The June newsletter, volume 1 issue 3, just came out and I am unhappy that misinformation is being spread by this management company.  In the "article" about " for sale" signs, it says that you must have a deed restriction sign because that is in our deed restrictions.  

What is a "deed restriction sign"?  Is that referring to Article 11, SIGNS? That says: "No sign of any kind shall be displayed to the public view on any lot except one professional sign of not more than one square foot, one sign of not more than five square feet advertising the property for sale or rent, or signs used by a builder to advertise the property during the construction and sales period, except that no sign of any kind may be placed on any vacant lot before January 1, 1972."  

This management company must be confused with the "deed restriction signs" mentioned in the bylaws.  These bylaws were voted on by only six people and have NO effect on the homeowners or their property.  Is this management company trying to bully us the same way that the Old Board was accustomed to doing?  (It would be nice if this management company could, actually read our deed restrictions before trying to enforce them.)

I am not quite sure what our President, Gary Lee, meant in his Message.  In effect did he say that we must all vote for the new amendments, or else the lawsuits will have to continue, thereby making it necessary to raise everyone's quarterly assessments, again?

I thought that it was clear to Mr. Lee that our deed restrictions ONLY allowed a $2/month assessment for the maintenance of the canals.  The Articles of Incorporation MAY say that the Corporation can fix assessments,  but that document must be read in the context of the deed restrictions.  Nowhere is the power to enforce the deed restrictions given to the Association - only to the developer (subdivider).

It is disturbing to see how every board falls into the trap of more money, more money.  They see our assessments as a bottomless supply of money that the board can use on any project they see fit.  The last board used the money to sue everyone in an attempt to bring them into compliance with one person's view of perfection.  (OK, I'm exaggerating about suing EVERYONE, because none of the board members were ever sued for anything!)  

This board's deepest desire is to beautify the neighborhood.  While I'm all for beautifying things, I think I could use the maintenance fees on my own property, better than what the board has in mind.  Let's examine where this money is going.

The board is planning on spending $40,000 + of your money on plantings, new signs, and grass cutting.  Unfortunately, they are cutting the county right of way along Palmetto, Hammock, and Keystone and they are cutting the county right of way behind Lexington Estates (this is the grass between the sidewalk and the road on all three roads).   They have suggested paying for irrigation on the median strip of Palmetto Park Road, so that the county would put in curbs.   Is this insane, or what?  Are they even aware of the fact that they are spending our money to maintain property that does NOT belong to us?

This Association owns no deeded property.  The small parcel on the corner of Hammock and Emperor is part of the canal system.  (The canals were dedicated to the Association for care and maintenance.)  So, how can they justify spending our money on "beautifying" property that is not ours?

This board wants to put cement around all the signs and is in the process right now of tearing up the shrubbery in front of the big sign.  At what public meeting was this voted on?  Furthermore, no known surveys have ever been done and if the signs and plantings are NOT found to be on the homeowners' land, WITH the homeowners' permission, then all the signs and plantings are ON THE COUNTY property, and subject to removal by the County. This is only one small way that your money is being spent.

Another way that your money is being spent foolishly is with the management company.  Don't like the violation letters?  Well, they're not going to go away, since we pay for the manager to go around spying on us, and we pay for the letters to be printed, "at cost" of $0.15 a copy, and we pay for postage.  The management company is in business to make money and they will find all sorts of ways to do it.  Right now we're looking at an estimated $57,000 fee for having them.  I am not very happy to pay for either of these major items. 

It seems to me that a radical change is needed to stop the "power trips" that these boards get hooked on.  I have a couple of suggestions, but that can be a topic of discussion for another time.

Last modified: June 13, 2001

Send in your comments! email webmaster@palmettopines.com

This website is for information only. Any information presented here will be accurate to the best of our abilities, but you should consult a lawyer for legal advice. The webmaster and hosting company disclaim any liability for the information contained herein, and will not be responsible for the use of said information. All Rights Reserved, Copyright 2001.