THE LEDGER NEWS == "Wi-Fi Towers Get The OK "

I am S u e Tg, S-bag owner of 4 Stonefly Circle. I have closely followed this situation since 2010 and spoke in support of the Appeal at yesterday's hearing.

It is, of course, your job is to report (briefly) the facts of an event. I do not know if that extends to investigative reporting, which I suspect is a niche specialty of reporting. Nonetheless, I will direct your attention to what I believe is "story behind story" and one which has been developing for 6 yrs and is destroying our community. You may pass this along-or not-if you wish.

I wish to state your article repeated one quote that was apparently accepted at face value--one which has never been true i.e that there is no internet provided to people out here. Not true. There are currently 6 internet providers and a 7th (Brighthouse) is rumored to be offering service soon. The current equivalent competitor to KCNET is Highlander Data. Over the years (since 2010) the vulnerable senior owners have been repeatedly told that, without KCNET, they would not have internet. That is a self-serving lie.

The main players are an Owner-techno geek who came to Florida after serving almost two years of prison time for bank fraud in Iowa, and who still owes more then $15 million in restitution. Notwithstanding this background, the convicted felon was able to secure the cooperation of several Board members--the other main Players- to enable him to build 4 towers on HOA Owner-owned common properties overlooking tennis and swimming complex and in view from owners' backyards. More shockingly, the board members diverted owner assessments to pay for the building and maintenance of the towers. The Association was not indemnified by the Owner/builder for damages/injury for these unpermitted structures--all sited on common property without Owner consent. The business owner publicly claimed to have spent 8 million on this project so far (Iowa may be interested in that fact--which is audio-recorded).

Twice in the last 4 years, the Association board has sponsored ballot propositions (contrary to Bylaws) to owners proposing to bundle internet costs into mandatory assessments, despite the fact that most people already carried mobile wireless on smartphones or did not use or want internet service. These initiatives were rejected twice. The then-president vowed to do it anyway without owner approval--and then quit.

During this time, an owner hired an attorney to address the Association breach of its covenants which prohibit conduct of business within the park, and a mediation was held. It was planned to S u e the Association for return of diverted funds and restore our park to its previous beauty and quiet serenity by removing the ugly towers in our residential neighborhood.

One day an owner noticed a tower support pole/guy wire "leaning" and became concerned about safety and asked the county if the tower was secure, per permit. That is when it became known that the towers were not permitted-NONE of the tower structures had ever been permitted and that the aforementioned businesssman asked owners to believe that "he called the county who said permits were not needed". This Owner-Businessman was also cited for running a business from his home against Polk Home Occupation Code.

An engineer assessed the towers and described them as "dangerously overloaded" with antennas and dishes. Both the tower business owner and the association were issued multiple citations. The owners sighed a collective sigh of relief, thinking Polk County would intercede and remove the outrageous violation against our PUD land use and building codes and that a civil lawsuit could be averted.

Not so. Inexplicably, the County's posture appeared to be that the way to "get rid of the problem" was to expand the land use description which the towers had been illegally built upon-without permits- to incorporate this infrastructure on common property owned by over 750 people most of whom objected to the use of our leisure and recreational and neighborhood for tall steel towers. County approval of the PUD expansion would now allow the few sponsors of this business to apply retroactively for the permits and "make the problem go away".

The result is a matter of public record at yesterday's Appeal hearing. While your coverage is technically accurate in most important aspects, it lacks context and history and does not describe a long and vicious contentiousness and community divisiveness testified to yesterday and which may continue for years while the issue is churned internally and eventually reviewed in the courts.

This is the way many elderly retirees will see the remainder of their lives in their "slice of paradise" playing out. Many people are becoming sick and their kids are removing them from the property and putting the For Sale signs up.

Essentially, owners see this as an uncompensated "taking" of the use of their private common property by governmental entities--Polk County and the Association. Additionally, owners are forced to pay for these towers and insure them, without indemnification by the owner, who self-proclaims lease exclusive rights.

If you or an associate is interested in knowing more, here is a written history of this ongoing situation posted on an open community forum and (see link below discussing appeal denial)
Appeal Denied