{"id":268,"date":"2026-09-09T02:40:23","date_gmt":"2026-09-09T02:40:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mysticpointe500owners.org\/?page_id=268"},"modified":"2026-09-09T03:13:40","modified_gmt":"2026-09-09T03:13:40","slug":"response-to-gary","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/mysticpointe500owners.org\/?page_id=268","title":{"rendered":"Response to Gary"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

September 8, 2026<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dear Neighbors,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I had not intended to respond to Gary Zahn\u2019s email, but because it was sent to a very large number of owners and contains numerous statements about me and the issues I have raised, I believe the community is entitled to a factual response.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Questioning decisions made by our Board is not an attack on the Board. Asking for records is not an attack on Management. And asking whether a particular expenditure is actually required is not an accusation that someone is \u201crunning amok with the cashbox.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I have never argued that necessary work should not be performed or that the Association should simply spend as little money as possible. My concern has consistently been much simpler: Are owners being given accurate information about what is required, what is recommended, what is being spent, and how those expenditures are documented?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Gary characterizes the questions I have raised as \u201cfalse flags,\u201d \u201cfake news,\u201d \u201cunfounded rumors,\u201d \u201cworthless claims,\u201d and an effort to \u201cmuddy waters.\u201d Those are strong words. But they do not answer the underlying questions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Best Roofing Payment<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Gary states that the $232,638 Best Roofing check was \u201cnever cashed and was returned to us,\u201d and suggests that this resolves the matter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It does not.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The issue I raised is not simply whether the check was ultimately negotiated by Best Roofing. The records raise questions about how this transaction was authorized, recorded, funded, and subsequently accounted for.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Among other things, the $232,638 check was issued after January 1, 2025\u2014the date on which the Association had established separate accounting for SIRS-related expenditures. Yet the accounting treatment of this transaction differs from the other Best Roofing SIRS payments we identified.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is also a contemporaneous communication from Board President Stewart Glass to Helen Martinez in which he specifically stated that the payment was not being made from reserves<\/strong>. At the same time, the bank account from which the payment was drawn was an account associated with the Association\u2019s prior reserve-accounting structure, when GL 300100 was the accepted code.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These are not rumors. They are facts appearing in Association records.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

None of this, by itself, proves that anyone misappropriated Association funds. I have never claimed that it does. What it demonstrates is that there are legitimate questions about the transaction that cannot be dismissed simply by saying that the check was never cashed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That is precisely why I requested the underlying records.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If the records ultimately establish that everything was properly handled, I will be the first to acknowledge it.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The History Involving Ms. Mimoun<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Gary also invokes former Board President Ms. Mimoun as an example of the supposedly long-standing philosophy of undertaking comprehensive work rather than addressing individual problems as they arise.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is considerably more history to that story.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

During Ms. Mimoun\u2019s presidency, Gary repeatedly expressed strong opposition to the scope of work being proposed. His stated objection was that the Engineer of Record, Mr. Taurinski, with Ms. Mimoun\u2019s support, was demanding work that went substantially beyond what was actually required as a result of the post-Surfside regulatory requirements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Among the examples repeatedly discussed at the time were replacement of balcony railings, elimination of shutters, and requirements for high-impact windows.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I am not bringing this up to revive an argument from four years ago. I bring it up because Gary has now presented that history to support the position of the current Board, while his position at the time was substantially different.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

People are certainly entitled to change their minds. But when the history of a former Board is being used to justify today\u2019s decisions, it should be presented accurately and in context.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is another important distinction here as well: what an engineer may recommend or consider necessary is not necessarily the same thing as what Florida law or the post-Surfside regulations actually require.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

That distinction has been at the center of many of the questions raised about our current project.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Necessary, Recommended and Mandatory Are Not Interchangeable<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Gary takes issue with our effort to distinguish between work that is mandatory<\/strong> and work that may be necessary, advisable, desirable, or aesthetically preferable.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

That distinction is not semantics.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When owners are told that work is \u201crequired,\u201d many reasonably understand that there is a law, regulation, violation, or certification requirement that makes the work mandatory.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Florida\u2019s post-Surfside requirements certainly impose important structural inspection and certification obligations. But that does not mean that every repair or improvement subsequently proposed by an engineer or Board is automatically a statutory requirement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Owners deserve to know which is which.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

That is particularly important when millions of dollars are involved.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Porte Coch\u00e8re<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Gary similarly characterizes our questions about the Porte Coch\u00e8re as an attempt to advocate for a cheap \u201cband-aid\u201d solution and dismissively states, \u201cWe are not Century Village. We are Mystic.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

