Rule 1-1 Case – Update 2022-09-13

The Club’s lawyer submitted a Legal Opinion about my suggested change to Rule 1-1
You can find the complete document below.

The Legal Opinion declares, I quote:
“the Club has exclusive responsibility and authority for the management and maintenance of all the property within the Club, including the Residential Lots”
This opinion should be made known to all of the 299 lot owners, as I believe many of us think that we have a say in the management and maintenance of the lots we bought.

I disagree with the Club’s Legal Opinion and find fault with the points the Club’s lawyer raised in order to justify Rule 1-1.

These are my points and argument:

My proposed change does not limit the Club’s exclusive responsibility and authority for the common grounds. See the first sentence in my proposed change.

As for the Declaration of Restrictions Article III Section 1. 
My proposed change allows the Club the enforcement of the terms, conditions, and covenants related to the privately owned 299 lots, see in my proposed change “subject to the deed restrictions set up in the declaration of Restriction”

As for the Declaration of Restrictions Article III, Section 3.
My change removes the EXCLUSIVE from the Club’s authority on each of the 299 privately owned lots; REASONABLE authority is a different story.

As for the Club’s Bylaws Article IV, Section 1.
This section is about THE PROPERTY OF THE CLUB, being the common areas and any of the 299 lots still owned by the Club; it does not say THE PROPERTY OF THE CLUB and the RESIDENTIAL LOTS. See Article I General for some definitions.

As for the Bylaws Article IV Section 10.
I don’t see what it has to do with the proposed change.

The proposed change takes nothing from The Bylaws and the Article of Corporation.
The laws of the State of Florida (and the Federal laws) supersede the Club documents and any of the Club’s rules. The proposed change includes “subject to the deed restrictions set up in the declaration of Restriction”

As for the Bylaws Article IV, Section 10.
I agree that the Board of Directors shall manage the Affair of the Club, but not the Affair of the Owner.

I am not a lawyer, and I believe I got to the end of my ability to convince the Club to correct what is wrong in this matter.

I have sent all of the information to my lawyer and I am awaiting his advice.

Update 2022-08-30 Club’s Violation – Rule1-1

As of February 2021, I am arguing the issue of Owners’ Rights in Indian Hammock.
The best example of the Club encroaching on Owners’ Rights is the Club Rule 1-1 in its Book of Rules.

The Club insists it has exclusive authority in managing my lot 246, precisely as it has exclusive authority in managing Indian Hammock common ground.
I bought, paid for, and got a fee simple deed to my Lot 246 in Indian Hammock; yet another party claims it has the sole control in managing my Property.

The Club based its view on the Indian Hammock Declaration of restrictions, and
I argue that the Club’s interpretation of the relevant clause in the Declaration of restrictions is wrong.
If the Club’s interpretation is correct, this applicable clause in the Declaration of Restrictions contradicts real estate ownership law, making it invalid.

On 2022-08-24, I met with the Club’s President and the Club’s Manager; the same day, I submitted the following:

 Dear Tom and Bob,
In our Meeting today, I proposed changing Rule 1-1 to say:

“The Club shall have the exclusive responsibility and authority in the management and maintenance of the common ground for the benefit of all the members. Each member shall have the exclusive responsibility and authority in the management and maintenance of their lot, subject to the deed restrictions set up in the Declaration of Restrictions. The Club shall be managed and controlled by the Board. Only the Board can obligate the Club, and the President must sign all contracts.”

I explained my interpretation of the Declaration of Restrictions and why I think such a change in Rule 1-1 does not contradict the law of the land and the Declaration of Restrictions.

See also Rule 1-1 and my Interpretations to the Declaration of Restrictions (February 18, 2021)

I don’t have the legal expertise to produce a professional legal opinion about this issue, nor does the club board of directors.
As discussed, the Club will contact its lawyer and request a legal Report/Opinion about the issue. Such a report will be made known to all of the owners.
If the report supports my interpretation, Rule 1-1 will be voted on to be changed accordingly.
If the report supports the current Rule 1-1, stating that an owner has no say whatsoever in the management of his Property, then all efforts should be made to call a special member meeting and put this issue to vote.

Knowing that a change to the Declaration of Restriction requires 200 votes, the club lawyer should be consulted about doing the voting by mail or any way that will encourage high participation of owners.

