” And they lived happily ever after ” ~ or did they?

Published May 10, 2017 | By Tim Nargi

Don’t we all love a feel good story??

” And they lived happily ever after”    que the sappy feel good music 

Well do we ever learn if they really lived happily ever after??

lets pick up the story where it ended on nextdoor~

We were told that the agreement was to have Terrabrook drop their claim against the seawall assessment methodology in the 13th circuit court in exchange for us agreeing to put in a rip rap solution. The agreement also allows for an alternative solution (Foundation Masters or any other one) provided the alternative solution is no more than 15% more expensive than the rip rap solution.

Each party is still responsible for anything they were responsible for prior to the agreement being signed. So Terrabrook is still responsible for parcel 101 and the trees that have broken through the seawall. In fact we did not cede anything that had not already been approved by this Board. So we got Terrabrook to agree to drop their case if we agreed to do what we already said we would do.

Well wasn’t that a nice story??? (violins, harps)

Since most people never stay til the end of the credits, lets just skip ahead to the part where Paul Harvey might say, …Now Here’s The rest of the story……

By a vote of 4 -1 in all of 10 minutes in reading 3 lengthy legal documents the CDD agrees to all of Terrabrook/Newland commands in order for them to drop their lawsuit against the CDD,   but wait!!! is there not another lawsuit against the CDD?  is the CDD going to capitulate to their demands?, doubt it…so The CDD is willing to capitulate to a Corporate business over the residents;  Matthew 26:15 ?

But wait there is more;

Just because Terrabrook/Newland drops their  lawsuit , that does not end the lawsuit, it continues because Alidade is still suing (they were in it together!) , so if for some reason Alidade prevails, Terrabrook/Newland  still got what they wanted!!  Gee why was that left out?

But that’s not all,

  • The demand clearly tells the CDD must do it their way, it MUST be rip-rap and it must be using the Project # 300117702 date February 2017 , but wait is this not the drawing that calls for the rip-rap to be at a  2 to 1 slope that cannot Mathematically or Physically be done?  how much should one have to do to prove the principles of physics can not work with these drawings?
  • oh but they allow the Board to make any changes however they want for 250 feet!!!!  wow !! what a compromise over 35,000 feet (7 miles)!!!
  • they allow for a 15% wiggle room if the board finds something else that wont be rip-rap…..so basically they excluded anything that requires a new wall
  • we must NOT discriminate against the developer,  (layman’s terms, it matters not there is no house on their lots, it must be done equitably)
  • of course all their walls  must be done within 2 years.
  • they even tell us when and where the contractors must do their work.

And …

There is a default agreement clause too!!

oh joy!!, if the CDD defaults and does not remedy within 10 days, Newland  shall be entitled to pursue such remedies at law or in equity as may be available to the non-defaulting party under applicable law, including without limitation specific performance. In addition, in the event that either party seeks to enforce this Agreement by court proceedings or otherwise, then the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover all fees and costs incurred, including reasonable attorneys fees and costs for trial, alternative dispute resolution or appellate proceedings.

So why was none of this presented in the first story? B/C that story was the “they lived happily ever” version intended to make us all feel good…..

It could be surmised that this blog took one more than 10 minutes to read and digest, yet in that short 10 minutes at the meeting the other night;  The CDD  granted Newland irrevocable and enormous seawall repairs for millions of dollars doing it their way.   Newland now has the upper hand to sue us as well.

There was no reason to sign this agreement. Doing so was not a reasonable business practice. This is a negligent decision giving up and limiting the rights of the taxpayers in Mirabay.

~and there’s the rest of the story

Good Day……