News-Press Reporter Patricia Borns writes another very telling article … read on … it appears there is plenty more to be revealed.
News-Press reporter Patricia Borns recently wrote an article about the dramatic change of plans for Weeks Fish Camp. Hopefully she will help to peel back the onion and uncover and make public the truth of the matter in the Weeks Fish Camp debacle.
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.
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.
If you are appalled at the sellout to WCI, you will have an opportunity to participate in the legal defense fund.
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.
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.