As mentioned, I will be happy to meet with the Club’s lawyer to discuss.

Please confirm receiving. 

David Etzion
Lot 246

On 2022-08-25, The Club advised me that it forward my email to the Club’s lawyer.
I await the Club’s lawyer’s input within two weeks and will keep updating this page.

Indian Hammock Hunt and Riding Club’s Manager Office

About two years ago, I tried to get information and learn about the Indian Hammock Hunt and Riding Club’s (IH) Manager’s Office.

I could not find Work Descriptions for IH employees in the Manager’s Office.
I found a big folder containing many documents covering “Manager’s Responsibilities” and tasks, practically making the Manager responsible for “all that may happen in this world.”

IH Management Office can’t have one individual responsible for Legal Compliance and Law Enforcement, Managing the maintenance of IH facilities and Projects.
These two different tasks require individuals with different qualifications.

I am calling for a change in the Manager’s Office.

There should be two appointees:
1. Work Manager
2. Legal and Enforcement Manager

Work Manager
The Work Manager should have experience managing maintenance, construction, project, and accounting skills.
The Work Manager should manage the Facilities and Projects in the Common Areas, utilizing IH employees, equipment, and subcontractors.

Legal and Enforcement Manager
The Legal and Enforcement Manager should be an experienced lawyer specializing in Homeowners’ Association Law.
The Legal and Enforcement Manager should supervise the Club’s Board of Directors (BOD) and Members’ meetings and restrain BOD’s members from acting in contradiction to the Club’s documents.
Should ensure that claimed violation will be dealt with per the procedures in the Club’s Documents.
Should supervise that Club’s Rules and Committee’s SOP will align with the Club’s Declaration of Restrictions and By-Laws.

IH doesn’t have a Legal and Enforcement Manager, and IH Work Manager is not qualified to and cannot carry out the Legal and Enforcement tasks.

The Legal and Enforcement Manager should be “appointed by the people” (The Owners), not the “Local Government” (The Club’s BOD). He can be proposed by the Club’s BOD or any Owner but must be voted in and approved by the owners and can’t be dismissed or replaced by the Club’s BOD without the owners’ approval.

Unless done, the Club will accumulate more court cases and legal costs.

Indian Hammock Homeowners Group

The Indian Hammock Hunt and Riding Club, Inc (the Club) is a Florida corporation formed on December 20, 1973.
In 1973 the Club filed Three governing documents:

  1. Articles of Incorporation.
  2. Declaration of Restrictions. (Amended and restated later, on November 2, 1998)
  3. The By Law.

These three documents established a governing system (the System) for the operation and governing of the Club.
A Forth Document, The Book of Rules or Club Rules, appeared much later.
It was not created with legal expertise and was changed and rewritten at will by the Club’s various Board of Directors.

The System was created to govern members utilizing the Club amenities like Hunting, Horse riding, Shooting, and Flying small Airplanes. Those members were camping on the bought lots or in weekend retreat bungalows.
No one can purchase a lot or a home in Indian Hammock without joining the Club.

About a quarter of Indian Hammock’s 3,600 acres was sold to members. The Club owns the remaining three quarters, with an obligation to manage the common areas for the benefit of all the members.
The members have “Ownership” of the common areas and the right to use them via their memberships in the Club.

Things have changed in half a century; we are now primarily a Residential Community of Homeowners, many living in Indian Hammock full time.
The System is unsuitable for Homeowners living in Indian Hammock full-time or part-time.

Over the years, the System developed a Club’s lawless culture, creating injustices like:

I am calling for forming an Indian Hammock Homeowners Group (the Group), consisting of homeowners who are ready to work together to change the existing System while following and obeying the three documents of 1973.

Until the System is changed, the Group will finance obtaining legal advice and take legal actions whenever the Club acts illegally or unjustly.

T Mobile Home Internet & Calyx Institute – MiFi M2000

Speed test in Indian Hammock taken at the Lodge
Speed test at the Indian Hammock taken at the Office complex

I used the M2000 to test the internet speed in two locations in Indian Hammock

M2000 serve as a Hot Spot that can be used anywhere in the USA
This High-Speed Internet Service can be ordered online at:

This device is available at the Sustainer membership level.
The MiFi M2000 supports nearly all bands used by T-Mobile and Sprint and it utilizes the T-Mobile network.

