Quote:
Originally Posted by mickey100
This whole debacle didn't occur because of one political party being picked on, it happened because Morse and his people "stretched" and worked around the rules, and they got caught. Simple as that. I'm guessing most of the CDD's in other parts of the state do not work like the one here in The Villages, so this will act as a warning to other CDD's - abide by the intent of the law. The Villages clearly did not do this even after previous warnings.
|
mickey100: IMHO You are spot on. Most on this thread cite as references articles in various newspapers, bulletins, newsletters. None have referenced The Notice Of Proposed Issue dated january 20, 2009 issued by the IRS.
Essentially this three part notice
alleged that the sell of property and future stream of income to the Districts from the Developer was controlled by the Developer and
alleged to be over-stated.. I do not know if those allegations are true or untrue. However, if true they may well bode poorly for residents.
Further the IRS
alleged that while there was a physical transfer of property rights the Developer in various ways continued control. Owns the commercial rights, the county commissioners, etc. all essentially amounting to ownerships rights or voting rights. Hence the tax exempt bonds based on the fact that of the status of a political subdivision as defined by the IRS was ignored by the Developer. Again I do not know if these allegations are true or untrue but if true then by its nature it distort the poltical sub-division definition
Prior to the January 2009 notice being made available to residents the POA was advised to notify its members, file an intervenor to protect the residents interests and demand the District notify their Professional Liability Carrier that a mistake in the March 31, 2003 bond issue was likely to be alleged. This may or may not have been the decision to be made but hopefully the POA consulted an attorney to determine present/future course of action
The leadership of both the Developer and District (VCCDD) made a number of mistakes. If a lifesuitis filed the likely defendants will be both the Developer and VCCDD because again based on the wording in the Notice of Proposed Issue the VCCDD essentially acqueisced to the Developers demands, used the Developers inspectors, accountants, etc and hence created more commom ground than not which in essentially does not bode well for residents. Again I am saying these allegation are true or untrue but if true then they complicate settlement possibilities for residents.
The POA is the only organization that is in a position to seek the advice of an attorney on behalf of the residents IMHO The POA should ask that an attorney file a lawsuit against both the Developer and the District demanding relief from both enities and that through a combination of private funds and insurance they satisify this IRS obligation. The leadership of both the Developer and District have Professional Liability Policies as well as indvidual liability policies that may provide coverage for the errors and omissions made during the 2003 Bond Issuance. As I am not an attorney this may not be the best avenue but the residents have no representation and the thought that our amenities are being used to defend and eventually settle an IRS ruling not of our making is just wrong
For those that say we should just wait well that what was said five years ago and here we are.
PS I lean on the POA because they are our only viable option.
I opine you decide