Editor,

The April 2 edition of the Whidbey News-Times on Habitat For Humanity was inaccurate and one-sided. Mandi Rothman’s negative, untrue statements were obviously neither fact checked nor researched. It is now up to others to do the due diligence.

I am a homeowner in one of the condos adjacent to the new Habitat building site. I have met with Habitat representatives directly.

I am also a former Habitat volunteer who worked on two houses and from 2003-08 was a member of the Habitat store board at its inception.

I know the Habitat organization representatives are supposed to be based “ecumenically” in giving, volunteering in kindness to others and demonstrating that in all actions and words. What happened here, Mrs. Rothman?

Statements and quotes by Mrs. Rothman appear to be purposefully passive-aggressive, un-neighborly and misleading. There is a verifiable correspondence trail between the condo owners and Habitat about the proposed project that initiated in 2008.

I have letters, emails and notes from years later of my three visits with two executive directors and other leaders. I also have an apology from a former Habitat president, all on the subject of the proposed 10th Avenue Southeast build.

Further, representatives from our condominium association were denied a meeting with the Habitat board, not once but twice. Our intent was merely to ask questions and express concerns about the fact that the donor of the property no longer had the ability to use our association’s accesses and easements.

Also, since the site was originally intended to have similar appearing buildings to those condo buildings that were constructed, we had reasonable concerns about maintaining visual consistency.

The article’s negativity continues when Mrs. Rothman insinuated that my neighbors and I in the immediately adjacent condos had “an attitude” to the effect that, “I don’t want those kind of people in my neighborhood.”

That is unfair and untrue and suggests some level of paranoia on the part of Mrs. Rothman. I am a single parent who raised five children. Like the new owners, we are honest hard-working people and neighborly.

The only information about this proposed project that the owners in nearby condos, houses, duplexes or apartment building were provided, was information obtained by them from the City after inquiries were made. This project was six years in the planning so there were many opportunities for Habitat to share information about its intentions, none was forthcoming. Some did receive the 3-30-16 ribbon cutting invitation, the only communication initiated by Habitat to date.

Then, on March 31 the condo owners returned home from work to find that two 28-year-old trees were cut down without notification. A businessman had shared a week prior with two owners it would happen, but not when. Here again, Habitat did not share information that would have aided in better “community relations” than generated thus far. A good neighbor would.

To the families who will reside in these new homes: You are welcome to the neighborhood.

To the volunteers at Habitat: Thank you for volunteering.

I know this “issue” is not about you or the good work that you do, but the developer who acquired this property so inexpensively has been litigating, unsuccessfully with the neighbors for many years and has created a lot of expense and frustration.

This developer has “taken the condo owners to court” four times, to the Hearing Examiner three times and just filed another appeal of a Superior Court order entered by Judge Hancock in favor of the condo owners.

When the legal issues raised by my neighbors and I precluded the developer’s expectation of highly profitable, waterfront condos, he retaliated by making a donation of at least one lot to Habitat to assist the need for low income housing.

Draw your own conclusions.

Habitat for Humanity is an important charity in our community. They fill an important need and help many people.

However, not every donation to the cause is worth accepting and the governing board at Habitat needs to look at the “big picture” when accepting property donations that appears to be motivated by something other than sincere generosity.

Sue Karahalios

Oak Harbor