Why Aren't 30 Day Minimum Rentals Being Enforced?

The story of PH5 says it all…..

This story is not about the unit owner but the tenant. The managing agent shared that the owner wanted a long term tenant so that his unit would be properly cared for. According to the picture on the left, that is not what he got.

The tenant renting PH5 is Juventino Santillan. While he may be an owner and also a tenant - my issue with Juventino revolves around his role as a property manager. He appears to manage at least 15 units named on the lawsuit against the association. He rents PH5 despite owning several units of his own in the building. According to neighbors of PH5, this unit has constant ‘guest’ traffic every 3-4 days. PH5, it appears, has also been named as a petitioner to the aforementioned lawsuit without the unit owner’s awareness.

While the excessive ‘guest’ activity in PH5 was repeatedly reported to Ann Keenan, the GM of the Roney, it became clear management was selectively reporting units to the City of Miami Beach Code Enforcement, if at all, citing a purported lack of evidence of illegal overnight rental activity. The refrain from management was essentially a stalemate - they can't enforce without evidence and they can't get evidence without enforcement. As a result of management’s and the Board’s failure to take action to enforce the 30 day minimum rental rule, unit owners were forced to by-pass the management office and report violations directly to the city.

This process yielded immediate results. PH5 received a violation and a $1000 fine for engaging in illegal overnight rentals and operating without a BTR (Business tax receipt-). Long term rentals do not require a BTR so the unit owner does not have one. With this clear evidence of illegal rental activity against this tenant/property manager, Juventino Santillan, we were hopeful that management would finally take action. We asked about the protocol:

• Would management now stop issuing guest cards for PH5?

• Would they deactivate the four tenant cards issued for the unit, which are not in Juventino's name?

• Would they investigate other units Juventino represents?

• Would they prevent him from conducting business on this property for violating the rules?

The disturbing answer to all these questions was NO, as you can see from Ann's email. Evidence was never the issue, this Board, it seems, had no intention of enforcing our rules. The rotating illegal 'guest' activity continues to this day in this unit and in so many others. While Board member, Lynn Nunes, did say the Board would not renew Juventino’s lease, given that he was actively engaged in selling one of his units to Juventino (Unit 812) even this small concession seems unlikely.

PH5 illustrates how the Board's recent actions go beyond apathy when it comes to enforcing our rules - they appear to actively support transient rentals. Instead of imposing sanctions on Juventino as a property manager flouting the rules, the Board and Ann Keenan rallied to his defense. Everyone pretended PH5's violation didn't happen. Juventino claimed that he was being "harassed" without cause. Ann Keenan, immediately sent two letters to Code Enforcement stating that Juventino was being unfairly targeted by unit owners misusing the Miami Code Enforcement system for 'personal reasons' (i.e. asking management to enforce 30 day minimum rentals). But that's not all, Ann also sent a letter to the unit owner of PH5 negating the findings of Miami Beach Code Compliance and repeated complaints from fellow unit owners, claiming there was no evidence that PH5 was being misused by his tenant, Juventino Santillan. And what of Association counsel in all this? Instead of looking into PH5 being fraudulently listed as a petitioner in the lawsuit and ascertaining if other units may be also be fraudulently implicated, he took aim at the Roney Palace Confidential website. A website, mind you, whose sole purpose for existing is to impel the Board to enforce 30 day minimum rentals.

The pressing question is why did the Board go to such lengths to defend a property manager with a code violation who is also suing the association? Thankfully, Juventino himself reveals the answer - he is in a business relationship with at least one board member. I have been trying to expose the Board's business conflicts but have been rebuffed. Juventino, though, in his efforts to show how mistreated he was, threw Lynn Nunes under the bus. Units 905 and 812, which Juventino referenced in his complaint letter to Ann are affiliated with Board member, Lynn Nunes. Unit 905 was supsected to have been sublet by Juventino though the lease data has been withheld. And Lynn actually had just sold his Unit 812 to Juventino which also received a Code violation of its own for operating without a BTR..

Board members have been evasive regarding their rental business activities, yet the connection between at least one Board member and Juventino Santillan is undeniable. The lack of transparency surrounding these potential conflicts of interest raises serious concerns. It appears that the rule-abiding unit owners—the overwhelming majority—are neither protected by nor shielded from the self-dealing of these Board members or unscrupulous property managers. While their actions may not be illegal, as per Association Counsel, they are unquestionably unethical. We, the residents of the Roney, deserve better.

---