Speak Out For Coral Lake MHP
Send Us Your Comments
If you own a mobile or manufactured home and rent the land within the boundaries of the city of Coconut Creek, your home is at risk. Let your voice be heard all the way down at city hall. Use the feedback link below and we will publish your letter online.
If you wish to submit your story to this site, please feel free to do so. You do not have to be a mobile or manufactured home owner, however, mobile home eviction for change of land use is our main focus at this time. If you feel that your rights have been trampled, you can contact us below. Your name will not be used if you request. Please remember, any comment that uses profane or vulgar language will be ignored!
Robert, could you please post this on your web page:
The Forum published yesterday (08/18/05) stated I was one of the people suing the city. This is wrong. I was named in Aaron's law suit because he used some of my research on s723.083 and the relocation study. He did this with my permission and I do support Aaron's law suit in principal.
If anyone is interested in my report and what The Urban Group study said, I will gladly give copies to anyone who wants it. Since they are both 35 pages long, it is obviously impractical for Robert to publish them on this web page.
If any of you are interested in my comments on the Sunshine Law, First Amendment issues or s723.083, watch future editions of the Forum for my letter to the editor.
Jan Ellery Lot #141
Re: Lawsuit 08/10/2005
8:45 am today a schedule was agreed upon for the lawsuit.
It was determined this would be an "expedited" process which means everything will take place sooner rather then stretched out to later. All the lawyers agreed to this.
The park owner is now a party involved in the lawsuit.
The city, developer and park owner have until September 7th to present a written response to the lawsuit.
Legal Aid has until September 16th to present a written response to the city, developer and park owner's written response.
On October 14th 2005 Judge Robert Rosenberg, Broward 17th Circuit Court, 210 S.E. 6th St, Fort Lauderdale, will hear oral arguments on whether the lawsuit should proceed. He could render an opinion at this time (unlikely) toss it or allow the suit to continue.
There is no word on when the six month notice will come out or whether the notice's coming out will trigger a response from Legal Aid.
At this time there is nothing for people moving out of the park,
(business as usual) so make your decision accordingly.
Re: Now this is interesting . . .
The law firm representing the developer Wood Partners
rezoning our park is Greenberg Traurig the attorney handling the case is
Barbara A. Hall. Broward Legal Aid is
suing to overturn the rezoning, now here is where it gets weird
check this out [click here].
Re: Aaron's Lawsuit: Love it or hate it, we're stuck with it.
For the vast majority of us, we won't know whether to love or hate Aaron's Lawsuit until it's over.
Historically, according to FMO President Don Hazelton, there have been four past s723.083 lawsuits by homeowner associations to overturn mobile home park rezoning in Florida. These four previous lawsuits never made it into court, they were all settled prior in lieu of the state fund for between $6,000. and $9,000. per qualifying home.
We were already at $4,300. plus the state $1,375. or $2,750. to abandon and $3,000. or $6,000. to relocate the home, plus a free month lot rent. So we were already doing as well as the parks that had sued in the past and settled.
The attorney I spoke to wanted $50,000. (roughly $250. from each of 200 households) to take on the case and thought he could double our time from six months to a year and double our money from $1,375. to $2,750. per single wide and from $2,750. to $5,500. per double wide. He didn't see any chance of saving the park, though he would have taken it on if we had the money to keep the suits coming. If you consider our time as being extended from November 10th 2004 to now, we'd got ourselves better then double the original time and money without the agony of raising fifty grand.
So where are we today?
Legal Aid did file the lawsuit for Aaron. Our proposed fund of $4,300. per qualified household plus a month free lot rent did evaporate, only the state fund money remains.
In its place we have a lawsuit developed in secret without a single community meeting or vote, controlled by a single individual who will personally decide whether to settle for himself, or for all of us, or to continue the process until a court decides to invalidate the rezoning or not. Any one who takes Janet Riley up on the offer to join the suit automatically assumes responsibility for their share of court costs and legal fees if the city and developer win.
