This Is our Village

Sunday, May 27, 2012

I have just read Florence M. Molinaro's letter to the editor in the Reporter. She writes that Mr. Waldman is "seeking rezoning to forever take away our golf course and our senior status and benefits" She is also rallying the faithful to get behind the Pro-Active Committee to sue for our rights to keep the golf course in perpetuity.
First of all it is not OUR golf course. It was sold years ago by the Levy's as it was becoming a losing proposition. I am in no way in favor of Mr. Waldman's high density village. I am also hoping that when Florence is rallying to sue she is also digging deeply into her own pocket to come up with the thousands and maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars for this law suit. As a condo owner I do not want anyone putting their hands in my pocket for a lawsuit. I think the Pro-Active Committee should start canvassing owners for money for this lawsuit now. I have heard people at the Delegate meetings complaining we cannot afford to pay about $4.50 per month for HBO and complain when needed repairs are done. I do not want my monthly maintenance going up to pay for lawyers.  We need our money to pay for village expenses and repairs.
As for taking away our senior status and benefits that will only happen as more associations allow under age people to move into their associations.


  1. Yes, Grace, you said it all. A few years ago we spent almost $700,000.00 for a frivolous lawsuit that was started by one of the potential destroyers of our village. Let's not repeat that mistake. We all worked too hard for our money, let's use it to better our lives, not destroy them. Let's keep our costs down by staying away from expensive lawsuits and using what we have to improve our already wonderful village.

  2. Nobody could have said it better than you, Grace. Thanks for putting it in writing. If more owners expressed their true feelings about the golf course (without those in favor of it causing a bruhaha each time someone in opposition talks), we would have a more open idea how many are for and opposed to it. I believe those in opposition of the golf course would then be able to get up at the meetings and say so.
    Thanks again Grace.

  3. bravo Grace - especially noting the assocs whose acceptance test is -does the check clear and is the potential buyer breathing rather than hanging tough and being discriminating and having UCO do the investigtion and instead of letting hysteria rule. I also have no loose change in my lint filled pocket for lawsuits.

  4. Hi Mollie,
    May 27, 2012 11:54 AM,

    Indeed, with all of these panic mongering charts being published, perhaps we need to go back into the records and publish a detailed chart showing how UCO exceeded the Delegate Assembly cap of $400K by $235K to pursue the ludicrous WPRF law suit.

    This despite the fact that Bob, when President, had signed an agreement with Mark Levy to abate over Three Million Dollars in Rent Credits to the Residents Reserve.

    Let's see that chart please Dorothy, perhaps George can help you find the numbers.

    Dave Israel

  5. Thank you all for an intelligent discussion of the highly inflammatory golf course issue. Good luck to those who want to fund a law suit with their personal funds--you are entitled to support any cause you choose.The rest of us wish you had used your considerable energies to negotiate with the developers to protect our security and other interests while you still had the chance. Now the political process will play out and some of you may fund a lawsuit if the October decision disappoints. The rest of us remember the failed clubhouse lawsuit that cost the Village hundreds od thousands of dollars. We don't want a repeat. We will not fund a lawsuit.

  6. I for one do not want to enter into legal action with Reflection Bay.
    A greater threat in my opinion is the several CV associations that are letting buyers in to CV that do not meet the senior requirements,thus putting our senior status at risk.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.