Quote:
Originally Posted by Altavia
If I understand correctly, the "maintenance" includes taking care of the grass, landscaping, irrigation, retention ponds, etc.
We bike the area regularly and it at least "feels" like there is more common area and paths per lot.
One example is the MMP along Marsh Bend Trail to Central Parkway is 2.5 miles long and includes very wide landscape areas the entire distance. Homes along one side only.
The same for Lake Denham Drive, a half mile of grass on both sides with no adjacent homes.
I don't know who is paying to maintain the large lake at Eastport?
There simply seems to be is more common ground to take care of per rooftop than other districts.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianL99
It works, thank you
So I have one question that I thought I knew the answer to ... but might not.
Bottom paragraph, Page 1: "After reviewing the amount of new infrastructure turned over, compared with the number of new people moving into the District .... "
How does that make a difference? If I'm not mistaken, the Developer pays the maintenance fee on unsold lots, so how many people are moving in, shouldn't be relevant ... should it?
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldwingnut
I agree with you, it shouldn’t be relevant and I have been trying to figure out the logic behind this additional contribution. … I’m still trying to put the pieces together on this one and have a few more stones to turn over.
Some things are certain:
1) this is only a deferral of the increase, the developer won’t pay it again, so an increase will come again next year.
2) next year there will be an outcry over the increase and people will expect the same or greater contribution by the developer again.
3) no matter what the developer does, nothing is ever good enough for some people, as is evident by many of the posts on this thread and elsewhere.
|
That is exactly what Don Wiley said in his podcast a week or 2 ago and it makes perfect sense. Apparently the housing "density per acre" is lower in the CDD's affected by the large increases. They have more open space, paths, etc. to take care of.
The issue at hand (at least in this thread), seems to be the Developer's $2M "gift". As many have mentioned I'm sure there's some benefit to the Developer and it may be as simple as "optics". The benefit to the owners in that district, is clear and meaningful. However, it doesn't do anything to change the dynamics in the long run. The costs are the costs. They'll be back next year.
The under-lying question in my mind, which I posed eariler in the thread and Don Wiley subsequently agreed, is the "reporting" of the "gift". The newspaper reports and the District's comments, suggest that the increase in fees, is related to the lack of "sold properties" in those districts. That shouldn't make a difference, as I believe the Developer pays the exact same Maintenance Fees as homeowners pay.