RBC Responds to WCI Turnover Proposal to PLCA

To: The Board of Directors of the Pelican Landing Community Association, Inc.

Re: The PLCA Board’s May 12, 2016 Turnover Communication #19 supporting WCI’s turnover mandate

From: RESIDENTS FOR A BETTER COMMUNITY

The following correspondence, as sent to all Board members, was presented  by RBC spokesperson Dr. Craig at the PLCA BOARD MEETING, MAY, 18, 2016

As a Director of the Pelican Landing resident organization, Residents for a Better Community (RBC), I am responding to Turnover Communication #19 which the PLCA Board sent to all residents on May 12, 2016. In this Communication, the Board presented and supported the newest WCI-mandated post-turnover board design. Residents were informed by this Communication, sent after the vast majority of residents had already left for the summer, that WCI has filed official notice in the public record that it is proceeding with its so-called “voluntary” turnover and scheduling elections for this post-turnover Board for October 11, 2016 well before most residents will have returned south. Such “timing” does not pass even the most basic olfactory test of fairness.

The Board design that WCI is mandating, and that the PLCA Board has endorsed, does not meet the requirements of Chapter III, Section 3.3 (b) of the PLCA Declaration which requires that the post turnover Board be based on neighborhood voting groups unless 100% of the Voting Representatives agree to an alternative design.

More importantly, the provisions in the WCI proposal purporting to allow WCI to increase the Board size post-turnover and claiming that WCI has a “right to annex” property into PLCA violate Florida State Law (720.3075) and violate clear prohibitions of the 2001 Settlement Agreement (recorded as Amendment 75 to the Declaration) which state that Declarant may not make changes that would “materially adversely affect the rights granted” in the Settlement Agreement.

RBC wishes to put the PLCA Board on notice that it is now amending its legal case (RBC v. WCI) to include a challenge to WCI’s mandated turnover Board design and claimed rights to exercise “dead hand control” post turnover.

We wish to also assure PLCA owners that, with their continued support, RBC will press on in court. Failure to do so, would allow WCI to ignore its own documents and to violate state law intended to put restraints on developers post-turnover.

Abdication of this fight would be detrimental to the property rights of us all as promised to us when we purchased here. A promise memorialized in our documents: most especially in the Declaration and in the agreements set forth in that 2001 Settlement Agreement. In reality, virtually all conditions of legal turnover happened in 2001. That is all conditions but for one–WCI’s ability to continue to exercise dead hand control. Then, as now, this was contrary to existing Florida Law, harmful to PLCA owners and gave WCI over a decade and a half to exercise control without responsibility and in contravention of State Law. We cannot allow another “turnover” to be accomplished without insisting that the law and documents be followed!

The role of the PLCA Board is to represent the interests of the property owners of the Association. It is hard for me, and many others, to fathom how the Board imagines it is performing this fiduciary duty by publicly supporting WCI’s claim that it has unilateral annexation and amendment powers post turnover in light of the clarity of state law and the protections provided to PLCA owners in the 2001 Settlement Agreement. At least 3 of the members of this current Board have publicly stated, in my hearing, that they oppose annexation. None of you can hold onto that claim in light of Turnover Communication #19 that you sent to the community.

I would suggest that a far more useful strategy for this Board would have been to vote to support the RBC in its legal action to fight annexation rather than embrace what you profess to oppose. RBC would welcome your support in the future if, on further consideration, you truly do oppose annexation and dead hand control. To that end, I would suggest that the Board would be wise to seek a second independent legal opinion with regard to WCI’s latest efforts to continue its “dead hand’ control of Pelican Landing- a clear violation of Florida Law–much as the Bonita Springs Council is doing in regards to the Raptor Bay Towers issue.

Cordially yours,

Barbara Hinskon Craig, Director RBC
Robert Loos, President RBC
Bruce Finnie, V.P. RBC

2 thoughts on “RBC Responds to WCI Turnover Proposal to PLCA

  1. In last paragraph of May 18 post reference is made to-“much as Bonita Springs Council is
    doing in regards to Raptor Bay issue.” Please explain what this Council is doing?

  2. Thank you Barbara Craig for your response to the recent WCI and PLCA communications. We appreciate your representing the residents and agree with everything in your post. We also can’t believe that the PLCA Board would even entertain the thought of sending out WCI’s self serving communication. We have to ask if the PLCA Board is ever going to understand that they represent the residents? Not WCI! Not only does the PLCA Board not understand their role, the members of the Board seem to have no interest in finding out what we the residents think they should be doing to represent us and that they should be onside with RBC which is representing us so well and competently. Their confrontational behaviour with RBC and the residents who have taken the time and interest to understand our rights and WCI’s intent to ignore them should have them seeking their own legal cousel…and not at our expense!

    Respectfully Submitted,
    Catherine Newell

Comments are closed.