A careful reading of the lawsuit finds; no class action; no injunction to prevent our eviction; no demand for adequate payment for our homes. A careful reading also finds they didn't proof read the suit before filing it, no judge is going to like that. Odds of a win depends on a knowledgeable sympathetic judge taking our side. Most judges probably think we live in Winnebagos and can drive our homes to another mobile home park.
The only remedy requested is the rezoning be overturned.
There is nothing preventing the city from fixing their mistake and rezoning us again. Nothing in the language to add a third party ombudsman to the zoning proceedings to keep the city honest.
The good news is Palma Nova is now running out of lots, so the one place the city's "experts" said we could all go is rapidly filling up. Once the other parks close ahead of us, there will truly be no answer to s723.083 requiring facilities be available for our relocation.
Any honest attempt to review our situation under s723.083 would require the park not be rezoned, but we're not out of the woods yet. The park owner can still close the park and mass evict us. The park owner can sell the park to this or any developer and they can evict us. Either way, once the land is empty, no s723.083 to get in the way of rezoning.
The only protection would be the time necessary might cause the current developer to look for an easier kill elsewhere.
The park owner is currently not collecting enough rent to run the park and pay his note and the fines. Yes, the city continues to code fine us, ". . . in case the park doesn't close." Plus the city won't issue permits to bring in new homes, or make grants available to fix the place up because it is a business and we have no homeowner's association to make the request (even though we wouldn't get it).
If the developer walked away without taking a contractual bite out of the park owner, the city would still have to change its mind about getting rid of the park. Residents would become responsible for the code violations on their homes whether the park once allowed them or not. The city would likely condemn many of the older trailers in disrepair (the ones that got us called blighted in the first place). The park owner would have to replace the water system adding fire hydrants, sewers and upgrade the roads. The park owner would have to pull everything off the front line on Lyons road into the park and replace those homes and guard rails with sidewalks and landscaping like Winston Park has facing Lyons Road and fronting their lake.
Take a drive through Deerfield Lake MHP on the corner of Hillsboro Blvd. and Lyons, that manicured look is what we'd have to look like just to survive day by day. You might notice the city is doing the same to South Coconut Creek regular homes as they did to us, finding even a cracked driveway a sign of blight and a code fine.
We could all figure on paying another $100. to $150. per month lot rent to make up for the reduction in homes and the needed repairs. This would have to be voluntary as the law s723 only allows small percentage increases per year and we would be bypassing that to save our homes.
What are the odds of the city approving such a plan, allowing new homes and ending their malicious code fining? I wouldn't put money on it, but I would rather pay more then move.
It should be pointed out most residents would prefer the park remain, even those who would like to sell their home for more then the funds and/or settlement might pay. There are only a few who would show a profit over the value of their home and be glad to take the fund to escape a rotting trailer.
Like any population, we fit the typical bell curve we all wanted to be graded on at school. We have a handful of extremists at each edge who can't wait to leave and those who are trapped in the park by a situation or mortgage where they can't or won't leave. The rest of us lean more or less in one direction or the other, without a firm commitment to making either come to pass. We simply want to be left alone to enjoy our homes. This is why we were such easy meat for a take over, no community organization, no home owners association, no leaders who didn't take off.
What remains to be seen is whether we get the six month notice and if we do what Legal Aid will do as they'd have to put up a substantial bond to cover an injunction in case they lose. Who's watching our backs? What happens to us if Aaron abandons the suit? We would need someone with nothing to lose for the rest of their life prepared to jump in there and take the financial risk not to mention they can't collect any fund money until the suit is over even if we're kicked out sooner.
The park owner is caught between needing his rent until the notice and not wanting to pay people to leave if the rezoning might be overturned. The need to want cake and eat it too.
If this were class action we could threaten to bankrupt the company by putting our rent into escrow for the next six months, isn't this what Legal Aid is supposed to do for tenants?
We might get somewhat lucky depending on your point of view.
