I share Carl Hicks desire for community wide altruism, it is the utopian dream … but NOT at the cost of reverse discrimination. Such a “little break” will discriminate against the married, the younger (under 65) and anyone else not provided a entitlement. Such discrimination would probably be in violation of Florida Homeowner Association statutes and expose board members to legal liability. Further, his suggestion is but a short step to a “slippery slope” and it would not be inconceivable to be suggesting a break for people with small appetites or people who simply don’t like to dine out or do not like the restaurant décor … or whatever. How about a break for dieters?

I return to the simple fact that all our members made a free and informed choice (assuming they did a reasonable due diligence review of the Documents) to buy property in CG&CC and agreed to abide by all the rules. I personally find the restaurant minimum inconvenient but it would be difficult to believe that members who have the wherewithal to purchase and live here would find the minimum to be financially burdensome.

However, there is a vehicle available to change the status quo … exercise your voting rights and elect a representative to the board whose platform represents your views.

In the meantime let us all thank our WebMaster and support our right to freely offer our opinions with reasonable civility and intelligence.
W D HOSS