Quote:
Originally Posted by Talk Host
Why is that when a private developer like The Villages builds and operates a community, it seems to thrive. Yet cities, run by elected officials, are in desperate financial straits all across the country.
Here, we have golf courses, pools, recreation centers, good roads, hundreds, if not thousands of houses being built, a fire department with good equipment and many other desirable amenities.
In almost every other community, they are laying off police and fire, raising taxes, cutting services and generally shutting down.
I guess the short answer is that cities run on tax money and The Villages runs on profit from building houses. I'm sure the answer is deeper than that but can cities learn something from The Villages?
|
TH, I gotta disagree on your last point. TV does not run on profits from home sales. It "runs" on a combination of fees and taxes. New development such as new rec centers, pools, exec courses, and trails is the product of home sales but once in, these items are operated, maintained, etc., without financial input from the developer. In fact, as the IRS is happy to point out, these items are sold early on by the developer to the us. Our funding plants the flowers in the round-abouts, not the developer's. Country clubs and their golf courses, the Polo Fields, and the various restaurants and stores are entrepreneurial actions of the developer and others. Very possibly, the developer may well use some profits from home sales to support some of these endeavors.
I believe the main difference between TV and municipalities facing financial ruin is that TV has no permanent underclass which it must support. Sure, parts of the pre-Historic section are fairly old and in poor shape compared to the areas in District 6 or 7, but these are not welfare warrens. Not so much smaller towns, but cities have a self-perpetuating class of people who are recipients of government services yet contribute nothing to the public coffers. TV doesn't have that situation.
And if you do not agree with me, then you, sir, are worse than Al Gore.
`