Monthly Archives: February 2021

Alternative Internet Services

Leave a reply

I hope you find the following useful.

Calyx Institute provides high-speed internet using T Mobile Network.
You will not have an account with T Mobile as the service is via Calyx membership.

I joined Calyx Institute on 2021-02-09 and paid $500 for the first year.
I received the Alcatel Linkzone 2 on 2021-02-15.
I am now using it for my home internet and finding it a huge improvement to CenturyLink.

It is a true Unlimited, No speed Throttling service for a great price. I researched and could not find anything that came close price wise.

The T Mobile signal strength on my lot is excellent, and one can use the hotspot anywhere on T Mobile network. If you get a decent T Mobile signal, this can be a good solution until Starlink becomes available in Indian Hammock.

Starlink will provide much faster speeds, cost $99 per month, and it seems to be the ultimate solution for our Internet Issue in Indian Hammock.

I  got on Starlink’s waiting list yesterday and expect to get the kit sometime in 2021 or 2022. In their Order Confirmation, Starlink advised: ”Starlink will begin offering service in your area beginning mid to late 2021. Orders will be fulfilled on a first-come, first-served basis. You will be notified via email prior to shipment, and you will be charged the remainder of your balance once your kit ships.“

David Etzion
Lot 246

The BOD’s Book of Rules and the “Rules for Fools.”

Leave a reply

Over the years, the various BOD managed to create some amusing “Rules for Fools.”
Here are the delusional Rule 1-1 and another four “Rules for Fools,” all in simple language so that we, the Foolish Owners, can understand them.

Rule 1-1 “The Club shall have exclusive responsibility and authority in the management and maintenance of the Property, including Common Areas “
The Owners do not have any say in their private lots; the Club’s BOD has the Exclusive Authority in the Owners Lots.

Rule 7.3.1.3 “Issuance of the keys and gate access cards are declared to be a privilege, not a right.”
Allowing an Owner to access his home when the gate is unattended is a privilege, not an Owner’s right; as this is a privilege, it can be taken away, and the Owner will need to wait until 7:00 AM to access Indian Hammock and get to his home.

11.1. “In accord with the Club’s Declaration of Restriction, Article X Section 3, the harvesting of palmetto berries on the Common Property is prohibited unless approved by the Board of Directors for the financial benefit of the Club.”
I could not find the “unless approved by the Board of Directors for the financial benefit of the Club.” In The Declaration of Restrictions Article X Section 3.

The Club’s BOD will wrongly interpret the Declaration of Restrictions to fit with its Agenda.
Anything forbidden by the Declaration of Restrictions can be allowed by the Club’s BOD if the BOD “thinks” it is for the financial benefit of the Club.
Just joking, but what about 50 stories condominium tower? It can be a tremendous financial benefit to the Club.

11.2. “Any member that wishes to have berries picked on their OWN property must be present and escort the pickers to and from the gate and notify the manager the date that this is happening. The member CANNOT allow pickers to go on their own to the property unattended.”
I agree the ”pickers” are a significant security risk, Yet I see them roaming on the common property with no BOD supervision.
Regarding berries picking, the Owners’ actions are security risks; the same actions by the BOD are not a security risk?

13.1 “Any animal requiring a Class I or II wildlife permit from Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, and animals defined in the Declaration of Restrictions of Indian Hammock (Article X, Section 1), will not be permitted in Indian Hammock.”
The Declaration of Restriction ARTICLE X.  Section 1.  Says:
“…No swine, goats, poultry or fowl shall be kept on any Residential Lot…”
In the last Annual Members Meeting, a motion to amend the same ARTICLE X.  Section 1. and allow “up to Five Chicken no Rooster” failed, as it did not get the required 200 Owners’ votes
Yet, with Rule 13.1, the Club’s BOD adds animals to the “not allowed” list, amending ARTICLE X.  Section 1.  Without obtaining the required 200 Owners’ votes!

One needs to be a SUPER FOOL not to see what is going on.
If it suits its Agenda, the BOD will issue a Rule, amending the Declaration of Restriction, on the fly, without 200 Owners’ votes. The 76% of owners’ wish to have chickens is not on the BOD Agenda, so “Foolish Owners” carry on committing a “crime” and hide your chickens.

Okeechobee County controls the issue of “animal requiring a Class I or II wildlife permit from Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission,” and I wonder what was the BOD Agenda when the BOD decided to insert Rule 13.1, illegally amending Article X, Section 1.

Calyx Institute a Great Internet Alternative to Century Link.

3 Replies

Calyx Institute is offering Unlimited 4G Internet using a special arrangement with T Mobile. One needs to join Calyx Institute at a Contributor level and pay $500 for the first year and after that $400 per year to get the Unlimited 4G Internet.

I spent the $500 and joined to test their service. On 2/16/2021, I got my Alcatel Linkzone 2 and started using it full time for my Internet connection.

I found the service to be superior to CenturyLink, with significant improvement in the Upload speed. I am getting better than 10 Mbps download and better than 3 Mbps upload. The Alcatel Linkzone 2 via Calyx Institute only operates on the 2.4GHZ and provides a real Unlimited  Internet without throttling down the speed.

I presume the speed may depend on the lot location; I use it on Lot 246 and get the maximum three dots signal strength. I placed the Alcatel Linkzone 2 in my living room and have no problem getting good coverage all over my home.

One can connect up to 16 users simultaneously to the Alcatel Linkzone 2.
All and all, I wish I knew earlier that such a service exists; for me, it is an excellent improvement, and I intend to use it until Starlink becomes available, hopefully in a year or two.

Thank you Tom Steinruck for pointing me in the right direction.

