[RCT]

Originally Posted by iaudit

RCT

The lawsuit did not address the bonds used to buy the recreation facilities. It involved the developer not using part of the amenity fee to establish reserves needed to cover capital expenditures to maintain/rebuild recreation facilities and the like, such as cart paths. Although the value paid the developer for these facilities has been criticized by many, the lawsuit had nothing to do with this type of bonds used, the method used to value the facilities and controlling interest held by the developer over the non-resident central district.

In addition, the lawsuit also involved the use of tee times for lifestyle previews. In settling the lawsuit, the developer was limited as to how many tee times could be used on courses north of Rt. 466. It is because of this settlement that tee times south of Rt. 466 are in short supply as he just increased the number available for lifestyle previews on these courses.

As far as the article being "shocking", all I see her doing is summarizing the opinion of the IRS documents and providing a link to them for all village residents to read and form their own opinion of the dealings of the developer.
Read them through and let me know what you think of her article then.

Thankyou for the clarification.