The park owner might ask for an extension on paying the fines
to see what the suit might bring and if it is settled before
money is spent on legal fees the fund might return all or in
part, or be a portion of a settlement. Personally I'd much
rather have 10 grand and a year to move then 7 grand and six
months. I just hate gambling a sure thing 7 grand to win 10
grand or 2.7 grand from the state or maybe nothing if our lease
simply does not get renewed in January. Too bad we never
had a chance or a choice . . .
Sorry I was unable to respond sooner. Please see the attached.
Anthony J. Karrat, Esq.
Dear Mr. Perkis
Legal Aid undertook the representation of Mr. Vantrease primarily to challenge the City of Coconut Creek interpretation of Statute 723.083.
We feel that this interpretation flies in the face of the statutory wording which requires determination that suitable alternative facilities are realistically available to the residents of the Coral Lake Mobile Home Park before the City approves changes in land use.
This is a far reaching issue with implications for all residents of mobile home parks. We are faced with serious lack of affordable housing in all of Florida but, most particularly, there in South Florida.
The City dangling of limited dollars before the residents of your park, to buy off your legitimate right to challenge the propriety of their actions, demonstrates a serious lack of concern for the park residents in favor of big money development and a higher property tax base.
It also reflects a refusal to deal with the seriousness of the threat posed by the lack of affordable housing.
It is not too late for the City and or developer to provide a meaningful amount of funds to each of the 180 families to make relocation feasible.
Alternative, of course, is to allow all of you to stay where you are and enforce the code requirements within the park and perhaps apply city for community development funds to improve the appearance of the park and surrounding areas.
It appears you are laying the blame at the feet of Legal Aid when it clearly belongs elsewhere.
Perhaps you should instead question your elected city officials about their motives and how they plan to realistically protect your interests and how they plan to keep you from becoming homeless if forced out of your mobile home park without adequate resources to relocate.
Mr. Karrat Esq.
Re: Bay Pines Mobile Home Park Homeowners Association: July 20, 2005
I am writing to bring a bit of good news regarding our ongoing battle to stop the sale of non-resident owned parks in Florida.
On June 28th, the Pinellas County Commissioners held a meeting to hear a rezoning proposal for Golden Lantern Mobile Park on Park Boulevard. Many residents of Golden Lantern attended the meeting and signed up to speak along with myself, representing my park, and Mike Rizzo representing Harbor Lights. I was there to show that it doesn't matter if it is a small dilapidated park, or a park with hundred thousand dollar mobiles, we are all in the same boat when it comes to the sale of non-resident owned parks in the State of Florida.
The commissioners listened intently to all who spoke, including the lawyers for the purchasers. Points were raised concerning increased traffic, flood plains, and the plight of the residents who find it impossible physically or financially to move. It was evident to the Commissioners that this is going to be a huge problem in the near future and one that needs to be addressed properly and in due time. They felt, in this case, traffic was not the issue as the proposal for housing was for basically the same amount of units. They have to look into the flood zone issue; but the most important issue to them was finding "comparable reasonable housing" for the people who are to be displaced. In Pinellas, this is a major issue.
The lawyers for the purchaser turned over figures for comparable housing, which the Commissioners would not just accept at face value. They stated they will be seriously looking into the housing issues, and need more time to investigate possible solutions for a situation that will grow larger and larger.
Right before the vote, the Commissioners warned the residents that they were not out of the woods, as "you do not have a perpetual lease", when your lease is up, it may not be renewed. AT THAT POINT . . . THE LAWYERS FOR THE PURCHASERS SPOKE UP AND STATED, "YES THEY DO". The Commissioners asked for clarification and was told IF YOU OWN YOUR MOBILE IN FLORIDA, BUT RENT YOUR LOT, THERE ARE ONLY 3 WAYS TO BE EVICTED - CHANGE OF USE OF LAND, NON-PAYMENT OF RENT, OR BREAKING PARK RULES.