For service at a fixed address in Indian Hammock, the T Mobile Home Internet can be ordered online

The Indian Hammock “Condo Commando”

I was one of the recipients of chain of emails sent today by Ashley Zito.
I want to share it with Indian Hammock owners.

Dear Sandy,

FYI: I am glad that you finally decided to read IH Declarations to see the definition of what constitutes “Family” and what family can access in the community of Indian Hammock. This is what Stephanie Barnes and others have been saying to you all along. For the last year, I have been told that I am not allowed at the stables when I show up to feed my own horse and have recently been told that I am not even allowed to come to a stable committee meeting. My family has been verbally harassed by one of Indian Hammock’s own board members regarding me not being able to operate a side by side in this community, despite the fact that my husband of 13 years and mother whom we currently reside with both own properties here. Not to mention, there are countless other family members of this community that have been utilizing Indian Hammock amenities for years before you and I ever moved here. I do not think I am alone in saying that more than just myself want family to enjoy amenities in Indian Hammock. The inception of this community centered on that very purpose. Your verbal and written threats to send us violation letters regarding us breaking the rules for me driving to the stables to feed my own horse, were completely uncalled for. You certainly owe me and my family an apology as we continue to advocate for fair and just treatment for all members and family that hope to continue to enjoy Indian Hammock. 


 Ashley Zito 

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Over the last few weeks I have had several questions/requests to allow family members (as defined in the Declarations and the rules) to go to the stable without being accompanied by the boarder. Most of the requests have been for adult children, but the Zitos would like for us to allow spouses also.
The SOP does not address family members at all. My proposal to you is to include a category for family members in the SOP. I am proposing that we allow adult family members who live with the boarder access to the stable to ride and care for their horses.
I have added the family category to the SOP that is attached to this email. See what you think. We can discuss it on Saturday.

In the Declarations, Article 1  – this is the definition of a family

(h) “Family” means a natural person, his or her spouse, the children,
grandchildren, parents and the grandparents of each and their spouses.

The rules further define family and what they can access.

1.6.12. “Family”; is what is defined in the Declarations of restrictions and living with the
owner/member and the owner/member has given written permission for Family to
use roads and certain amenities and/or activities.

From: “Sandy Steinruck” <>
To: “Joe Zito” <>
Cc: <>
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: Permission Granted for (Boarding Horse) “Galahad” Zito
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2021 12:26:25 -0700

Joe, I submitted the violation.

Talk to you soon,

Sandy Steinruck
Indian Hammock Hunt and Riding Club

— wrote:

From: “” <>
To: “IH Manager” <>, “Sandy Steinruck” <>
Subject: Subject: Re: Permission Granted for (Boarding Horse) “Galahad” Zito
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2021 05:41:35 -0700

Sandy,Based on the information that you shared with me at yesterdays board meeting you stated that the reason that you are not able to appoint me as a stables chair is because of the fact that my wife “Ashley” is in violation of the rules because she has been visiting the stables as a guest. If that is true and your sure of this I ask that you please file a formal complaint against us for this violation. That way we can resolve this and move on with it. If she is not in violation of the rules then I ask that you drop this issue entirely and appoint me as co-chair as you previous stated that you would at the close of our July 3rd stables meeting. This is really a simple issue and if you stand behind your words and decision now is the time to back it up. I eagerly await a prompt response back on this.

Joe ZitoBOD2021 

Joe, I am sorry if I hurt your feelings, as that was not my intention.Julio is very familiar with the horses and the stable and since we have had very few issues lately I think he will handle it just fine. As you recall I said I was concerned about having someone who did not live here and that was when you volunteered. Since I have gathered lots of information I think Julio will do fine, I don’t think we need co-chairs. There is not that much to do.

Unfortunately as you are aware we have this on-going issue with Ashley going to the stable as a guest. The rules clearly state that guests must be accompanied by a member at all times at the stable. I know you don’t like it. As a Board member it is our job to enforce the rules. Several people have had this same issue in the past. Each of them has fixed it by either being added to the deed or becoming a contractor with a license and insurance. Everyone else has followed the rules and several other stable boarders have complained about this, asking why she does not have to follow the rules. The answer is that she does have to follow the rules. We can not just change the rule because one member does not like it. It is the Committee Chair’s job to ensure others are following the rules. You can’t do that if your wife does not follow the rules.

