Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Added owners to get in on buyout

But it may shrink the cuts for Golden Lantern's homeowners in the developer's $1.25-million deal.

By ANNE LINDBERG
Published May 7, 2006

That's good news for the 25 to 30 mobile home owners who weren't in on a $1.25-million deal with the developer who wants to build high-end condominiums, apartments and a retail center on the property at 7950 Park Blvd. in the unincorporated county on the edge of Pinellas Park.

But it also means the amount promised to the 68 owners who agreed to settle months ago could be slashed.

Jenny Cocciardi, head of the Golden Lantern Homeowners Association, would not give out details of the new proposal Friday, saying, "We're doing some research before any decisions are made by the 68 people who are in the settlement.''

Cocciardi did not rule out the possibility of asking the developer, Triax, to up its settlement offer so the 68 who expected to get about $18,000 apiece would not be penalized by splitting the pot among more owners.

However, Clearwater attorney Tim Johnson, who represents Triax, indicated that the $1.25-million figure was firm. Any rumors that the developer had agreed to increase the offer are just that - rumors, he said.

"That offer was not made," Johnson said Friday.

The new proposal, Johnson said, is just like the old except it includes owners who were not members of the homeowners association when the original settlement was hammered out. The original deal was only open to homeowners association members.

Now any owner who holds the title to and occupies his home is eligible to participate if he is current on taxes and rent. Those who meet those qualifications and agree would share equally in the $1.25-million.

Johnson explained that the developer wanted to change the settlement to include the other homeowners: "We thought it was in the best interest of trying to get all these matters resolved."

Johnson said there was no hard deadline set for a decision.

But Candice King, one of the owners who was not part of the original settlement, said she was told Thursday that they had until Wednesday to decide.

King said she also was told the contractor might increase the settlement a bit.

King said she is unsure if she will take the offer. She and other owners who were not part of the original deal plan to meet Monday to discuss their options.

One association member, Charles Plancon, who turned down the original offer, said he plans to reject this opportunity as well. Plancon also denied rumors that he had reached a separate deal with Triax.

"I have not been approached by anyone representing the developer at any time," Plancon said.

Plancon said he is willing to negotiate provided a legitimate representative of Triax would make a "reasonable" offer that ensured that he was "compensated equitably for the time and effort I have invested as well as (for) what I value my home at."

Johnson, who is Plancon's cousin, agreed that no separate deal had been made.

"That is a rumor," Johnson said. "We haven't talked with him. I plan to talk to him at some point, but I can't tell you that there would ever be a separate deal with Charlie. That's not something that has appeal to my client."

The redevelopment of the Golden Lantern has been contentious from the beginning. But despite objections from Plancon and homeowners from a subdivision immediately to the east of the park, the County Commission last month granted zoning and land-use changes that would clear the way for the park to be razed. The state still must weigh in before the change is final.

Also complicating the deal are two lawsuits. Plancon filed one last month asking a judge to overturn the commission's decision, alleging the county had violated the law when it granted the rezoning.

The other was filed Thursday by Floridians Against Injustice to Residents of Mobile/Manufactured Homes, or FAIR, an activist group that seeks to protect the rights of mobile home owners in non-resident owned parks. Plancon and three other Golden Lantern owners who are also FAIR members are co-plaintiffs in that suit.

The suit seeks to overturn the Mobile Home Transition Program established last year by the county to provide temporary financial help to some mobile owners who would be displaced by redevelopment.

The suit alleges that the county attempted to pre-empt state law by creating the ordinance.

State law requires that "suitable and adequate" housing be available before a park can be razed and the mobile home owners be dispossessed. The county ordinance, claims the suit, attempts to substitute a temporary rent-assistance program for the state rule that requires a permanent solution.

Johnson said Friday his client has declined to intervene in Plancon's suit and "likely" will not intervene in the FAIR case.

Assistant county attorney Jim Bennett said the county believes Plancon's suit is "premature" because the law requires a final decision before such cases can be brought.

It is not final until the state rules, he said.

The county also disagrees with FAIR's interpretation of state law.

State law says the County Commission must decide if there is "suitable and adequate" housing but does not give any guidance. The commission, he said, has the right to adopt rules to give them guidance. That's what the transition ordinance does, he said.

[Last modified May 7, 2006, 09:57:32]