[villages07]

I've been reading this thread with a lot of interest. Although I don't always agree with Ms Ritchie's editorial slant, it appears she has done a lot of homework on this topic. I agree with SteveZ..only time will tell.

A couple of other points to ponder...

1. The 2003 tax exempt recreation bonds in question were probably issued at 6+%; If they had to be paid off now and re-issued as taxable at today's bond market rates, they might go out at 5%; the net result to a bondholder is probably a wash. 6+% tax exempt interest is probably equivalent to 5% taxable. And, wouldn't the central districts benefit by issuing bonds at lower rates?

2. The bigger issue to me, beyond taxable vs tax exempt, is the nature of the transaction...i.e. the value the central districts and developer put on the amenities being sold to the district. These certainly don't appear to be arms length's transactions and the price paid is so far above the cost to construct that it does smell fishy. And, since the supervisors are the developer's people, the residents get no say so in the transaction.

3. Lastly, and this may be petty.... but Agent Servidio works out of an IRS office in Salisbury, MD a small city on the eastern shore of Maryland about a 100 miles from DC. Not to belittle him or his office, but, I find it hard to believe that he or they will have the final say so in this. The Morse family has a lot of powerful allies in Washington (not as many now as they did a year ago) so I tend to believe someone higher up in the bureaucracy will quash this.