I had the same issue with the Hunt Committee this year. The gentleman I wanted to chair the committee had cut a gate in the south fence line. Since he did not respect the rules I could not make him the chair person. How could he tell others to follow the rules when he was not following them?
Keep in mind that the role of the stable committee does not take much time and is very different than the role of the owner/manager of a stable. The owner/manager of a stable manages the employees and their work everyday. Our Stable Committee does not manage the employees or Bob. The employees do not work for the Stable Committee. I understand the confusion and several people have misunderstood the role of the Stable Committee. The Committee only makes recommendations regarding the horses and their quality of life. We don’t worry about how the employees do their jobs or what they do. That is Bob’s role. The stable committee is a group of boarders who can make recommendations to Bob and the Board on topics such as we discussed in the meeting on July 3. They look at items such as the facilities, communication, horse feed, fly spray, and how excess money is spent. They have no power, just lots of opinions relating to the health and safety of their horses. They also let Bob know if a boarder is not following the rules. In the last few years the Stable Committee has spent the excess stable funds from previous years and made several improvements at the stable. We added large pads in the west pastures to give the horses high spots to get out of the water, improved the drainage in the west pastures, planted 12 trees in the east pasture, provided shelter for the horses in all the pastures, added water and wash racks at the different barns, put concrete and mats in front of the tack room, put lights in the arena, put power and lights in the barns and bought hay for the last few years. This last year the Stable Committee recommended that the Hammock rebuild the paddocks at the horse hospital and at the east and west barns. At the last Finance Workshop I lobbied for the Arena, the fence around the north pasture and the bathroom in the Tack Room based upon the committee’s recommendations.

We don’t need co-chairs on the Stable committee, where we really need help is on the Equestrian Committee. That committee has a much larger role than the Stable committee. We talked about a Dressage ring – it would be the equestrian committee who would create that. We also need to increase the equestrian community involvement to encourage them to contribute money to pay for the arena improvement. The arena project will be led by an equestrian on the Equestrian Committee because it is for all equestrians not just the stable boarders. The Finance Committee offered $6000 via matching funds to purchase clay or other dirt to improve the footing in the arena.The employees with level and disc the arena for no additional cost. (That may change as we go through the approval process.) I think you offered to lead the effort at the meeting to define what needs to be done and to lead the fund raising. We need your help here and this is a better opportunity for you since you know something about arena footings and it gives you and opportunity to make a difference in the Hammock for all the equestrians. What do you think?

Sandy Steinruck
Indian Hammock Hunt and Riding Club

— wrote:

From: “” <>
To: “Sandy Steinruck” <>
Subject: Re: Permission Granted for (Boarding Horse) “Galahad” Zito
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2021 12:11:33 -0700

Sandy,Thank you for sending me that correction.Regarding the issue of non-boarders or Family members the SOP currently states that if Ashley adheres to one or any of the listed provisions stated in section #3. she has permission to care for our horse. It does not say that she has to obtain additional insurance. She is not an outsider and/or an additional liability to the hammock. She is a family member or in this case a “non boarder”. I’m not sure why this is such an issue? Maybe you can explain why my wife’s presence or her use of the stables is such an issue with you, Bob or anybody else?   Regarding your motion to remove me as co-chair,  I find this to be truly unprofessional, and utterly disrespectful. I personally show you and others the utmost respect regardless if I agree with your point of view or not. However, if I or somebody else doesn’t agree with your point of view or interpretation you are going to assert your authority and make changes to what was previously agreed to from our last meeting? I have been asked by many to Chair or Co-Chair this committee as I feel qualified and ready to help the stables to improve and to continue to approve in the upcoming months. I ask that you reconsider your motion to remove me as co-chair considering the way this has all played out. 
Joe ZitoBOD2021
— wrote:

From: “Sandy Steinruck” <>
To: “Sandy Steinruck” <>
Cc: <>, <>, <>
Subject: Re: Permission Granted for (Boarding Horse) “Galahad” Zito
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2021 17:12:22 -0700

Joe, In the Rules paragraph 2.3 states

2.3.All committee meetings shall be open to all Owners and/or permitted Family. Written minutes of each meeting shall be provided to the members of the Board monthly and kept on file at office. All actions of a Committee shall be done by recorded motion.

