One father looked furious.
“She said your lawyers were delaying the opening,” he told me.
“My lawyers are asking her to stop selling access she doesn’t have.”
He showed me an agreement with a refund clause conditioned on approval by a committee Brenda chaired.
The clause meant she could postpone repayment indefinitely by claiming approval was pending.
I gave him Grace’s office contact rather than advising him to argue at Brenda’s table.
As the families left, I noticed a small camera mounted on a tripod near Brenda’s canopy.
Its lens pointed toward my pool gate.
I could not tell whether it recorded my property or merely the visitors standing on her driveway.
I documented its position without touching it.
Later that afternoon Warren called to say his employer had formally canceled the gate installation pending proof of owner authorization.
He sounded relieved.
“I thought this was going to be a straightforward job,” he said.
“Most bad jobs start that way,” I replied.
At dusk the canopy came down.
Brenda’s yard looked normal again, but the town had begun asking questions she could no longer answer with a glossy brochure.
Lieutenant Rowe called me the following week to clarify the circumstances of Mark’s visit.
She could not discuss confidential personnel matters, but she could confirm that the visit had not been the result of a valid department order to seize property.
She asked whether I had received any additional demands for the keys.
I said Brenda had not approached me directly since the casserole incident.
Rowe then requested a copy of the flyer showing Mark as a law enforcement liaison, including the original email metadata if available.
She explained that using the appearance of official police endorsement for private fundraising raised concerns separate from the original visit.
I sent the files through the secure channel she provided.
The next morning a different officer, Officer Jamie Walsh, came to my home at an agreed time.
Walsh wore a body camera, introduced himself, and explained the limited purpose of his visit before entering the front porch area.
He was collecting a statement about possible unauthorized access to the yard during the contractor’s site review.
I showed him the location of the gate and the angle of the photograph Warren had received.
He asked whether I could identify whoever took it.
“No,” I answered.
“I only know it was taken from inside the fence.”
He noted the distinction.
