Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianL99
According the Newspaper (the name of which is not to be mentioned) article quoted in the original post, the CDD's did not "ask for this authority".
Apparently the Developer, on his own motion, met with legal counsel for CDD #4. The Supervisors were unaware of the meeting, until informed about it last week.
According to the Supervisors, such an undertaking would result in higher fees to residents, to pay for the legal costs incurred.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill14564
Looks like I need to do some digging. The article was not the first time I heard about this and I thought it involved a different CDD. When I find those details and source information I will post it.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by rustyp
-   |
In the March 8 minutes of the CDD4 board meeting at the 1:10:12 mark, there is a discussion of CDD4 assisting in the enforcement of internal deed restrictions. This was a follow-up on a request CDD4 made to the Developer. CD4 does not want to take over enforcement but wants to assist, particularly with complaints about children and businesses. There is a possibility that Florida Statute 190 may need to be amended to allow this. A meeting was set up for the following week (possibly 3/17?) with the Developer's attorney for further discussions.
CDD4 initiated the request. The meeting that was reported on was the follow-up meeting. CDD4 was not surprised and the Developer did not initiate.
I still believe I heard the same topic mentioned with another CDD but I doubt I will search the minutes to find it.
__________________
Why do people insist on making claims without looking them up first, do they really think no one will check? Proof by emphatic assertion rarely works.
Confirmation bias is real; I can find any number of articles that say so.
Victor, NY - Randallstown, MD - Yakima, WA - Stevensville, MD - Village of Hillsborough
|