After over three hours of listening to both sides, the Commissioners voted to deny without prejudice, the application for rezoning. This is a major victory in the rezoning wars that are just beginning to be fought, park by park, meeting by meeting.
I also had a meeting recently with Senator Dennis Jones of Seminole who chaired the Senate Committee for Regulated Industries. This is the committee that heard arguments the last Senate session on SB#2234, which was eventually tabled. He is well aware and definitely sympathetic to our plight. I feel he will be working with us in the future toward an amicable solution.
Please keep moving forward to try to get information into the media. Keep me informed of park closing, rezoning meetings, etc. We need to participate as a united front. TOGETHER WE CAN PROTECT OUR HOMES.
Sincerely, Leo Plenski, President, Bay Pines Mobile Homeowners Assoc.
P.S. PLEASE MAKE COPIES AND DISTRIBUTE TO YOUR RESIDENTS OR POST
WHERE THEY WILL READ THIS. THANK YOU.
The only report I can make is to advise that the Petition for Writ of Certiorari was filed on Monday, July 25, 2005 on behalf of Mr. Vantrease. We now await further court action.
Re: Lawsuit 12:20 pm 07/26/2005
Here's what we know. Aaron and his attorney Janet Riley did file the lawsuit late Monday afternoon July 26th. (we expect: Their purpose is to overturn the rezoning as there is no monetary remedy in this kind of suit.)
This means our fund and all fund money except for the pittance from the state has evaporated.
Our money and more will now go toward paying the legal bills of the city, park owner and developer to fight the lawsuit against the city.
It will take at least 90 days for the paperwork to appear before a judge to determine if it has merit.
Welcome to limbo.
It is 6 pm Monday. The meeting between Aaron's attorney Janet Riley and the Developer's attorney Barbara Hall did not conclude in any agreement. The time to file ended at 5 pm.
Unless Aaron or Janet Riley choose to tell us what they have
done, we won't know for a couple of days. Stay tuned. Robert
Please put this on your website:
I told you that the City had raised the issue of settling separately with Mr. Vantrease. He rejected that idea and authorized me to tell the City attorney that he would not appeal the rezoning decision if the relocation fund was raised to $15,000 per mobile home. I passed that on to the City attorney who was speaking to me on behalf of the developer and park owner.
I am still hopeful that we can resolve this. I did not speak with the developer's attorney because the City attorney said he was speaking to me on behalf of the developer's attorney. He is now contacting the developer's attorney and is trying to get an answer. Hopefully, he will get back to me.
If it is not resolved, I will file a Petition for Writ of Certiorari on Mr. Vantrease's behalf. We have a deadline of 30 days from the rezoning decision, June 23 to file the Petition. We are seeking to overturn the rezoning decision but not seeking monetary damages.
If any other park residents wish to be represented by Legal Aid on the same basis, please contact Legal Aid Service of Broward County, Inc. at 954 736-2400.
Re: More Jabber from Jan (ed: her title not mine ;-)
There is now much difference of opinion within the park on whether to sue or not. I obviously disagree with Robert on the law suit issue. However, I would like to ask both sides not to use threats or start stupid rumors. Some idiots are even insulting Robert's and Aaron's mothers! Let's try to act like adults.
Before the last city commission meeting, everyone was more or less heading in the same direction. To be fair, Robert did put in a lot of work in this web site and other issues.
When the city made the final vote for rezoning Robert declared the war was over and people should settle for the best deal they were offering. I won't speak for Robert, he can explain this position better then I can. Robert was not the one who decided what amount they are offering. He was not the one who came up with the threat to cancel the whole fund if someone sues. (ed: At the meeting I requested an amendment to the fund proposal removing that threat, they didn't go for it.)
I wish I could talk him out of being on the (special fund) committee. I still don't trust TUG. (ed: no trust, verify) I'm not going to fill out any of their forms or take any money from their fund. People keep asking me what I'm going to do. I plan to let my mortgage company take my place back and I'll deal with them. I'd rather borrow money from my family or credit cards to move than take any of the "fund" money. I'm sure some people think I'm crazy. I guess I'm a left over 1960's activist type. (ed: Sounds like refusing to get into the lifeboat to protest the ship sinking because it belongs to the ship owner.)
