[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

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". It doesn't do anything to change the dynamic 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.

That is what we heard, what I wrote about in post #46, and what was explained in information on districtgov.org as reported in post #75.

What's in it for the Developer...
I really don't want to speculate since I'm only guessing but my bet is optics plays a big part. They certainly aren't saving money, they are paying for unsold homes in CDD14 and CDD15 along with unleased properties in Eastport (I assume Eastport is paying but maybe not) and now are kicking in $2M on top of that.