Quote:
Originally Posted by 2BNTV
With all due respect, NYC and TV are two separate entities. They are to disparate in their lifstyles.
NYC - As Patty said, NYC is world class in terms of what is offered, plays, opera houses, museums, etc. If one can afford it, it could be a viable alternative to TV.
TV - With all that being said and done, TV is a well maintained place where one goes to enjoy the warmer weather and have a very active lifestyle of fun in the sun.
Being from N.Y., I have fond memories of being raised just outside the city but close enough to get to see a play and go back to the burbs. When I lived in a condo in CT, the rules and regu.lations were monitored by our board of directors who ran it like the owners didn't have a vote on anything. They knew what was better for us, like the Mayor of NYC. Like Patty said, he is temporary.
All things considered TV is a piece of paradise no matter what the rules and regulations that are imposed and NYC has other interest that some people would never leave to live in another city. NYC has much better restaurants but at our age and the sake of out waistelines, we don't need to eat more.  |
If you read the opening post, it was not the purpose of this thread to compare the amenities of N.Y.C. with the amenities of The Villages. It was to compare the nature and purpose of restrictions whether put in place by the developer or by a city council.
After suggesting that N.Y.C. couldn't be compared to The Villages, you compared your board of directors in your CT condo to Mayor Bloomberg of N.Y.C. So it seems that comparisons are possible. I agree that governing boards or mayors are temporary, and so restrictions can be changed. But that doesn't change the fact that there will still be restrictions of one sort or another.
The question is: What is the essential difference between one loss of freedom and another, other than the fact that you might like one but not another.