MANBOD Calling All ISP's

Here is a suggestion that has been made by more than one reader:  that this notice is somehow laying some groundwork for a "next step" in shoving mandatory service down the throats of Saddlebaggers and capturing subscriptions through a contract paid for by assessments.  The MANBOD wants the cover of FS720.309 and this has already been discussed elsewhere on the forum as unconstitutional (per attorney opinion).   This "faux bidding maneuver" might be a way of sidestepping the competitive bidding requirements of FS720.3055:



The entirety of FS720.3055 is posted on the forum elsewhere.

That makes some sense in light of past statements made by Kay c on CHUG and elsewhere.  Whatever you might think of K C, its owner does do its homework and knows where to look to build a case.  I would never underestimate K C's capacity to find loopholes to further its goals.  But, why are SLohA Board directors spending Owner money on K C's case by involving SLohA lawyers and Management Company?

In any case, being curious I looked up the current legislature arising from the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to see what new mission or goals, if any, had changed recently.  It appears that the Feds have ordered more research and reports and have continued (and expanded) programs and are continuing to fund deployment of telecommunications services into underserved rural areas.  However, the overall goal of this support appears to be to enhance economic opportunity and job creation.  Seems that getting a Grnt in Lake Wales would be a stretch; while underserved, does not seem to fall into the productive target areas ie education, agriculture and medicine. 

Notwithstanding that a possible intent might be to develop groundwork to support a Grnt or loan by demonstrating "underservice", it does not explain the close involvement of the Management company and Association as the recipients of inquiries for bidders.  This raises even more questions about the involvement of others in the affairs of K C N. 

It also would seem to be a hopeless activity to advertise for competitive bidders to come to hook up S-bag in light of recent history.   What service provider in their right corporate mind would want to trespass in a deed-restricted community to set up service to hostile owners, one of whom is getting ready to S u e the directors of the Association for permitting an unlawful breach of Covenant for permitting the current one to trespass?

This is an excerpt from the meeting audio spoken by then-BOD President KL at the Feb 2014 meeting discussing the internet on the ballot:


It is my opinion that this is stated intention is now coming to fruition and they are really soliciting bids (which of course, they will not get).   The MANBOD fully intends to shove this down every owner's throat in SLR and put it into next year's budget without benefit of voting or opinion.   They would not risk a third vote defeat.   They TOLD us they were going to do it--and I think that , Kay c and BOD have every intention of implementing this over the summer while most owners are off the property and there are no meetings. 

And speaking of meetings...we may have gotten to the point where the few meetings that are held (but not published on the Official Website) are but a necessary corporate ritual and are not intended to accomplish either the spirit or the letter of the law.  If I am correct in my opinion about shoving the internet fee burden on the owners (and it will likely be "bundled" in the budget so it is not "in your face"), then I think it is consistent and logical to think that owners have been completely dismissed from the process of governance in SLR and this group will carry on as they please until they are sued.

Oh..and the audio recording is on file with 2 owners if anyone would like to review it.  For FREE.  That was Feb 4, 2014.  Or, you could make a records request and send it certified mail, then be scheduled for a viewing of the videorecording at the office.

This is all part of the management company's plan to turn this retirement community into something it does NOT want to be.

Those on fixed incomes are going to be forced out of their homes because of this bulk services contract being shoved down owner's throats.

Just think about the fact that we had a $100/year decrease for two years--which was done to curry favor with residents. But wait, the BOD's said our budget requires that $100 per year per owner back, or else we would get hit with a special assessment.

So, now we are paying $500/qtr., but when they force their bulk services contract upon all owners in here, our quarterly fee could very well be in the range of around $700 or MORE!

I cannot emphasize enough as to why that can NOT happen, since at that point they will have begun to systematically weed out all lower income residents.

Some will not have a place to live any longer, and it will occur because of the greed of the owner of this internet business and the management company.

This will be a profitable thing for the internet owner and the management co., but many residents will suffer and they will not care who or how many they force out of their homes and foreclose on,.

Have we been told the status of this Ad for bulk services from the BOD yet?