rieman" <a11about-walls@comcast.net> <br />Date: Wed, 23 Jul2008 00:04:58 -0500 <br />To: <capria@comcast.net> <br /> <br />--- Original Message ---- <br />From: Julie Rieman <br />To: JUDY TOM LEE <br />Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 6:05 PM <br />Subject: Follow Up <br /> <br />Dear Tom, <br />Having been your neighbor for approximately ten years, you know that I like to keep to myself and do not <br />engage in idle neighborhood gossip. That being said, I have to tell you that I fmd the recent events <br />involving the road expansion petition (and our conversation regarding it) disheartening. Although I <br />appreciated your addressing my concern with the easement issue, I feel that I have now been dragged into <br />something I never wanted to become involved with. <br /> <br />I received a forwarded email written by you from Melody Meath today. I was utterly shocked by some of <br />the statements you made as they pertain to me. I would like to address a couple of points in which I take <br />issue, starting with: <br />I at no time came to your house to speak with your wife. I did call her on the telephone and mentioned <br />that my address was listed along with 87 others that were in an easement violation. She said she knew <br />nothing about it and would leave you the message that I called. I disagree that I ever "gave he an earful", <br />as you state in this email. To say so, tends to discredit any rational inquiry. I did follow up with an email <br />to you that evening but you chose to address me in person while we had visitors the next day. The <br />conversation which ensued was extremely unprofessional and made my guests very uncomfortable. In <br />fact, they left because of it. <br /> <br />During this conversation, at no time did you have to "calm me down" as you also state in this email. I <br />very much resent the implication that I was in some way hysterical, as I believe that I was not. I would <br />have been quite content with your answer on the easement but as you know, the conversation went much <br />further. You knew very well who Ms. Meath and her neighbor were as you said they were somehow <br />involved in creating the list of the 88 easement violations and had been arguing with each other. You also <br />said that my tree and fence did not pose a problem for the road maintenance but one of these ladies had <br />rocks in her yard and that the city would move them if necessary. I at no time stated that Ms Meath had <br />said the city was going to do anything to me as you misrepresent in this email. We did not discuss the <br />possibility that I was being punished for opposing the road expansion and today is the first time I've even <br />heard of it. <br /> <br />Regarding the petition, as I remember it you said that some council members had taken it upon <br />themselves to call the residents on the list. You also stated that about 200 residents claimed they never <br />signed, although their signatures were listed, indicating fraud. I remember this distinctly because I told <br />you not to bother calling us. My husband and I both readily signed the petition in question and our <br />signatures were indeed valid. In this email you sent today, you state that in your opinion the petition was <br />being misrepresented by the individuals canvassing the city. I do not remember this being mentioned at <br />all during conversation and I disagree with your assessment of the people involved. <br /> <br />I do not know what the problem is between you and Ms Meath but I really resent being dragged into the <br /> <br />lof2 <br /> <br />8/13/20082:16 PM <br />