I still think the city violated s723.083 by voting for the rezoning. The issue should be brought to court or the statute changed. If Aaron is going to do this, more power to him. I hope he does bring it to court and get a ruling on it rather then settling. The only reason I didn't do this myself is because to bring something like this to trial would cost anywhere from $50 to $200 thousand dollars in legal fees. The state statute is vague and there is no previous cases on this. The makes any challenge much more difficult and expensive.
What makes me angry the most is the city attorney's threat to cancel the whole fund if someone sues. I think they did this to divide us and have us fighting against each other. Unfortunately, it has worked. The right to have an issue addressed in court is a constitutional right. As far as I'm concerned, this tactic the city is using illegally intimidates people from pursuing their legal rights. There is plenty of case law and state statutes to support my position. I am using my own money to have an attorney research this issue more.
I want to make one point clear. You can't sue or threaten Aaron or anyone else for taking legal action. You can't threaten me to stop writing letters to the newspapers or to take down my political message signs. Does anyone really want to get into a constitutional law battle? I will if I have to.
Everyone has to decide what they will do. People who moved into the park last year feel they may have a fraud case. As early as March 04 the attorney for the park stated in public records they had a potential buyer. The state statutes clearly indicates that the park owner or management has to give written notice to any perspective lessee about a change of land use. "A detailed description containing all information available to the mobile home park owner, including the time, manner and nature of any definite future plans which he or she has for future changes in the use of the land compromising the mobile home park or a portion there of." (s723.013(1). (ed: s723.013 is contingent upon the park not having a written prospectus, which our park does, unless a prospectus that has not been updated with the above information is no longer valid, interesting . . .)
s723.016 and 723.017 also prohibits false oral or written statements.
However, you can't collect money from the fund and sue the park owner at the same time. s723.0612(9) The fund agreement requires any receiving money to "execute a full release in favor of the parties and the board".
I can't tell anyone whether to sue or take the fund money. However, if you do decide to take the fund money, be careful about the information you give them. Ask a lot of questions and make sure you understand what you sign. Have an attorney review the paper work if you can afford to. As far as I'm concerned, TUG is acting in the owner's best interest, not ours.
Whatever side you are on , let's play fair. We've already been screwed over by the city, we don't need to do to each other.
Jan Ellery 07/17/2005
Re: To Rex Newman: Office of the Governor, Fl 07/16/2005
Thank you for offering to pass this on to a higher authority.
I had written the governor asking for a letter of support for the residents to the city of Coconut Creek Commissioners regarding the rezoning of the Coral Lake manufactured home land lease community. To ask either the rezoning to town houses and subsequent mass eviction not take place or the residents be paid fair market value for their homes as the city was using a developer to avoid their eminent domain responsibilities to the residents.
The Coral Lake Mobile Home Community was sandbagged by the city of Coconut Creek from start to finish, a good lesson for local owners of older housing who may find themselves facing eminent domain battles themselves in the near future.
Hard to believe a city would conspire with developers to do in their own residents. We were hit with everything from fake fines to our mail being withheld from commissioners so as not to unduly influence their judgment at the meetings.
We were confronted with questionable "experts" who didn't even know what was in the report they'd supposedly validated, yet residents who had studied the issues were found not credible, even when referring to the very report the city's "expert" said was valid. For example: The report found no two or three bedroom apartments in Broward until they applied three times our current rent, yet the city concluded there was ample replacement housing for park residents to relocate to.
The real problem is the lack of controlling legal authority when it comes to enforcing the laws protecting mobile home owners.