That is not what we have said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We have made a much more straightforward point: before spending a fortune to replace the entire Porte Coch\u00e8re, why not look carefully at what other Mystic Pointe buildings have done?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

We specifically pointed to Buildings 100, 200, and 300.<\/strong> All three appear to retain their original Porte Coch\u00e8res, with nothing that appears to have been replaced or substantially altered. That is relevant information when evaluating whether complete replacement of ours is truly necessary.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Gary also suggests that the condition of the skylights is an obvious reason for replacement. Perhaps Gary looks up at the skylights every time he drives into our driveway. I never have, and I don\u2019t know anyone who has.<\/strong> The fact that something may be somewhat discolored or aesthetically dated does not, by itself, establish that replacing the entire structure is necessary.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And as for Gary\u2019s reference to Century Village: Century Village in Boca Raton is actually quite gorgeous.<\/strong> But that is beside the point. The issue isn\u2019t whether Tower 500 should look like Century Village or any other community. The issue is whether spending a fortune to replace the entire Porte Coch\u00e8re is the most prudent and cost-effective way to address the actual problems that have been identified.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Board is certainly entitled to conclude that full replacement is the better long-term choice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But \u201cwe believe replacement is better\u201d is different from \u201creplacement is required.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Those are two different propositions, and owners should not be asked to confuse them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Asking Questions Is Not the Problem<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Gary asks how much the Association has supposedly spent on legal fees and Castle\u2019s time responding to my records requests and questions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That is a legitimate question for the Association to answer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But the answer cannot reasonably be that owners should stop asking questions because answering them takes time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Association\u2019s records belong to the Association.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

When an owner asks to examine records concerning Association expenditures, contracts, payments, engineering decisions, or other matters affecting the building and its finances, the appropriate response is to provide the records and let the owner\u2014and ultimately the other owners\u2014evaluate them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And if my questions are wrong, the easiest way to establish that is not to attack me.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Show the documents.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

If a particular statement I have made is factually incorrect, identify the statement, provide the contrary record, and I will correct it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That is how disagreements about Association business should be resolved.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Making the Information Available to All Owners<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

There is also a practical reason for making this exchange available beyond this email distribution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Gary\u2019s email was sent to a large group, but it still does not necessarily reach every owner in Tower 500. To make sure that all owners\u2014not merely those included on a particular email chain\u2014have an opportunity to see both sides of this discussion<\/strong>, Gary\u2019s email, together with this response, will be posted on our bilingual website, mysticpointe500owners.org<\/strong>, under Documents \u2192 Communications to Owners<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The website was created for one simple purpose: to make information concerning our building more accessible to the owners who ultimately pay for and are affected by the decisions being made.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We are also continuing to expand the site\u2019s documentation. The Roof Project<\/strong> section is particularly extensive. There is so much material\u2014including the history of the project, financial records, contracts, engineering documents, and the questions they raise\u2014that it will take several more weeks to do the subject justice<\/strong>. We would rather take the time to present the documentation carefully and accurately than rush it online.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Our goal is not to tell owners what to think. It is to give them the information they need to think for themselves.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Finally, a Personal Observation<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

I have no objection whatsoever to Gary supporting the current Board. He is entitled to his views, just as every other owner is.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But supporting the Board does not make questions about Board decisions illegitimate. And disagreeing with the Board does not make an owner an enemy of the community.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I have spent considerable time reviewing contracts, financial records, engineering reports, invoices, correspondence, and other Association documents. I have made records requests because I believe owners should have access to the information necessary to understand how decisions affecting our homes and our money are being made.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Our website is simply an extension of that principle. We are not asking owners to agree with us. We are giving them another place to see the documents, the communications, and the arguments on all sides\u2014and to make up their own minds.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Others are free to reach different conclusions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What I do not believe helps our community is labeling fellow owners \u201cpot-stirrers,\u201d accusing them of spreading \u201cfake news,\u201d or dismissing legitimate questions as \u201cworthless claims.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Owners do not have to agree with me. They don\u2019t even have to like the questions I ask. But they deserve the opportunity to see the underlying facts and make up their own minds.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

That is all I have ever asked for.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Matthew Roth<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

September 8, 2026 Dear Neighbors, I had not intended to respond to Gary Zahn\u2019s email, but because it was sent to a very large number of owners and contains numerous statements about me and the issues I have raised, I believe the community is entitled to a factual response. Questioning decisions made by our Board […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-268","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mysticpointe500owners.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/268","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mysticpointe500owners.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mysticpointe500owners.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mysticpointe500owners.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mysticpointe500owners.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=268"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/mysticpointe500owners.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/268\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":274,"href":"https:\/\/mysticpointe500owners.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/268\/revisions\/274"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mysticpointe500owners.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=268"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}