COURTESY : St. Petersburg Times
Published August 1, 2003 
BY MICHAEL VAN SICKLER and DAVID KARP

NEW TAMPA - Technically, Heritage Isles is a gated community. 

Both entrances to the development have gates. One entrance even has a guard.

And the developer, Lennar Homes, advertises in brochures and on its Web page that Heritage Isles is a "gated golf course community."

But some owners of the 975 homes that have been built so far in Heritage Isles regard the gates as a lie.

The gates open automatically when a car approaches. The guard doesn't stop cars. The security system, it turns out, is rendered powerless because the gates are on public streets, and Florida law forbids blocking motorists from public streets.

"Lennar is selling this as a private country club," said James Dowswell, who moved in four months ago. "Everybody thought Lennar owned the streets. The whole thing is a misrepresentation."

In a 6-1 vote on Thursday, the Tampa City Council allowed Lennar to keep operating the gates like it has the past year. The gates still can't prevent drivers from entering. They must open automatically when a vehicle approaches, and guards can only wave at cars.

For all that, Lennar can still charge homeowners a pro-rated share of more than $110,000 a year for the guards and gates.

Amanda Munoz, who bought a home in October, is less than thrilled.

"It's so misleading," Munoz said. "You see a gate, you think it's there for a reason. What are we paying for? I think they just want to keep the gates up for show, so they can tell potential buyers it's a private community."

Munoz and Dowswell say they feel duped because Lennar sold them remote control gate openers at $25 each. Dowswell bought two. Munoz bought four. When Munoz tried to get her $100 back after she learned the gates opened anyway, Lennar wouldn't give her a refund, she said.

"I was a little upset about that," Munoz said.

Lennar officials did not return repeated phone calls. Neither did Lennar attorneys Donna Feldman or Mark Straley.

The agreement they hashed out with the city, allowing the gates to remain, didn't impress City Council member John Dingfelder, the lone dissenting vote Thursday. On principle, he said, the city should not let developers build gates on public roads.

The gatehouse did not pass "the smell test," he said.

"I have a real problem with gating and putting guardhouses on public roads," Dingfelder said. "It's public in front, the guardhouse is on public right-of-way, and there are public roads behind it."

He also questioned whether doing so would be legal under a state law that says no one can block a public right-of-way. Other council members grinned as Dingfelder raised his point.

Council member Shawn Harrison said the city had agreed years ago to the gatehouse when it annexed the development from unincorporated Hillsborough County.

The developers "have made great concessions," Harrison said. One of the gates will always remain open and won't stop anyone from driving through, he said. The gates are more for aesthetics, Harrison said.