A second-home buyer’s governance assessment of Continuum Club & Residences, distinguishing Florida’s electronic-voting framework from project-specific policies and identifying the documents that matter before purchase.
For a buyer who divides the year among several homes, the quality of condominium ownership depends partly on what happens while the residence is empty. Budgets, elections and shared-property decisions require attention even when an owner is elsewhere. At Continuum Club & Residences North Bay Village, governance belongs in the purchase review alongside the residence itself.
The essential distinction is between what Florida permits and what this association has adopted. Continuum’s voting vendor, electronic-voting resolution, proxy procedures and remote-meeting policy remain unconfirmed here. This is a buyer’s governance assessment, not a hands-on evaluation of an operating portal. The purchase standard should be documented capability-not an assumption that a new luxury building will make every ownership task effortless.
Continuum is a planned 32-story condominium tower at 1755 John F. Kennedy Causeway, also known as 79th Street Causeway, in North Bay Village. The development pairs The Continuum Company, led by Ian Bruce Eichner, with Aksoy Holding. Construction had commenced as of May 2025; that milestone does not establish completion or turnover to owner control.
Advertised figures put the residence count at 198 and starting prices around $1.7 million. Neither establishes current availability or binding pricing. For governance purposes, the more consequential questions are who controls the association at each stage and which policies are adopted, proposed or subject to change.
Request a dated document package that distinguishes current arrangements from intended future services. A buyer also considering Shoma Bay North Bay Village should apply the same documentary standard without assuming the two developments offer equivalent voting or meeting systems.
The 2025 edition of Florida Statutes §718.128 permits condominium elections and other unit-owner votes through an internet-based system when owners consent electronically or in writing and statutory requirements are satisfied. Electronic voting requires authorization by board resolution. Legal permission does not establish that Continuum has implemented it, and buyers should have counsel confirm any subsequent legal changes.
Start with the adopted resolution and owner-consent process. Then ask how the system authenticates owners, resolves access problems and provides assistance during a voting period. For an owner traveling internationally, the practical test is whether access and support arrangements fit the way that owner lives.
For board elections, the statutory framework requires ballot secrecy and integrity. Identifying information must be permanently separated from election ballots so that no ballot can be linked to a particular owner. Authentication and anonymity are complementary requirements: the system verifies eligibility without preserving an identity-to-ballot connection.
The framework also requires a way to confirm in advance that an owner’s electronic device can communicate with the voting system. Electronic votes must be stored and accessible to election officials for recount, inspection and review. Request device-testing instructions and ballot-retention procedures, not merely a demonstration of the interface.
An electronic voter counts as attending for purposes of establishing quorum. When electronic voting establishes quorum, substantive votes are restricted to issues specifically identified in the electronic vote. Neither provision establishes a separate right to join a board meeting by video.
Proxy handling warrants its own review. A digital voting system does not, by itself, explain who may act for an absent owner, which matters a proxy covers or how conflicting instructions are resolved. The electronic-voting statute discussed above should not be used to infer the separate legal rules governing proxies.
Request sample proxy forms and written procedures. Have counsel explain when a proxy is appropriate, what authority the form gives the holder and how an owner can revoke or replace instructions. Understand the document’s effect before relying on it from another time zone.
Duplicate submissions merit particular attention. Ask what happens if an owner submits more than one instruction or later participates through another permitted channel. Also request procedures for retaining and inspecting proxy records and addressing conflicts of interest involving proxy holders.
These are due-diligence questions, not confirmed Continuum safeguards. A persuasive response will identify the governing document or applicable procedure behind each answer. Convenience should never obscure the scope of authority an owner is being asked to delegate.
“Remote access” can describe several different experiences. Receiving a meeting link, listening to discussion, addressing the board and casting a valid vote are not interchangeable. A seasonal owner should establish which functions are available, and under what conditions, before treating remote participation as an ownership benefit.
Ask separately about directors’ and owners’ remote attendance. Request written explanations of meeting notices, access instructions, speaking arrangements and quorum treatment. Board meetings and membership meetings also require separate review; a policy for one should not be assumed to govern the other.
Practical questions matter, too. How are access credentials delivered? Who assists if a connection fails? Are supporting materials available before the meeting? These are service details to verify, not assertions about what Continuum currently provides.
The same distinction applies when evaluating Miami Beach alternatives such as Five Park Miami Beach. A project’s residential appeal should be assessed separately from its documented ability to support an owner who is away.
The broader Continuum Waterfront District concept, outlined in June 2025, encompasses a two-phase, mixed-use development spanning more than three acres along Biscayne Bay. That concept does not establish that a master association exists. Request confirmation of any additional association, shared-cost obligations and voting structure before assuming the condominium’s own board controls every relevant decision.
Carrying costs also require clarification. Advertised HOA charges of approximately $1.77 per square foot have no specified billing period here. Do not convert that figure into a monthly or annual budget without written confirmation.
Advertised rental terms allow rentals immediately after closing, with a minimum 90-day lease and up to three rentals annually. Verify those terms against the governing documents rather than treating them as guaranteed flexibility.
Continuum’s governance proposition remains a matter for document review, not a technology endorsement. Before committing, obtain the electronic-voting resolution if adopted, consent instructions, proxy forms, remote-meeting policies and any district-level cost and voting provisions. Distinguish binding terms from planned conveniences. For the second-home buyer, well-documented participation is part of the luxury of ownership: staying informed without needing to be continually present.
For a discreet perspective on South Florida second-home ownership, explore MILLION.
If branded residences are on your mind — as a home or as an allocation — we would be glad to share what we are seeing, privately.
Begin a quiet conversationIts voting vendor and adopted electronic-voting resolution are not established here. Buyers should request documentation rather than assume online voting is available.
The planned 32-story tower is at 1755 John F. Kennedy Causeway, also called 79th Street Causeway, in North Bay Village.
No. The May 2025 announcement that construction had commenced does not establish completion or turnover to owner control.
The 2025 edition of Florida Statutes §718.128 requires a board resolution, owner consent electronically or in writing, and compliance with statutory requirements. Counsel should confirm any subsequent changes.
The cited framework requires permanent separation of identifying information from board-election ballots so a specific ballot cannot be linked to a specific owner.
The cited framework requires a way for owners to confirm in advance that their devices can communicate with the electronic-voting system. Buyers should request the association’s testing instructions.
Under the cited framework, an electronic voter counts as attending for quorum purposes. When electronic voting establishes quorum, substantive votes are restricted to issues specifically identified in the electronic vote.
Request sample forms and written procedures covering scope, holders, revocation, duplicate submissions, retention, inspection and conflicts of interest. Have counsel explain their legal effect.
No such guarantee is established here. Buyers should separately verify owner and director attendance policies, speaking arrangements, notices and quorum treatment for board and membership meetings.
A mixed-use district does not establish that a master association exists. Buyers should request confirmation of any additional association, shared costs and voting structure.
