TAMPOA Board Explains Its Position

A new letter from the TAMPOA Board sent to TAMPOA members on November 29, 2006 seeks to explain why it is suing the City, fighting for a gate on Southard Street, and won't change course despite significant member opposition to its actions. The letter was designed to reach TAMPOA members in advance of the Board meeting on December 3rd when the Board is expected to levy additional assessments on TAMPOA members to pay its lawyers (The Andersen Firm) and continue the litigation over Southard Street against the City. Here is the full (unedited) text of the letter. You be the judge.

The Truman Annex Master Property Owners’ Association, Inc.
201 Front Street, Suite 103 Key West, Florida 33040
305/296-0556 305/293-0251 facsimile www.tampoa.com

November 29, 2006

Dear Member:

It is important that your board communicate as much as possible to you and provide as much information as we can. Recently, there has been some disinformation about “gates” which should be corrected.

First of all, vehicular gates on Southard St. were called for in the 2000 contract which was negotiated between TAMPOA and the City. The City breached this contract. When we went to mediation in March these gates were again approved as part of that mediation. The City has again reneged. There were many compromises made but gates are in both documents because many residents want late night security. There is no reason that non-resident vehicles need to have open access to our streets in the middle of the night. Further, when the waterfront park is ultimately much more open, there is concern that non-residents might come in the back of Southard near Noah in the middle of the night. As has always been the practice, these gates would be wide open for unhindered transit from early morning until late evening (7 AM to 10 PM). Pedestrian gates at all entrances to the Annex would also be open to the public during the day. What primarily concerns the Navy is identification inspection. In fact, at mediation both representatives of the Navy approved gates. Commissioner Verge also supports this. We would strongly urge you to take all media publications with several grains of salt if not the entire shaker.

Regarding litigation costs, we have had to deal with unmitigated bad faith by the City. They breached the 2000 contract. They neglected to cure this breach despite assurances by officials at our annual meetings and several written communications by staff. They did not enact the mediated settlement that their own representatives approved in March. Extensive title research was required due to inadequate documentation by the developer and by slander of title accusations by City officials. Public demonstrations were carried out by public officials on our private property and one of our security staff was assaulted. Various pleadings and research have been necessitated by all of these events and have, in turn, generated significant legal costs. To be blunt, these costs have been caused by the City.

All of the above have presented difficult problems to the volunteer directors. Hard decisions have been made but we must look to the future. We must consider potential problems associated with unfettered waterfront development. Also, under our documents, we simply do not have the option of giving away common property (i.e., the streets). And finally, we can not be the cause of significant property devaluation to all members based on what we know to be the negative ramifications associated with loss of access control. Because of these factors, and because of our fiduciary responsibility as directors, legally enforcing our property and contract rights is our only option.

All of this is complicated, costly, prolonged and frustrating. We continue to be eager to hear your thoughts and chat with you. And as part of your thoughts, please remember, the board tried in 2000 but was met with default. We have tried at public meetings where there was much more heat than light. We have tried on more occasions than we can recount in direct discussions with all commissioners. We tried and succeeded in mediation but, again, the City defaulted. The City has forced us to defend our rights.

This is why we are where we are.


The Board of Directors