This means that Ashley is welcome to attend committee meetings even though she is not a member.

I apologize for the error.

Sandy Steinruck
Indian Hammock Hunt and Riding Club

— wrote:

From: “Sandy Steinruck” <>
To: “” <>
Cc: <>, <>
Subject: Re: Permission Granted for (Boarding Horse) “Galahad” Zito
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2021 12:59:02 -0700

Joe, i am sorry because you and I talked about this. It clearly says that no guest is allowed at the stable without a member accompanying them. The non-boarder statement does not contradict that. The non-boarder statement allows non-boarders to take care of other horses. It does not state that guests are allowed to take care of other horses.

This situation has occurred several times in the past. Joey Mohanna was added to George Abraham’s deed so she could keep horses at the stable and take care of them. Hilaire Hodgson and Katy Baker got their licenses and insurance so they could keep horses at the stable and take care of them. Eventually Katy’s name was added to the title on one of their lots. We have to be consistent and treat Ashley the same way we treated the other 3 ladies. Another option is for Ashley to get her license and insurance to care of horses at the stable.

Non-members are not allowed in any committee meetings or the board meetings. Because Ashley is not a member she is not invited to the stable committee meetings. The meeting we had a couple weeks ago was a meeting of the boarders and was not a committee meeting.

I am feeling much more comfortable with Juilio as the Stable Committee chair even though he is not a resident. At this point in time I don’t think we need a co-chair so Julio will be the Stable Committee Chair person. Thank you for volunteering.

Thank you,

Sandy Steinruck
Indian Hammock Hunt and Riding Club

— wrote:

From: “” <>
To: “IH Manager” <>, “Sandy Steinruck” <>
Subject: Re: Permission Granted for (Boarding Horse) “Galahad” Zito
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2021 07:04:33 -0700

Bob,I can see where it can be easily interpreted that any “non member” should not be given rights to the stables without written notice and supervision. However, Section 3 clearly states provisions for “non boarders” with any of the following qualifications (A,B,C,D) (ATTACHED)This SOP is poorly written, contradicts itself in places, and to be honest is not easily understood by many. That is why updating our current SOP is one of my agendas to clear things up to make all of our jobs easier moving forward. I hope this puts an end to any misunderstandings regarding my wife’s involvement at the stables for feeding and caring for our horses.

Joe ZitoBOD 2021 

— wrote:

From: IH Man;”””””””””””;’/ager <>
To:, Sandy Steinruck <>
Subject: Re: Permission Granted for (Boarding Horse) “Galahad” Zito
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2021 15:01:27 -0400

July 12, 2021Joe,On May 18th you sent to me a letter allowing your wife to care for your horses at the stables. After reviewing the stable sop, guests are not allowed in the stable area unless they are with a member border.
 The sop reads as follows, Under 1. b. All guests at the Indian Hammock stable and related equine facilities must have a signed liability release from the guest and written permission from the horse owner on file in the office. They must be accompanied by a Boarder at all times. Under 2.  .    The terms “visitor” and “guest” as used throughout these rules and procedures shall refer to anyone who is not a Member. 
The office has been trying to work with you and Ashley for some time now to have her put on the deed to approve her as a member. The last document we received from Ashley and Mrs. Sewell, was a warranty deed. This document looks to be filled out properly and all that needs to be done is to file it with the clerk of courts. Once that has been done we can then put her on the agenda for the board to approve her as a member. Until then unfortunately she is a guest/ family member. Stables, hunting, shooting sports are only allowed by members, and all guests must be accompanied by a boarder/member. 
If you have any questions or concerns please let me know.
Robert Baum,ManagerIndian Hammock Hunt & Riding Club, Inc.CAM41705

On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 12:17 PM <> wrote:
I, Joseph Zito,grant my wife, Ashley Zito, permission to care for our horse Galahad Zito at Indian Hammock Stables.Please keep this on file at the Indian Hammock Office for future reference.  Sincerely, Joseph Zito<Stable SOP V2 Updated July 2021.docx>

Alternative Internet Services

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.”

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 “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.

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.

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