- Why are they refusing to hold a "public meeting " ?
- Why meet with the complainants separately ?
- Does their letter of 1 August 2012 contain thinly veiled threats of legal action against us, and all concerned, should we continue with our expose of the matter?
- If they are spraying within the ambit of the law, and as such there is no unlawful spray drift, why implement a buffer zone in the first place ?
- When we initially complained to the HOA in late 2009, they decided that given the large number of complaints that they had received from affected residents, they would convert to an organic method of pest control. In this regard they allegedly switched to Oneosan for a period of time before going back to conventional chemical spraying.
- Is money more important than human health ? The HOA has previously stated that it is not "financially viable" to spray the vines by hand, nor to convert to an organic system of crop protection.
- Are the vines within the Estate planted for commercial or decorative purposes. ie are they financially viable? If not then what is the problem with not spraying them ? ie nothing to lose ?
It is clear than a 10M buffer zone - from the vines to people's windows- will not be sufficient enough as it will not prevent spray drift from entering residential gardens, where the potentially toxic residues will come into contact with the residents, their pets and their children.
- Should potentially toxic agricultural chemicals be sprayed in such close proximity to peoples homes and gardens ?
- Should the Estate convert to organic, less harmful forms of "pest protection", as requested by the residents?
- Is spray drift unlawful?
- Would you have purchased into a working Estate had you known that potentially toxic agricultural chemicals would be sprayed so close to your home ?
- The HOA seems to believe that as the vineyards were already in place, when you purchased your property, that this means you have to accept the fact that you may be exposed to spray drift of potentially toxic chemicals.