Quote:
Originally Posted by SNOK
While the TV residents certainly have an interest in this issue, I still contend that the developer, who profited to some extent by the VCCDD's use of tax-free financing to purchase the assets, has as much or more financial risk as the residents. Also, in order for tax-free bonds to be sold, there is a bond counsel (lawyer) that gives a professional opinion (for a fee) that the bonds are legally issued and qualify as tax-free to the purchasers for federal income tax purposes. The bond counsel also has a financial risk if the bonds are later deemed to be taxable. The bond underwriters may also have exposure. Its just my opinion, but I believe that these parties will bear the majority of any ultimate additional liability, before any of the liability flows to the TV residents - current or future. Of course, placement of liability, should there be any, would likely require litigation, which the VCCDD board would be duty bound to pursue. Hopefully, it will not come to this, but the point is, there is a lengthy process before the residents would ever be saddled with any of the cost. Hopefully, this will be somehow communicated by responsible and credible sources, so that current and potential future residents don't get too anxious about a large future cost that likely will not accrue to them.
|
SNOK:
I fully agree with your analysis as to where the costs (if any-- for, as SteveZ points out, we can only speculate at this point as to the outcome and costs) SHOULD ultimately lie-- with one caveat. Since the VCCDD board members are nominees of the Developer, it is unlikely they will voluntarily pursue remedies against him. A similar situation arose in the past when the VCCDD was left with insufficient funds for amenities because of transactions with the Developer. Unfortunately it took a class action against the Developer, the VCCDD, and Gary Morse to convince the Developer to return the necessary funds ($40 million). In the meantime, our amenity fees are being used to pay the VCCDD's attorneys to defend the transactions between the Developer and the VCCDD.
In my view, if the "speculation", which several posters condemn, causes residents to think about what is transpiring here, about the need to stay informed, and about the possible need to someday take action, then "speculation" is probably a good thing. Since very few people actually read our posts here, I think that the best way for residents to stay informed is through the Property Owners' Association, which has been watching the situation and furnishing objective updates in its monthly Bulletins and at its monthly meetings. Unfortunately, the Villages Homeowners' Association has continued to ignore the whole thing.