Forum 08/18/2005

THE FORUM Serving Margate and Coconut Creek August 18, 2005 * Vol. 16 No. 28

Lawsuit divides Coral Lake Park residents

Battle Centers around home relocation funds.

By Marisa Beyerl
Forum Staff Writer

COCONUT CREEK -- The once united residents of Coral Lake Mobile Home Park in Coconut Creek stuck together in recent commission meetings about the rezoning of the land their homes sit on, but they are now divided in a battle over funds to residents upon sale of the property.

FOR SALE: [Image of a mobile home caption] This mobile home in Coral Lake is for sale. It is one of hundreds that will have to move out when townhomes and condominiums are built on the site. But some residents have filed suit to try and stop the development. THe law suit may jeopardize funds the city of Coconut Creek agreed to give residents to help defray the cost to move, and that has divided residents.

The city of Coconut Creek offered residents $7,750 per lot to help them move and recoup costs, city documents show.

"We tried our best to help the residents," Mayor Marilyn Gerber said.

Gerber said she was taken aback when she heard about a suit against the city.

"I can't find words to describe it," she said. "I was surprised any attorney would take the case, but for some reason, they filed it."

One Coral Lake resident named in the suit does not want his name mentioned and would not comment for the story.

Because residents have chosen to pursue this matter legally, all the residents in the development could lose their money for moving, Gerber said.

"It's a shame that [the attorney] would do this on behalf of one resident," Gerber said. "The agreement that was drawn up is in danger of falling apart."

The agreement would give each mobile home owner about $7,000 more then they would have if they followed the state formula, she said. (Editors note: This $7,000 figure is wrong. $4,300 was what each mobile home owner would have received above what the state formula would pay. We wish we were getting $7,000 plus the state fund and even that isn't half the N.A.D.A. book value of many of the homes.)

City Attorney Paul Stuart was unavailable for comment, but Yvonne Lopez, a spokeswoman with Coconut Creek said a clause in the agreement allows the city to pull the plug on the better deal if any one resident sues.

"The terms of the agreement with the developer, city and builder (Editor's note: "builder" should be park owner.) had a clause that if anyone filed a suit, the agreement was null and void," she said.

Owner Haydee Arroyo said she was concerned with the all-or-nothing clause in the agreement.

"If even one person sues, the entire fund will be wiped out," she said. "And three people are suing." (Editor's note: Three people said they might sue, only one did. This article might be a rehash of old and new information.)

Resident Jan Ellery, one of three, residents filing suit, said she decided to stand up to the city and ensure what they are doing is legal. (editor's note: Jan Ellery has not sued, only one resident sued, as anyone who reads the lawsuit can clearly see.)

"I do support [the] lawsuit," Ellery said. "The city needs to be held accountable for their actions."

The results of this case could set an example for other mobile home parks in the future, she said.

"The outcome of this suit could deter other cities from closing mobile home parks." Ellery said. "This will set a precedent."

It was not known who the third party filing suit was at press time.

Freeston Gore, an eight-year resident at Coral Lake opposes the suit.

"I don't think it's a good idea to sue," he said.

"They want you out, so just get out. I agree with what they are paying me, and [I'll just] move out."

Florida State Statute 723.083 states adequate housing must be found for residents displaced by the closure of a mobile home park, Ellery said.

"Basically they didn't tell [us] about the state statute that states before they rezone there has to be other suitable facilities for the residents to relocate to," Ellery said.

Coconut Creek Director of Development Services Sheila Rose disagrees: "We posted a sign in October of 04 and updated it on May 25 of 05 and notice was give in newspapers," she said. (Editor's note: The signs and notice never mentioned 723.083 or how to assert our rights under this statute.)

Ellery and other residents filing suit are pursuing it because the statute should not be in effect if it only counts sometimes, Ellery said.

"If they don't enforce statutes protecting us, then they need to get it off the books," she said.

In the meantime, Gore knows what he plans to do.

"I might move to Tennessee." he said. [end]

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