
08-04-2015, 06:18 PM
|
Sage
|
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 19,735
Thanks: 13
Thanked 6,101 Times in 2,710 Posts
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by NavyNJ
Yeah, I did find and re-read that article regarding CDD5 deciding to not prosecute. And although it did mention that Dist. Mgr. Tutt inquired with the local State Attorney's Office on the matter of deciding to pursue prosecution or not, it sounded like all that took place was a casual phone call, at best, about the matter. I don't believe the State Attorney has officially weighed in on this via any correspondence or other communication, which I would interpret as Ms. Tutt not having more than a "what if" type phone conversation with someone in that office.
The other point that I don't think has ever been very clearly established is who, exactly, is/are the "damaged parties" that would have a say in whether to prosecute or not?? Is it Ms. Tutt and the VCCDD, the SLCDD, the Projectwide Advisory Committee (who seems to have been paying the fines and remediation costs so far), CDD5 where the damage occurred, CDD's 5-10 who are sharing in the costs by decision of the PWAC? Or, is it the "Developer" in the form of VLSI (Vilalges of Lake-Sumter, Inc.)?
Seems like the check was made out to SLCDD. Be interesting to see how those funds are now re-allocated back to the Districts that have been assessed a share of the costs.
|
Oh my.........
__________________
The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it. George Orwell.
“Only truth and transparency can guarantee freedom”, John McCain
|