Talk of The Villages Florida - View Single Post - The Villages and the IRS. From Lauren Ritchie
View Single Post
 
Old 09-03-2010, 12:53 PM
EdV's Avatar
EdV EdV is offline
Gold member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Village of Stonecrest
Posts: 1,122
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Default

Ritchie’s rebuttals are too erroneous and misleading for me to ignore.

Ritchie: BUT the sad thing is that the villages homeowners ARE paying for these ammenities through fees that to to the village center and sumter landing districts. that’s because those ammenities were purchased from the developer by the district . that’s what the bonds were for.

EdV: First of all it’s amenities, not ammenities. Jeez , you’d think after railing about the amenities fee for the past year she’d know how to spell it. But aside from that, what’s wrong with the idea that homeowners pay for these amenities? Or is she one of those people who thinks everything in TV should be free?

Ritchie: The state of florida did NOT allow the developer to create districts for the reasons that edvin stated. developers are allowed to create districts to govern the area.

EdV: I honestly can’t make heads or tails of her comment here, but for what it’s worth, here’s what’s in the first paragraph of the Chapter 190 CDD law establishing the intent of that law:
(a) There is a need for uniform, focused, and fair procedures in state law to provide a reasonable alternative for the establishment, power, operation, and duration of independent districts to manage and finance basic community development services.

Ritchie: edvin’s idea of rent control is pretty bizarre. HALF of what you pay goes to repay bonds –with interest. if these bonds have to be recalled, the only source of income is YOU, the owner. if you have a set amount you have to pay, then where you think the money will come from? it can come from one place and one only: it will come from that set ammenity fee you pay. if you get less in the way of ammenties because MORE than half is going to settle this mess, then so be it.

EdV: Another crafty yet misleading argument. What she conveniently forgets to mention is the fact that prior to purchasing the golf courses etc. that are in question here, the two CDDs were RENTING those facilities from the developer. So, that rent is now being paid to the bondholders in the form of principle and interest. So before the sale, HALF the amenity fee went to rental of the amenities and now HALF the amenity fees are paid to the bondholders instead. What’s her problem.

Ritchie: this comes from simple observation. consider this: clearly, the villages has more ammenities than any other community. but consider your 1,500 square foot house or whatever. what price could you buy that same size house for at say, royal harbour, or arlington ridge or some other community? it is roughly the same price, i believe. you aren’t getting a discount. so, some other communities have at least SOME of the same ammenities and those folks are paying the same amount. but YOU are paying another $20K to $25K extra for your ammenities. plus interest on bonds. ouch.

EdV: I’ll let you TV folks handle this one.

Ritchie: this analogy is not appropriate. cable companies are private, for-profit businesses. the CDD is a government, and as such is supposed to act in the best interest of its citizens, the people who are paying taxes. in this case, the “tax” or ammenity fee, is paid by people who are not living in the district, thus the IRS issue. EdVIn asks who cares how the money is spent? the answer is YOU should care. of half your ammentity fee weren’t going to repay bonds that were issued with the sole purpose of making the develper rich, then you would have some seriously cool ammenities.

EdV: The cable companies may be privately held, but they are a Utility and highly regulated at the Federal and Local level. The analogy stands. And as for seriously cool amenities, no they’d have the same ones as before the sale, just renting them instead of owning them.

Ritchie: those board members of the VCCD and SLCDD at various points since 2003 voted to buy both tangible assets, such as swimming pools and gate houses for example, and to buy the right to collect your ammenity fees for 30 years. that’s a little weird – they bought a right. the right to collect fees is NOT a tangible asset. by that, i mean it is not something you can touch. it’s what is called a “blue sky” or “intangible” purchase because it’s an idea, not a “hard” asset.

EdV: Wrong again. When the developer established the two special CDDs, it made them the designee for the collection of amenity fees. And each homeowner's contract states that "Each Owner hereby agrees to pay to the Developer, or its designee, a monthly fee or charge ("Contractual Amenities Fee") against each Homesite for these services described herein." So that right was already granted before any amenity was sold to the CDD.