David Etzion
Lot 246

The Club’s BOD thinks it has the EXCLUSIVE Authority on the Owners’ Lots.

1 Reply

Earlier this month, I contacted the members of our BOD to discuss Rule 1-1. None of the seven BOD members came forward to support my “radical idea” that …The members have the exclusive responsibility and Authority in the management and maintenance of their lots and the club shall have exclusive responsibility and Authority in the management and maintenance of the Common Areas… should replace  Rule 1-1 …The club shall have exclusive responsibility and Authority in the management and maintenance of the Property, including Common Areas…

On the contrary, in her  February 9, 2021  email, the BOD’s President advised me as follow: …“You are proposing that Rule 1-1 be changed to “The members have the exclusive responsibility and authority in the management and maintenance of their lots and the club shall have exclusive responsibility and authority in the management and maintenance of the Common Areas”  You are correct that the Board can change the Rules. However if the rule was changed as you have proposed then it would not be consistent with the Declarations”…

The deafening silence of six BOD members and the President’s response represents the BOD’s wrong and illegal interpretation of the Declaration Of Restrictions.

Unfortunately, the Club’s BOD is under the delusional belief that they, the BOD and not the Owners, have the Exclusive Authority on the 299 residential lots. Or the BOD prefers the “power grab” its illegal interpretation, and Rule 1-1 will allow it. None of these two possibilities is acceptable, and no effort should be spared until Rule 1-1 is changed or removed.

Fellow Owners, your silence is an acceptance that the  BOD, not you, has Exclusive Authority on your lots. Join us in demanding that the BOD relinquish its illegal “power grab” as declared in  Rule 1-1

David Etzion

Lot 246

Rule 1-1 and Interpretations to the Declaration of Restrictions

2 Replies

The Declaration of Restrictions is the Club’s most important legal document.
When the BOD and Owners argue about the Declaration of Restrictions, each side presents his interpretation of the Declaration of Restrictions.

One must evaluate if any interpretation is illegal and in conflict with Federal or State law; an interpretation that conflicts with Federal or State laws cannot be considered.

I do not have a problem with the Declaration of Restrictions; I have a problem with the Club’s BOD illegal interpretation as presented in Rule 1-1 in the Book of Rules.

The BOD’s wrong interpretation of the Declaration of Restriction goes against Federal and State property laws and cannot be considered.

The Declaration of Restriction states:
“the Club was expressly created to have exclusive responsibility and authority in the management and maintenance of Indian Hammock Hunt and Riding Club (the “Property”),”

My interpretation is as follow:
When the Club was created in 1973, it held all the deeds to the Common Areas and the 299 numbered lots; therefore, this statement did not contradict any Federal or State laws.
Each time the Club sold one of the 299 numbered lots to an Owner, the Club also transferred the exclusive responsibility and authority to the Owner, the new holder of a Fee Simple deed to the lot.

Suppose the Declaration of Restrictions’ goal is for the Club to retain forever the exclusive responsibility and authority on the 299 numbered lots, as Rule 1-1 implies. In that case, the Declaration of Restrictions should have said, “the Club will have exclusive responsibility and authority in the management and maintenance of Indian Hammock Hunt and Riding Club (the “Property”).” and the Club will not be able to sell the numbered lots. The Club may be able to rent them to Members, and the Club could not transfer any of the deeds.

This Rule 1-1 is the most critical issue in IH; it represents BOD’s attitude that cannot be tolerated by Owners and must be speedily removed from the Book of Rules.

The BOD must consult its lawyer before brushing off the Owners’ interpretations; if this issue is not settled amicably, then an impartial legal firm should be obtained by the disputing Owners and the BOD. Not following this route will lead to Owners being forced to litigation, a painful and costly exercise for the Owners, not so much for the BOD members.

Fellow Owners, please let me know if you agree and ready to discuss our options.

David Etzion
Lot 246
Indian Hammock Owners’ Voice
https://IHMyHome.com
Indian Hammock Owners’ Rights
https://www.facebook.com/groups/188079885581793

OWNER vs. MEMBER and “Book of Rules” Rule 1-1

2 Replies

When one buys a lot in Indian Hammock, he becomes an OWNER. He holds a “Fee Simple” deed to his PROPERTY.

Each OWNER undertook to become a MEMBER in Indian Hammock Hunt and Ridding Club (the CLUB).

When an OWNER becomes a MEMBER in the CLUB, it makes him subject to the CLUB’s administrative rules and regulations; it also gives him RIGHTS in the CLUB’s PROPERTY, the COMMON AREAS
On the other hand, being a MEMBER in the CLUB does not give the CLUB any RIGHT in the OWNER’s PROPERTY.

Federal and State Property Laws protect the OWNER’S EXCLUSIVE authority in his PROPERTY.
The OWNER’s RIGHTS are only restricted by the County zoning and usage codes and the CLUB DEED’s RESTRICTIONS.

In December 2020, the CLUB’s BOD adopted Rule 1-1 in its Book of Rules, stating the following: “The club shall have exclusive responsibility and authority in the management and maintenance of the Property, including Common Areas”

Rule 1-1 transfers all of the OWNER’s RIGHTS in his PROPERTY, granting them to the CLUB’s BOD.

The following is the legal definitions of EXCLUSIVE:
“Shutting out; debarring from interference or participation; vested in one person alone. An exclusive right is one which only the grantee thereof can exercise, and from which all others are prohibited or shut out. A statute does not grant an “exclusive” privilege or franchise, unless it shuts out or excludes others from enjoying a similar privilege or franchise.”

I call on OWNERS to join me in motivating the BOD to immediately remove Rule 1-1 from the current Book of Rules.

David Etzion
Lot 246