[renielarson]

I am so sorry this is soooooo long, but I have to clear my brain....

DISCLAIMER: What is furthermore stated must be viewed with an open mind. I am not saying I agree with what I'm about to write but admit it's part of the jumbled up thoughts I'm trying to sort in my head right now. I'm opening these thoughts up for discussion with hopes of enlightenment from more learned TOTVers.

I believe in checks and balances. Doing extensive reading today about the CDD's has got me thinking. Right now the Central CDD's are tyrannical (by strict definition of the word) because they are controlled (owned?) by one person, the developer. The Central CDD owns all of the rec centers and all Executive golf courses and makes all decisions (without residential input) regarding these locations. Am I correct? Now, if I'm wrong, please educate me. Remember, I'm thinking out loud as I type so bear with me. Plus, I just read up on all this today so I'm a newbie trying to sort all this out.

The local residential CDD's are slowly being turned over to the residents as they are completed. The people who run these will be decided among the local residents residing within their local residential CDD? Am I correct?

I know we had no power with decision making regarding the CDD's, however, I think it would be a better idea to run them like our state governments with checks and balances. Let me explain. Local residential CDD's would be owned and run by people who live in their own local CDD (like the House of Representatives). They would represent the local residents only. The Central CDD's would be owned and run by anyone who lives in any Village within The Villages (like the Senate). They would represent ALL residents.

My brain says that local residential CDD's should be focused on the local residents while the Central CDD's should be focused on the good of all Villagers. Am I way out in left field?

Now, I also have to admit I've been thinking a lot about the POA. It definitely carries a negative image because it's trying to be a checks and balances organization. However, it appears to me from all my reading today, that perhaps the POA was backed into a corner because of the lack of cooperation from Mr. Schwartz at the get go that continues with Mr. Morse today. Do I need enlightenment with these thoughts? If so, I only ask that you be patient with me and explain with civility.

Please don't attack me...remember, I'm trying to sort all this out in my head and am asking for your help. I honestly think if I were Mr. Schwartz and Mr. Morse I would dig my heels in too if a group of people were going against a dream and a plan I had in mind. I know I don't take adversity very well myself when it comes to someone not agreeing with a "great" idea I'm sure I have.

Nevertheless, I keep thinking if only the POA would approach their issues differently. I think it was Peachie (but I could be wrong) who posted a while back about wording posts differently because it's not what we say but how we say it. Great words of advice not only for posters (me included) but the POA also. The POA could be a good voice for residents if only...

Ok, here my brain goes into mumble jumble again as I continue to think about the POA and the VHA. Both have residents' interests first and foremost. However, the POA coins itself as the "watchdog." The VHA coins itself as a facilitator of communications. Knowing I will be pounced upon although I hope not cause I'm really trying to sort this out, I must say that negativity stares me in the face with my initial reading of mission statements.

I think I'll stop here because I'm looking for your comments and views and anything else you want to say. I may have opened a can of worms and if so, let me apologize now.