A Comparison of Visions for the Future of Pelican Landing Governance

Following is a link to a summary of the proposed turnover plan announced by your PLCA board, along with a partial list of the deficiencies in that plan.  This chart clearly shows how the PLCA Turnover Plan Fails on Fairness.

Click here for A Comparison of Visions for the Future of Pelican Landing Governance

This plan and the “negotiation” of this plan by one member of the board, “in the dark” without any input from or participation by the community is unprecedented in south Florida.  It would result in the ceding of control of all 9 members of the future board to commercial interests, including the Hyatt and the Timeshares and a future, annexed Raptor Bay.   These commercial interests have nothing to do with the day to day operation of our community and lie completely outside our gates.  However, with 220 block voted votes held by the Hyatt and Timeshares, and at least 200 block voted votes to be held by the units planned for Raptor Bay (which is defined to include far more property than the Raptor Bay golf course, including transient uses such as more timeshares – who will be using our boats to access our beach and probably using our amenities), and the exclusive control of community communications such as email by the entrenched board and management, there will be little opportunity for any independent voice on the board.

Because there is presently no independent voice on the board to protect the residents, and no discussion of any issues, including turnover, at the board meetings or otherwise, we have had secret documents recorded and secret actions taken that adversely affect the rights of all of us.  Included just in the past year are the execution and recording of documents that give away beach rights using our boats and our capacity limits to 200 units to be built in Raptor Bay, including units that include transient guests such as time share and hotel guests, that unilaterally remove the restriction against the sale of food and beverages at the beach despite the fact that we have yet to arrive at a satisfactory agreement with Hyatt, the execution of a security agreement with Securitas that is not, as proclaimed by management, a three year fixed price agreement; rather  it is a month to month agreement that provides for PLCA to pay (a) $1,550 per month per security vehicle (that  can be independently leased for about 20% of that  price) and (b) any increase in Securitas costs.  The PLCA board has ignored Hyatt’s booking of the beach park for special events in clear  violations of the zoning prohibition of commercial use of our beach park (only the very limited take out food is allowed by special exception) and its recent proposal to dump approx. 300,000 gallons of contaminated water onto PLCA land periodically from its proposed swim park.

The first “Town Meeting” regarding turnover will be held this Wednesday evening Nov. 4.  It will be strictly run and controlled by WCI.  All questions must be submitted in writing and will be subject to review and confiscation by WCI or our complicit board.

You may wonder if there is anything we can do to stop this unprecedented sellout to corporate interests.  Yes there is.  First, WCI has no right to take this action because turnover really took place and WCI legally lost its rights several years ago when the development of Pelican Landing exceeded 85%.  Second, WCI gave up significant governance rights in 2001 when faced with litigation by the residents, and this proposal would violate agreements reached at that time in several ways.  Third, this plan violates commitments that WCI made in writing on December 30, 2014 and verbally before and after that date.  It has continually promised not to make substantial changes in the documents that buyers have been relying on for over 20 years in purchasing in Pelican Landing, and would violate WCI’s promise that the new board would be resident only, resident elected.  Fourth, this agreement was “negotiated” by one person with a direct conflict of interest.  That person is an equity member of the Nest Golf Club and the plan includes a permanent seat on the new board to be held by The Nest and The Colony Golf Club.  This negotiation and agreement constitutes a direct conflict of interest.  He should have recused himself from this entire negotiation with WCI.  Fifth, financial commitments in a substantial amount have been made toward a legal defense fund.

If you are appalled at the sellout to WCI, you will have an opportunity to participate in the legal defense fund.

UOC Reports to PLCA Board / Aug & Sept

Following please find the links to reports made by the UOC to the PLCA Board for the months of August and September of 2015.  We will post these reports monthly.  Please note that the UOC has urged the PLCA Board to include a link to each entire UOC monthly report with attachments, including this month’s (September) refined proposal regarding election of directors by voting groups.

August 2015 UOC Report to the PLCA Board

September 2015 UOC Report to the PLCA Board

The inputs from the U.O.C. to the Board represented inputs of the property owners in their neighborhood so what better input is there?                              (posted by Ray Eiffler)

Chip, your incomplete quote is misleading since you neglected to include my specific reference to the UOC / Unit Owners Committee. The UOC is comprised of Voting Representatives chartered by our governing documents to communicate with their residents and cast the votes of their neighborhoods.The UOC has brought to light some very important issues facing this community. Anyone attending these meetings would see the Voting Representatives of our neighborhoods seeking information and answers to important concerns. Nonetheless, this board supported the Community Manager’s decision to boycott these meetings thereby withdrawing administrative support — the manager is not even there to respond to questions that may arise regarding her “Manager’s Report”. In the past, each Advisory Group reported directly to the UOC (including Finance) — no longer the case. Formerly the UOC’s Voting Representatives were included in major decisions — no longer the case.  The UOC should be voting on changes to the governing documents — the Board has skipped this step. Case in point: an October 2014 supplement to our governing documents was not brought before the UOC/Voting Representatives for a vote. Nor was it discussed or voted on by the PLCA Board during any noticed meeting. That document was signed outside of a meeting. This revealing supplement to our documents is not posted on the PLCA website, it was found via a search on the Lee County website. Perhaps you were unaware of these facts, otherwise I fear your label of my initial post as “confrontive” and ”angry” is simply an attempt to diminish the legitimacy of these facts.

chip wyser writes:
Re: “…the current board has made it abundantly clear they do not want resident input and they have made blatant efforts to squelch any resident input…” I have not seen or heard that from the Board directly. Certainly not at the Town Hall Meeting. I know they feel legally responsible responsible for the Turnover, and rightfully so, but most residents have not seen what you refer to with the confrontive, apparently angry remark above. (my understanding) The UOC has no real legal standing in the Turnover process and adding more lawyers to a problem with the expectation of getting a better result, in my experience has never been a good idea. Personally, I don’t think a 47 member Committee can be effective at anything. Respectful of your opinion though. My comments/replies/opinions expressed on this Blog are mine and mine only.