Quote:
Originally Posted by Talk Host
I got to thinking this morning about the relay for life being banned from The Villages.
I'm not accusing, I'm just asking.
What exactly is the form of governance and authority that the developer has? True enough, they developed 12 X 12 miles of residential lots and facilities. Residents purchased their own property and they own it. Indeed we all signed and agreed to certain covenants. The various buildings are owned and operated by various developer companies or districts. Most of the streets are public property. The Villages is located in three separate Florida counties, those counties are located in a bonafied state, all of which are in The United States of America.
As American citizens, have residents of the Villages given up any of their rights of freedom of expression? I'm serious here, do the developers have the legal or moral right to tell residents what charity they can support in and around their homes? If Relay for Life had gotten a parade permit for one of the county roads inside The Villages, could the Developer have blocked it? If a whole neighborhood had banned together and said, "use our street and our homes and property for the Relay for Life," could it still have been banned.
I'm not speaking against the Moffitt Cancer Center, I'm talking about the right of Americans to support what they choose to support. If anybody knows what authority there is to mandate or forbid certain charitable activities, I am curious to know. I would have to guess that the developer knew that there would be a gigantic backlash because of this. I'm wondering if they care?
How many freedoms are you willing to give up to live in The Villages? Am I chasing ghosts here? Is it not a concern to most that there is a form of dictation as to what you can support and not support?
JLK
|
It is the Golden Rule here. He who has the gold makes the rules. This is NOT a democratic form of government.
There are some who get annoyed at the deed restrictions which many of us have lived with in other places, I like those rules.
I think there is also the whole issue that the Morses are very rich and very successful and very Republican and that sets some people off to begin with. I have no problem with that.
And then there is the Moffitt issue and the poaching issue. The Morses absolutely made a VERY wrong decision on not allowing the Relay for Life as they always have done in the past and denied it because the money collected would not go to Moffitt. (Whether or not the Morses would directly benefit financially from Moffitt is going to be argued and argued and argued) It is obvious to me that power corrupts. And on the poaching issue, in my book breaking laws is breaking laws. You can't do it and if you do it you are wrong.
That said, on the question whether the American people in The Villages have given up their right to self expression and to be justifiably outraged about the Relay for Life being cancelled because the Morses wanted the whole pot to go to Moffitt, they have not given up the right to express their anger and disappointment and disapproval. It just is that there isn't anything we residents can do about it other than to sell and leave or for people to read about it and to not buy here.
The fact that the developer can dictate something like this is in his power to do so. If we know that going in, than we voted with out pocketbook. If it is a deal breaker, than we can choose to not buy here or leave.
We can talk about it and we can talk about it and we can talk about it, but if we stay....than that is saying that we like this place and this life more than we hate what the Morses do/did and will do.
Just my take.
I am standing back.