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 126.96.36.199 “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.