When a city plays fast and loose with s723, the mobile home statutes, there is no official or state agency to take them to task when the hearing is a sham. While the Department of Business and Professional Regulation will assist in problems between the park owner and residents, they claim to have no jurisdiction over provisions like s723.083 that demands the residents cannot be mass evicted unless there are suitable places for us relocate to. Because no agency enforces this law the city can simply go through the motions rather then do an honest study of local "affordable" housing.
The claim is always, the park owner owns the land and that has priority when it comes to changing the use of the land.
Ownership of land shouldn't entitle one to bring harm on other people, especially the ones invited to lease the land.
What we need is for mobile homes to be recognized by HUD as part of the nation's affordable housing inventory. If the governor really wanted to help us he would pass this message on to his brother who sits across from the secretary of housing at the meetings.
We need valid leases on leased land like Publix gets when they build on leased land, no one kicks them off to build townhouses because they get long term commercial leases. Yet when mobile home owners take on a fifteen year chattel mortgage sold to them by the park owner, it comes with a one year lease!
Millions of people in Florida live in mobile homes, we need some real protection like that afforded to commercial land lease customers with right of renewal, where the lease must be bought out at fair market value when the park is to close.
According to the official 1990 Republican Party of Florida Platform . . .
"THE REPUBLICAN PARTY OF FLORIDA: Favors reasonable measures to protect the property rights of mobile home owners."
Re: Planning And Zoning Meeting 07/13/2005
Attended the Coconut Creek Planning and Zoning meeting the evening of July 13th, 2005. As usual we were the only residents of the park, indeed of Coconut Creek, there besides the lawyers and Commissioners.
The park was on the agenda for plat approval, nothing you can do much about without hiring experts and lawyers to find fault with the building plan.
Learned the city attorney blocked our mail reaching the Planning and Zoning Commissioners so as not to unduly influence their decision at the June 8th meeting. I pointed out how the Commissioners had received materials from the city and developer prior to the meeting, that is somehow ok.
Asked if any of the five other mobile home parks in Coconut Creek are in the works for what's happening to us. Was told "no" we can move to those parks in relative safety.
The developer let it slip they plan to drain the lake. They were unable to explain why they needed to do this.
As fish can't leave it was apparent the fish and turtles will all be killed if the lake is drained. Some of the Commissioners questioned this, even asking if the other two lakes could be dug first and the fish channeled over.
The planning department kept assuring the Commissioners everything was normal and legal with approvals to drain or fill in lakes a matter of permits, fish are low priority not endangered, (as if any ecological survey of the park was really conducted, another fake survey) so no need to worry.
This is the city that allowed the Ted Thomas School to bulldoze the endangered gopher turtles, why worry.
It was a done deal anyway, the motion to approve the plat was passed on to the City Commissioners for final approval.
Robert Perkis #61 WebMaster 07/13/2005
Re: Where will they go? Margate & Coconut Creek Forum July 07, 2005.
I want to thank The Forum and Marisa Beyerl for the story about [Coral Lakes Mobile Home Park] community.
Unfortunately, on June 23, the final vote to rezone our park was made. Although technically, someone could file an appeal or suit challenging it, the city attorney came up with an underhanded tactic. If anyone files legal action, they will cancel the fund for everyone. If anyone dared to to it, some other residents would harass them or destroy their property. It may also put that individual and their family at risk of being physically harmed. One resident who has considered filing legal action has already received threats.
The vice mayor reminded us several times during the commission meeting we are "entitled to nothing" and this fund is a "favor." It feels like we are panhandlers the city and developer are tossing us some loose change.
They would not address the affordable housing issue and seemed glad they'll be rid of us. The justification of evicting us that is this is a business decision and will increase the tax base. Their solution to low income residents is to eliminate them.
Fortunately, I can relocate without any money from their charity "fund."
One of my neighbors was crying this afternoon, because she has no idea what will happen to her and her children. At this point, many of us will gladly leave Coconut Creek, because we are now persona no grata.
The War Is Over. We Lost!
The war is over. Now we have to make the best of the little time and money we have left to work with. Please visit the relocation page (on the right index column) for more information on the relocation process, funds and payments.
