[Goldwingnut]

Originally Posted by wisbad1

hope it does't sink like other brigde, if it does who pays?

Wow have to wonder where you're getting your misinformation from, obviously some rag website that tries to pass itself as news.

I'm going to go on the assumption that referring to the hyperbole and mis-information quoted elsewhere on the internet that says there is something wrong with the bridge that crosses Lake Sumter. Get the facts straight, there is nothing wrong with the bridge, there never has been. The issue that is being addressed is bank erosion on the island in the middle.

The island does not support the bridge and the bridge is in no danger even if the island were to go away. What is being proposed is that a revetment be installed (rock barrier to prevent erosion) to halt further damage. Why does it need to be repaired? Because a) there are utilities buried on the island that are being exposed and b) it is part of the community assets covered under interlocal government agreements that are required to be maintained at or better than their original conditions. Let me translate part b): the same idiots that are complaining about the money to be spent to maintain it would be the ones suing the government if no money was spent and the island was left to be reclaimed by the lake and they lost the little sunset park that exists there now.

The island is technically owned by CDD5 and is one of many hundreds of properties that are maintained under the Project Wide Fund (PWF). This PWF takes care of most of the common areas and infrastructure south of CR466 so that there is a consistency of the community, risks are shared, and savings are had by having the buying clout of one large contract instead of 10 smaller contracts for many of the services needed by all of the CDDs south of CR466.

You really want to see where the PWF pays off, look north of CR466. The CDDs north of 466 decided years ago not to have a common entity to maintain the common area properties. CDD4 is now looking at a half million dollar bill to cover costs associated with a sink hole and the residents of the district are looking at a 20% maintenance assessment increase because of these costs. They decided to go it alone, now they alone get to pay for their issues. IF the same thing were to happen south of CR466 then the 10 districts that make up the area would all carry a proportionate share of the risk and costs.

I know, there are those that say the developer should pay for both of these, it's all their fault. Let's look at the other side of the coin for a minute. 5 minutes from now you get a call from the person who purchased your home that you sold when you move to the villages, they tell you that the roof now leaks and that you should pay for it because you sold them the house and it's your fault that you build the house where a wind storm blew through and damaged the roof. What would you respond? Sure, I'll pay for it, or pick an orifice and put your complaint there.

Originally Posted by kansasr

Seriously? You don't think this will all be set up so that we are responsible for everything once it's in place?

The bridge will be built to state standards and will probably be transferred to a district (CDD13?) where it will become part of the district assets. Just like any other city, when a city asset needs maintenance, the residents pay for it through their local taxes, in the case of The Villages we're not a city and these things are handled through our annual maintenance fees.

Get the facts! Don't believe all the urban myths and twisted "news" you read on the internet.