View Single Post
 
Old 01-23-2008, 03:30 AM
Villages Kahuna's Avatar
Villages Kahuna Villages Kahuna is offline
Sage
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Seventeen-year Villager
Posts: 3,892
Thanks: 16
Thanked 1,131 Times in 417 Posts
Default After Reading Various Postings Here And The Official Statement Of The POA...

...it appears that five Villages residents, Elaine Dreidame, Richard Lambrecht, William Garner, Joseph Gorman and Irving Yedwab, engaged a law firm to sue The Villages on the issue of the sale of amenity facilities and control of the amenities budget. These five residents were not elected to represent us, nor did they have any other official position except being officers or former officers of the POA. But the way the rule of law works in this country, these five people negotiated a settlement which ultimately will affect about 100,000 residents of The Villages.

Based on the breakdown of how much the attorneys representing these five residents were paid, it appears that they agreed to do the legal representation of the five plaintiffs on a contingent payment basis, ultimately earning a bit less than 10% of the total settlement agreed to by the five plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the developer of The Villages, an amount of $6,700,000. The lawyers were certainly highly motivated to succeed in the litigation, as they were paid a very handsome amount to do so. What a tremendous payday for the law firm of Anderson & Anderson. And they'll have another terrific payday when a settlement regarding the facilities south of 466 is negotiated.

More disturbing is the $300,000 in fees which the Court apparently approved as "incentive awards to the plaintiffs Class Representatives". The way I read this is that the five plaintiffs negotiated to get themselves paid $60,000 each for "representing" the rest of us by filing the lawsuit. I guess we can presume that these five will pay themselves another handsome payment when the facilities south of 466 become subject to negotiation.

One outcome of the settlement was positive indeed. The sale of the recreational facilities by the developer to the VCCDD apparently did not contain provisions and funding of a sinking fund to deal with major capital expenditures which will become necessary as the facilities age and ultimately need major rehabilitation or even replacement. For that outcome our five fellow residents should be complimented for their success. I won't even attempt to comment on how and why the developer of TV sold the facilities without addressing the issue of the need for a sinking fund. I simply don't know any of the details of the terms of that sale. Am I suspicious that the developer was trying to "pull a fast one" with the sale? Not really. I don't know enough of the details. Further, such a self-serving transaction would be almost totally out-of-character on the part of the developer. But I surely don't have an explanation of how it happened.

It's the other part of the settlement that has been agreed to that concerns me the most. The article in The Daily Sun seems quite clear when it reports that "...the settlement will create a resident-elected Amenity Authority Committee to assume operational control of the amenity facilities and expenditure of amenity fees."

So what have these five people accomplished for our community? It seems to me that the agreed-upon settlement clearly removes the authority and responsibility for the operation of all the recreational facilities in The Villages from the developer and places it in the hands of "a resident-elected Amenity Authority Committee". Who will these people be? How will we elect them? What level of experience or competence should be required of them? Will the Court decide all this for us? Will the Court permit the five plaintiffs to inject themselves into positions of authority over our recreational amenities?

If any of you have ever attended any of the Recreational Advisory Committee (RAC) meetings, you can observe the clear differences between the professional, experienced and thoughtful decisions made by the staff of the Recreation Department and the VCCDD and SLCDD and the often narrow and petty positions taken by the resident members of the RAC. The difference in professionalism and experience is dramatic. I believe that at least some members of the RAC are the plaintiffs in this lawsuit. If you've never attended a RAC meeting, I suggest you put them on your calendar. Satisfy yourselves as to the professionalism and competence of those who might be assuming control over running our amenities.

It will be very interesting to learn more facts from those of you who agree to post the contents of the "settlement letter" sent to residents north of 466 this week. I'd like to learn more. While this settlement may already be a done deal, I'd surely like to learn how we can gain assurance that our recreational amenities will be maintained and operated with the same level of professionalism as we have been accustomed to. I'm hopeful that I won't discover that five legal activists, acting on their own but with demonstrated pecuniary interests, have taken an action that might change the quality of the lifestyle that the other eventual 99,995 residents of The Villages have come to expect.
__________________
Politicians are like diapers--they should be changed frequently, and for the same reason.