Quote:
Originally Posted by redwitch
Sigh. First, a lawsuit being dismissed is absolutely irrelevant. Just because there is no LEGAL cause of action does not mean something unfair did not occur. The court gave plaintiffs three tries to get the complaint worded properly. Their attorney never succeeded. Complaints can be dismissed with or without prejudice for several reasons -- lack of jurisdiction, no cause of action, etc.
General Managers are usually selected by a board or committee, not elected. Their job is to take charge of daily issues, create and maintain a budget. They don't make policy, they enforce policy. So, Janet Tutt not being a TV resident is irrelevant. She does a good job given the constraints on her position. Frankly, I'd be more worried if her loyalties didn't lay with the developer.
As to who told the truth and who lied, I have no idea. I don't even have a real sense what the lawsuit was about and have no intention of reading the pleadings to find out. Normally, the truth lies somewhere between two opposing sides. They're both going to say what it takes to come across looking good.
This is a dead horse beaten up in the courts and behind the scenes long before anything was made public. (And I'm very pro POA.)
|
I copied redwitch's post because redwitch does well in highlighting the important issues much of what I agree.
The differences for me are that: we will never really know if there was something more that created the dismissal of this lawsuit but it clearly doesn't mean that the decision and the truth are one in the same. I do know that in the original amenity lawsuit that the POA filed, created a dilemma for them because they couldn't find an attorney who wanted to go against the Developer. Remember the Developer is the big dog in Sumter County.
Frankly I have always been worried that the District Manager's loyalties favor the Developer. I had come by that concern after reading the Notice of Proposed Issues submitted by the IRS explaining the transactions between the District and the Developer. Its one thing to work harmoniously with the Developer another to defer to their wishes. the District is suppose to protect the residents and hence can't serve both interests without creating a conflict
I certainly can be persuaded to view this concern otherwise as I always remain open.
The lawsuit in essence was about honoring a commitment/promise by the developer to all residents input into the decisions made south of 466 of which 100% of the cost plus profits will eventually inure to the Developer paid by us. In essence they use our money to build south of 466 will sell it back to us for a handsome profit
All of this discussion actually is a waste of time because the usual suspects will accuse those who simply ask the logical questions of why, how etc of being anti developer. We have witnessed how name calling ends discussion in our society so too does being called an anti-developer and we have witnessed repeatedly how any discussion about The Villages ends up about the Developer and not the real issue of the development and it future
I hold no malice toward the Developer (actually The Villages Lake-Sumter, Inc,) and in fact admire the work being done, nor am I pro POA for a number of reasons. However there is not one other entity in Sumter County that will speak up against The Villages of Lake-Sumter, Inc. and while I do view this entity as a
monarchy I do not view it as a benevolent one but simply a business one.
Simply stated in nine years I have never witnessed a discussion about The Villages that didn't end up like a scene out of the Hatfield and Mc Coys and that indeed is a sad situation because residents should be united in their concern for preserving our way of life and that can never happen until the name calling stops. The one real asset we have going for us is that the majority of the residents are decent fair minded people that makes all of this palatable. And perhaps the Hatfield McCoy comparison speaks to the issue of who is best to manage this creation?
Personal Best Regards: