The Lakeside Pool Residents have overwhelmingly spoken. Will the ACSA finally listen?
MORE COMING.
COMING SOON – Control and Power prevail. The Residents will just have to wait.
The Lakeside Pool matter continues with controversy and frustration. The next Board Meeting in October, when, hopefully, the delayed September Soil Testing per the original timeline will be available, is when a Pool Area direction of remediation should be decided. The Soil Test results, for which the Residents have paid would expect to be available to them for review. Favorable results could be argued to re-open the Pool Area, withstanding a remediated Bath House, which is doable, per a licensed Building Contractor, who inspected the Bath House building. We know the submitted timetable for the Pool Area construction will extend longer than original timetable presented, e.g. the Soil Tests were to be done in September. The Pool Area’s actual construction is at least six months away. With favorable soil tests and the licensed opinion that the Bath House could be made safe for use, begs the question – Why not open the Pool Area until construction commences. I’m sure the Pool Neighborhoods would agree to several thousand dollars of Bath House temporary remediation, with County approval, to use the pool (which is in usable condition) for the next six plus months. HOWEVER, the ACSA says NO to this approach because of liability issues. Really? Which are?
Questions need to be answered.
- Where is the source of information that a choice for the pool is demolition as was presented at the last Board Meeting?
- If the source for demolition is the LSP Committee, then why would unlicensed and non-professional laymen, rather than licensed and professional Building or Pool Contractors, be depended upon for such a dramatic and expensive decision that would have enormous consequences to the three Pool neighborhoods? Remember, the engineering report did not mention demolishing the pool. A licensed Building Contractor, who toured the Pool Area with ACSA members, suggested that would not be the path for remediation of the pool, and that the Bath House could be temporarily made safe for the current working pool to be used again until construction begins.
- Why were licensed pool and building contractors not consulted before a decision was made by the LSP Committee to demolish the whole Pool Area?
- What are the liabilities issues at the Pool Area if the Bath House is temporarily remediated with County approval, per a licensed Florida Building Contractor?
- Why is the Pool Area deck and landscaping not being kept up, and making it appear abandoned? Is this a prelude to an intended demolition?
It appears that the current LSP Committee needs additional direction and additional participation to have it function properly and fairly with counter points of view. Its behavior certainly has become questionable, e.g. an initial lack of communication with the Pool Neighborhoods, unsupported decision making without licensed and professional advice, an unwillingness to work with previous LSP Committee members, who attempted to provide historic information explaining current pool conditions. Among its other actions, it appears to be Chairmen driven more by personal feelings, i.e. demolition, than that of community wants and needs.
Though efforts by the current LSP Committee have existed, these efforts were performed to veil, which appears to be an agenda and goal, to have the total Pool Area demolished, and replaced with a lesser Pool. This approach would diminish the value of the neighborhood units, i.e. increasing costs with a pool demolition, and the rebuilding of a pool, a pool which would be lesser than exists now. To increase the value of the units, the practical and cost effective approach is to mitigate any alleged pool matters, and rebuild the Bath House. This leaves a landmark pool, which would otherwise be demolished and be a huge expense to now duplicate with our country’s current inflationary infliction, to again serve the Pool Neighborhoods with its majestic manner.
Again, there is real time licensed and professional advice that states 1) there is no reason to demolish the pool, and 2) the Bath House, as it exists, can be remedied for safe usage, which would be approved by the county. The LSP Committee has no licensed Building or Pool Contractor support to demolish the pool, other than their non-professional and laymen opinions. They also have not suggested a temporary mitigation of the Bath House as a licensed Building Contractor has done.
The LSP Committee’s prejudicial actions with the Pool Area are now obvious. Remember the licensed engineering report did not recommend a pool demolition. Further, the Soil Tests will be important for the Pool, and all the Pool Neighborhoods should have access to this report, for which they paid. Hopefully, the report will not be construed to be other than what it states or recommends. There is a factual and corroborated explanation for why several of the pavers and the pool gutter were askew; however, the engineers at the time were not aware of this explanation. Therefore, there was an assumption of settling under the pavers and the pool, and soil tests were advised. The minor evidence of a few settling spots has been at the pool for years with no apparent change. I’ve used the pool for decades, I know. However, diligence with the soil test report is paramount for the Pool Neighborhoods to see.
This whole Pool Area matter becomes murkier with each step that the ACSA takes with it. Unfortunately, too, each step taken has resulted in more questions than answers. This could be considered playing with fire. The homes of the Pool Neighborhoods have found their home values in jeopardy and in decline by this “taking” of their Pool Area. The taking of the Pool Area has obviously caused financial injury to these Residents; they lost their premier amenity and asset. Direct remedial action to this dilemma is on the table and could be taken. What will the ACSA do as the bleeding continues? The folks want expedited answers and action.