Quote:
Originally Posted by Northwoods
|
I’m rather shocked by the comments about the developer here. I thought the vast majority of people in TV were conservatives and that most (all?) conservatives were pro business. Here’s a company that has produced this wonderful community and they are constantly being criticized as being greedy. I don’t get it.
Most conservatives are pro business and also recognize that successful businesses usually maintain good relations with the community in which they do business. The developer knows that the residents that live near the (former) Hacienda Hills CC site are overwhelmingly opposed to the proposed multi story apartment complex in the middle of their single family home community.
A business that doesn’t make money dies. It cannot afford to fund an operation that doesn’t return a profit. This country club and Katy Belle’s were here to make money for the developer and were, apparently, failing at that. They were not amenities here just for our enjoyment. The developer is not a government.
The conversation isn’t about Katie Belles. We hate to see it go but the proposed apartments are in a commercial district and don’t compromise the area. We all understand the developer is not a government. Duh.
The “greedy” developer sees that there is a huge demand for living the active lifestyle we have here in TV and they are trying to meet it. The Boomers are retiring in huge numbers. Do you think the “greedy” developers should stop building houses and stop turning unprofitable land into land that can help meet that demand?
Of course not – huge leap of logic on your part. They are proceeding to build , literally thousands of houses in the southern areas right now.
Not everyone can afford to own a large home on a lot. Not everyone wants to maintain a yard. Some of us are getting too old to deal with all the maintenance issues associated with living in a single-family home and would like to sell their houses to a younger family and move into a maintenance-free apartment. Do you want to force them to move out of TV where their friends are? Apartments are a benefit to the community. Yes, building them on top of a single-family neighborhood is unfortunate, but what else do you think they should do with that land that can actually turn a profit.
The obvious answer to this is choose one –or several -vacant areas in the other areas of TV that is predominantly commercial or planned and zoned multi-family and build away.
Instead of whining about this, how about making suggestions of things they can do with that land that is actually profitable.
OK, 1) a new single family neighborhood 2) single story professional offices for TV operations 3) the parking garage the developer threatened the AAC with. Would be preferable to high density apartments, or 4) gain some credibility with The Villages residents and do some repair to their reputation by actually spending some of their profit from other operations and create a green space. I'm sure there must be others that are far less intrusive that what is planned.