NEWS FLASH.. "Major SLohA Violation "!!

dick Tracy wrote:

No one KNOWS for an absolute certainty if SLohA is insured for the unpermitted tower structures. 

However, you have asked for this information at least 3 times and have received a "fuzzy" response that is not consistent with the terms of the insurance policies.   The policies DO NOT identify the tower structures as part of the Insured Premises.  (The policy does, however, specifically name all the individual sheds where recreational equipment is stored.)  The policy specifically EXCLUDES outdoor equipment such as antennas/dishes etc unless a special rider is purchased (which it was not).  Toneesha insists that the "umbrella policy"-- which is simply excess loss coverage over the underlying policies' limits-- covers this equipment, but the underlying policy clearly says NO COVERAGE.  When asked to point out specifically where in the "umbrella policy" these towers are covered independently from the underlying general liability policy, Toneesha does not answer.  

Three owners read the policies--ALL of them--and have not identified the existence of coverage of either the equipment or the premises liability.  Yet, we are being assessed Reserve $$ to repair and replace KCNet's equipment without any indemnification from KCNET or our own insurance carriers.  And Owners will likely ratify the budget Allocation to Reserves a 2nd time; thereby assuring the "adoption" of these illegal structures as part of "our" property for another year!  If a tower topples and injures/kills somebody at their storage shed, or walking in the bathhouse common area, or playing tennis or riding their golf cart to the Oaks area, the resulting multi-million dollar claim would bankrupt SLohA.

Board: if these towers WERE covered, why not just cite the provision in the policy and be done with it?

While this situation does not PROVE the non-existence of liability coverage, it strongly supports the fear that there is no credible evidence that SLohA is insured.  Efforts to get the true facts of this coverage have failed without explanation--- and that tells me SLohA is not covered.


Insofar as the unpermitted towers themselves, it is my understanding that new inquiries are being made with the state regarding Polk County's handling of this matter.   The citations were issued in Aug 2014 and the County is still sitting on this 1 1/2 years later.  WE owners get to hold our breath and hope nothing bad happens as a result of stab's unpermitted and possibly unsafe towers occupying our property--something bad that we will not be insured for while the county bleats out excuses saying how "complicated" engineering drawings are (Yes--AFTER THE FACT!) and how long the land mod took-which was a record bumrush of about 3 months (Notice May 2015, first hearing June 3 2015 and final Appeal Aug 5 2015).  BTW, is SLohA paying for a SECOND set of post-construction engineering "plans" on these towers? Legal fees? Post-Construction costs of fixing? The answer is probably "Yes" but it might require a records inspection to identify expenditures on the "invisible" SunTrust credit card. 

Polk County flat out colluded with Brnd/stab in capturing SLohA common property from 787 owners.  Remove the land mod scam from the mix and you still have at least a year that these citations have been active AGAINST SLohA without decisive and appropriate action taken by Code Enforcement who appear to have been marginalized by Land Development.  And, the County PLANS to waive fees and penalties!  Why is SLohA not being fined for these violations?  Would an ordinary citizen receive this kind of treatment? 

Remember, stab cleared HIS citation with his and Brnd's successful bid for the land modification to S-bag's Land Use Plan!   The way is now cleared for owners' towers for other internet service providers to come in and serve S-bag and now, owners can have their own businesses whose physical presence "proliferates outside their homes".  The county definition of a "home based occupation" has been opened up to permit the kind of outside equipment and contractor activity we see on Grayhackle and StoneFly.  Non-resident Owners can have a group home, assisted living facility or halfway house, lease out to a real estate broker for a real estate business, or set up a Sm all branch for Art for a golf cart/lawnmower repair business.  Just apply for a license with the county--the land use is already cleared and it is obvious that SLohA has no intention of enforcing the Covenants--dead or alive--against commercial activity.

I too wish we had a definitive answer but I think we DO have the answer... it's just not the one we want.