[Bryan]

A lot of good points being made here, and a lot of misconceptions. It is a complicated issue(s) so there will never be one answer that makes everyone happy.

Myself, I tend to lean towards the "more restrictive" side but am not totally in that camp. I really want our facilities for our (amenities paying residents) use but I see the need for exceptions. A lot has been made over support groups that meet once or twice a month (i.e. Parkinsons, AA, etc.). Surrounding communities don't have the population to support such groups so I think these should be allowed to have non-TV members. Outsiders use of our facilities for these events consists of coming to a meeting room in a rec center once or twice a month. NOTHING ELSE! I can live with that and think it is a good neighbor thing to do.

Sports is another area where I see some sharing. Visiting teams (softball, etc.) come here to play TV teams. TV teams go there to play them. Technically, those "visitors" are using our sports facilities and don't live here or pay amenities. I see no problem there. We also have some "deals" with area schools. TV High School Swim Team uses TV pools for practice and events. Again, I think that is acceptable.

Someone mentioned "selling" our amenities to outsiders. I am against that but it has already been done. Freedom Pointe is not part of TV but their residents have full amenity privileges. If "they" (the proverbial "they") can sell our amenities to Freedom Pointe, what's to stop them from selling them to Water Oaks, Spruce Creek South, or anyone else?

There was a lot of talk about the squares. They are not public land, they are private property. Ownership is not clear as a bell to me but I think it is in the developers hands through some sort of corporate deal. Why do you think we can walk around either square with drinks in our hands? It is because they are private property (albeit accessible by the public) so all those "open container" laws don't apply.

Public access to public places (i.e. most of our roads) is the law. Public access to private property is at the discretion, for the most part, of the owner. The owner of the squares opted for pretty open access for the public for business reasons, I presume. The owners of TV recreation facilities (that would be TV residents via their CDDs) opted for fairly closed access to their facilities. I think our real discussion has been defining "fairly closed" and how we enforce that.

It appears to me to be one of those issues that has no single, good answer.