RBC Response to WCI Letter on Weeks Fish Camp

We have asked the PLCA Board to share the following communication with the entire community which we remain hopeful they will do.  However, we think it important to promptly inform those of you who are supporting RBC’s effort to legally challenge WCI’s claim that it can unilaterally annex properties into PLCA with beach rights. Here is RBC ‘s response to the Board’s comments and interpretation regarding WCI’s letter. Click here to see the letters.  We hope that the the PLCA Board will send this out to all PLCA members.

April 5, 2016

Dear PLCA Members,

As the president of Residents For A Better Community (“RBC”), I want to thank the PLCA Board for allowing RBC to respond to the email recently sent to you by the PLCA Board.  The Board made certain statements regarding positions taken by RBC as well as comments on an attached letter from WCI regarding WCI’s right of first refusal for the Weeks Fish Camp (the “WCI Weeks Letter”). The PLCA email ends by stating that “hopefully this clears up some confusion and concerns by residents”.

It is the opinion of the RBC that neither the PLCA email nor the WCI Weeks Letter accurately sets forth the facts and both have made wrong conclusions regarding the facts. Below are the simple facts which RBC has been presenting to PLCA members.

1.    WCI has stated that it has certain rights to annex property into Pelican Landing and that these rights arise from Article VIII of the Restated Declaration. Complete text of Article VIII

2.    The PLCA Board, in Turnover #15, confirmed that WCI was unwilling to give up its claimed “annexation rights” under Article VIII.  The PLCA Board did not and will not challenge WCI’s annexation claims and in fact told PLCA residents that they “must accept these facts”.

3.    Article VIII provides, among other things, that WCI, as Declarant, can unilaterally annex any property into Pelican Landing, can give such annexation right to another developer and therefore WCI can transfer to another property owner the right of annexation.

4.    RBC has rejected the position of the PLCA Board that we must accept that WCI has these unilateral annexation rights and has commenced a lawsuit which asserts, among other things, that WCI has no such annexation rights based upon, among other things, written agreements that WCI previously entered into with PLCA, the interpretation of the provisions of such Article VIII as well as certain Florida Statutes.

5.    The WCI Weeks Letter does not state WCI has renounced its alleged annexation rights or in any way changed its position regarding Article VIII.

6.    With regard to the Weeks Fish Camp and any alleged confusion about any RBC statements, RBC has consistently merely repeated the statement made at the WCI Town Hall meetings by WCI’s representative which is that WCI has an “option” on the Weeks Fish Camp. In fact, the current president of PLCA also mentioned such an “option” at the” meet the candidates” meeting and at the last UOC meeting. I have repeatedly asked PLCA’s president and attorney for information regarding such “option” and was told they have no information.

7.    In connection with the WCI Weeks Letter, whether WCI (1) has or had a “right of first refusal” for all or part of Weeks, (2) has now cancelled such right, and/or (3) has or had an “option” regarding Weeks, any such right or option is totally irrelevant with respect to any of WCI’s claimed annexation rights for the Weeks Fish Camp into Pelican Landing.  This is so even if WCI has no direct or indirect ownership interest at all in the Weeks Fish Camp because WCI could claim that according to the provisions of Article VIII (if enforceable), WCI has the right to transfer such rights of annexation to another developer.

8.    With respect to PLCA Board’s unequivocal statement in its email that “[A]ny other developer that purchases and develops the property (i.e. the Weeks Fish Camp) will NOT have any right to annex into Pelican Landing” is misleading because, as set forth above, WCI can claim that it has the right to give (sell) such right to a developer of the Weeks Fish Camp if in fact the provisions of Article VIII were to be enforceable.

9.    Having the right to our private island Beach Park and the launches which take people to our beach is a valuable asset which WCI and any other developer would greatly desire.

10. Finally, RBC has never stated what, if any, interest WCI has in any of the Weeks Fish Camp; rather RBC has been trying to find out if there is any connection that WCI has with respect to the Weeks Property.

What, however, is VERY DISTURBING in connection with the Weeks Fish Camp is a document recently discovered by RBC. Click here to see document  This “Restrictive Covenant Agreement” was recorded in the Lee County land records on October 29, 2014 (this interestingly is about the same time as WCI’s annexation agreement with the City of Bonita Springs) and signed by Paul Erhardt for WCI and Larry McPherson, as president of PLCA (and witnessed by the PLCA general manager and notarized by the PLCA assistant manager). This document states that the 200 so-called beach rights given by PLCA to WCI in the marina transaction apply to the “Raptor Bay Properties” as described on Exhibit A.  Unbelievably, however, Exhibit A does not include only the Raptor Bay golf course property, but it also includes a map and description of the WEEKS FISH CAMP, thereby giving these Beach Park rights to the owner of the Weeks Fish Camp. Click here to see Weeks Fish Camp in Raptor Bay Property Covenant

RBC has no information as to why Weeks Fish Camp has been included by WCI as the beneficiary of part of the 200 beach rights or why the PLCA president would have signed such a document giving such rights. It should also be noted that RBC has not found any minutes of any PLCA Board meeting authorizing execution of this document AND this document is missing on the list of the governing documents on the PLCA website.

There should be no confusion.  Our Beach Park is a valuable asset for WCI and would be for any other developer, including that of the Weeks Fish Camp.  Further, make no mistake the PLCA Board will not stop WCI.  The ONLY group of residents that is standing up to fight WCI and preventing any annexation into PLCA (and the use of our Beach Park by outsiders) IS RBC.

PLEASE VISIT OUR WEBSTE AT pelicanlandingblog.com (or google Residents for a Better Community) and find out more about the RBC and how to contribute to our legal fund.

Thank you for taking the time to read my message and know that there is nothing confusing about the very real dispute with WCI.

Robert T. Loos, President of Residents For A Better Community Inc.

One thought on “RBC Response to WCI Letter on Weeks Fish Camp

  1. When is the PLCA Board going to actually read and understand the governing and other pertinent documents and Florida law, as well as hire a lawyer who is capable of helping them understand their fiduciary responsibility and legal liability for sitting and acting as an illegal board? If the board isn’t legitimate, are the directors even covered by PLCA’s E&O insurance, or will they have to hope their personal insurance covers them?

Comments are closed.