The web site will remain as it is the most part as a resource for other mobile home parks wanting information on fighting rezoning.
Robert Perkis #61 Web Master
Re: Jan's "Two Cents."
If your past week has been anything like mine, you probably have gotten very little sleep. On top of all the stress this rezoning has caused us, we still have work, take care of our families and do other daily responsibilities. My reaction ranges form disbelief to anger. It's still hard for me to imagine that the city officials are so heartless.
As most of you know, the city, developer and park owner are planning to set up a fund. This "fund" is in addition to what they are required to give by state law. However, there still are several catches to this fund. First, even if we get an extra five or six thousand dollars, most of us would still have a financial loss on abandoning or moving our homes. The second "catch" or condition is they will ask you to sign a release of rights in favor of Coral Lake, Wood Partners and the City of Coconut Creek.
I want to be sure everyone understands what this release means. You would give up your right to ever get any more financial compensation or bring any legal action against the City, Wood Partners or the owners of Coral Lake. We would have to give up what few legal rights we do have left.
The right to seek legal counsel and have issues addressed in a court is a very fundamental legal right. This is sometimes referred to as the right of "standing". The term "standing" comes from a tradition of British and Colonial law where a citizen had the right to literally stand in the front of the court and present their issue. State Statutes and case law consistently have supported this right. It also clearly states an individual can pursue this right and not be threatened or retaliated against for doing so.
As individuals we each have to decide if we will waive these rights for financial compensation under this fund. If someone decides to file a legal action in this case, they lose the right to compensation under this fund. The court may or may not allow this individual compensation depending on the ruling.
The city attorney threatened to cancel the entire fund if Aaron or anyone else exercises their right to have these issues addressed in court. This threat is deplorable, unethical and possibly illegal. This is a basic constitutional right protected by both state and federal law. Anyone threatening Aaron or interfering with his right to seek legal action would be violating his constitutional rights and the law. I know my stand on this may be unpopular, but this is what the law says. The city Attorney was the one that put Aaron in this position.
We each have to decide what we are going to do. I have decided I am not going to waive my rights and therefor will not accept any money out of this special "fund". I am doing this out of principal. However, I do understand many of you will have to take the funds out of financial need.
I still believe the city violated the relocation statute s723.083. If something is unavailable to you or beyond your financial means, it is obviously not suitable. The city's disregard of the affordable housing crisis is irresponsible.
I do believe the city's position can be challenged. If you follow the Vice Mayor's logic, their interpretation makes s723.083 useless. I really doubt the intention of the writers of this statute was to issue a blank check to rezone mobile home parks at will.
I also think many of these State Statutes need to be changed. If rezoning is done, we should be entitled to the full value of our homes or complete compensation for moving our homes and possession. There is a state senator willing to sponsor these changes. Even if they don't help us, I don't want anyone else to have to go through what we have.
The best thing we can probably do is wait to see what happens June 23rd. In the meantime, continue to write letters to the newspapers and city officials or help us get some media coverage. If you know anyone who lives in Coconut Creek who does not live in the park, ask them to please write, City Hall:: 4800 West Copans Road, Coconut Creek, Fl 33063 or call the City at 954-973-6770 to request the city protect us or compensate us honestly.
What they are doing to us is just plain wrong. Criminals on death row get better treatment. Defend your rights and continue to protest this mistreatment and injustice.
Re: Meetings June 8th and 9th.
Well it's all over and we did better then any park I know of in Florida that has been closed. Not enough, not near enough to pay for what our homes are worth, but maybe what we need to get into something else.
There won't be hard figures for days. It looks like we will get $900,000.00 plus the relocation fund money entitlement. Do the math.
The fund buys titles, my best advice at this point is do what you can to make sure you have a valid title(s) for your home free and clear. A law suit, it's a bird in the hand kinda thing, we could win more, break even or lose it all. More as I learn more.
Robert Perkis Web Master
Explore Coral LakeHome
Change of Use
The Urban Group