At the meeting this morning of the Board of Directors of Regency Cove, two motions were passed which involve the seawall. A motion was presented to replace the seawall as per the recommendations of the consulting firm of Reuben Clarson. Several Directors took issue with the wording of that motion, and after a suggestion made by Ed Bedore, the wording was altered to read: To proceed with plans and actions to replace/repair the seawall as per the recommendations of......
With this rewording, the motion was unanimously passed.
The second motion was to hire Reuben Clarson to implement all aspects of the project: securing bids, advising the Board on the selection of a contractor, selecting materials, and overseeing the project. Two directors voted no (Sousa and Ross) the rest voted yes. He spoke for about 45 minutes, with a brief introduction of himself and the project, and later he answered questions asked by the residents. The questioning was stopped by the president, and several people complained about their inability to question him.
9 comments:
Yesterday's Board Meeting was very troubling to me, so troubling that I have been very depressed since that meeting. Yesterday was a very good lesson in why it is extremely important to do our very best in electing the most competent board members. I have always been of the opinion that a representative (board member) represents the desires and needs of the people who elected them. Yesterday we were clearly shown that most of our representatives were not the least interested in the desires and needs of their constituents. It pointed out all too clearly that most of the board members were concerned only about themselves and represented only the desires of Ellen Nimon. Why Mrs. Nimon is so compelled to force through the seawall motions most of us do not understand. Is there some reason that we are not aware of? I am very concerned that the cost of this project will force many of our residents to move away because they will not be able to afford the additional fee. This will raise the cost to the remaining residents thus forcing a few more people to move. I worry that as this process continues the cost will be so high that it won't be worth for anyone to remain in the park. There are investors waiting for this park to financially collapse. We would all love to see a beautiful new seawall if we could afford to go first class. However, since we do not have unlimited funds we will probably have to settle for less.
From anonymous #2....Would like to commend anonymous #1 for confirming growing sentiment in our community that the Board, for some reason, continues to ignore the voices of its association members. I'm dishearten by yesterdays example of the Boards callousness. The only bright part of yesterdays meeting was the fact that people have finally started to stand up to the Board. For many years now, no one seemed to have the backbone to do this. I find great pride in our association members for having the guts that were shown at that meeting. Hopefully the Board got the message, at least some of them.
What if there were prospective buyers and future residents at that meeting, who, because of the conduct of the Board, would have withdrawn any plans of ever buying or living here. If my wife and I had been a prospective buyer attending that meeting, we both agreed, we would not have considered residence here. Ellen Nimon's control has hurt and divided many people and the final result of her actions will be a significant number of residents giving up, causing massive disrepair of our park, as stated by anonymous #1; they will be unable to maintain their residents and few will consider at any cost, moving into Regency Cove. There is ultimate truth in the HAVE and HAVE-NOT scenario.
The backlash may come with many associate members making complaints to the State, resulting in possible Eminent Domain proceedings.
I would like to apologize to the readers of this blog for continuing my anonymity, because as we all know, retribution still exist. When the new Board is seated, hopefully, we as an association will co-exist in harmony and get to the business of improving the park as a whole. If we are unable to do this, our community will fail.
It is obvious that the rents in the park have beeen to low and our acconting has been flaw in setting aside money for this expense,Now the bills ae coming due and we must pay for the next generation to move in this park.The board has not assume their planning obligation to the shareholoders using social secutity accounting standards.For 3 years i have heard the park is in good shape-we need a new accounting firm that presents numbners that tell the truth and not to glorify the board in power.We are all resposible for this current mess-IMHO.
Seawall.....What you should know, there are 17 waterfront properties where no access by residents exist, these properties run along Sunset, Blvd. 8 and Pelican. No sidewalks exist and owners of these properties enjoy private backyars to the seawall. Do these owners get assessed like the rest of us? Great private property improvement for them!
To last anonymous:
Seawall, what everyone knows: When the property on the seawall goes up for sale, everyone has the opportunity to buy. Few people can afford the $100k extra on the purchase price.
Next comes the annual $2k real estate taxes paid every year. What are your taxes?
Let's talk about a storm, or a surge. Many of these houses are just 8 or 9 feet from the water's edge. Few of us in the park have the flood potential that these residences do. Rumor has it that the water has never entered anyone's home. Hope it stays that way.
Yeah, its a major improvement for those guys, but holy cow, they've paid dearly for it. They are entitled to protection of their home investment, just like everyone else.
I am trying to understand anonymous #3 comment about 17 properties with no sidewalk access. He/she seems to feel that being cut off from our walkers and joggers is a plus. My wife and I agree that we wouldn't trade our place on Canal for any other in the park. We really enjoy seeing walkers and joggers going by our window facing the water. We especially enjoy seeing the little pug being walked down the sidewalk! Nothing gives us more pleasure than being able to share our dock with others. We leave the light on at night to improve the fishing so as to make it more attractive. Sharing with others what we are fortunate to have, makes it much more fun. There may be some envy motivating the comments by #3. That is really too bad as envy can be a terrible thing. Envy can and does break up friendships, families and can even start wars. We chose to move to RC to downsize and be on the water. We were not trying to get away from children, pets or people as they add greatly to our lives.
Revision - Please use this one rather than the other one
Why we should repair sections of the seawall only when they are in imminent need rather than replace the entire seawall.
1. Borrowing 2 million dollars at 6.75% interest for 20 years would cost each shareholder $38 a month which would have to be added to maintenance fees. We would be paying $1,650,750 in interest over the life of the loan. – Reference: Yahoo real estate on internet.
2. The $2 million would not include our sidewalk which is in very poor condition, and would be an added expense.
3. Causing the maintenance fee to increase this much will severely impact the ability to sell units in the future.
4. If a storm destroys the park, either part or all, so you couldn’t live here you would still be liable for the loan payments.
5. We should not have to pay an engineer $50,000 to monitor the project. The contractor has that obligation and the city and state have inspectors to insure it is done correctly.
Pete Chambers, seems like you don't get it. What #3 was making a point about, has nothing to do with envy. Did you read the same thing I did? I think the point being made was that 350 or so residents will be helping to pay for those 17 residents that enjoy not having people walking by their homes like you do, because their property runs to the sea wall and no access by residents are allowed. This has nothing to do with how much they paid for those places or how much their taxes and/or insurance is, but it could be about how much their maintenance fee is and how much residents will have to spend on a sea wall to improve their property value. They evidently paid for privacy, and were well aware of flood possibilites. But enough of this nonsense.
Did you read about the 2400-foot-long sea wall they spent $5 million to re-do across the street at the old Imperial Yacht Basin 5000 W. Gandy Blvd. What was the price quoted by that engineer to do 6300-feet of sea wall for Regency Cove again????
Dont really want to comment on the seawall(except to say their is a lack of board members who dont live on the water-and that our bylaws say their should be a representations from ALL AREAS OF THE PARK-these dudes were ahead of their times) Just want to pass on to those that dont normaly file a yearly tax form on how to get the rebate for the seawall or a good bottle of Gin-for info go to www.irs.gov/irs/article/0,,id=179182,00.html you must file a form 1040 A.
Post a Comment