Quote:
Originally Posted by justjim
It has been documented on another Thread that we are only talking about 20 or so golf carts, maybe less, crossing over to TV a day from Stonecrest. Most Stonecresters drive their cars over to the commercial areas of TV.
Apparently there are a few who only have access by golf cart because they don't have a drivers license. There are a number of residents of TV who are in the same boat and without a drivers license. Indeed, this does severely restrict the mobility of some and that is one of the main reasons (but not the only one) for the fight to gain access to the medical and commercial areas of The Villages via a golf cart.
For some, the entire issue is mute if you purchase a Street Legal golf cart. However, you must have a valid Drivers License for a Street Legal Golf Cart. So a Street Legal cart does not solve the mobility issue for a few Villagers and Stonecresters.
If we were in this boat with them, perhaps we would look at things differently.
|
It seems to me the estimated number of Stonecrest residents who access The Villages via golf carts changes dramatically depending on what they are trying to accomplish.
When talking about impact and traffic on the multi-modal trails they (Stonecrest residents and Village residents who support their cause) estimate the numbers to be very low, ie the "20 or so golf cart figure".
Then in the next breath we are told how important their golf cart access is to support the commercial venues and how allowing golf carts makes such a big difference in parking spaces.
Are we to believe that 20 golf carts per day is going to have such a big impact on commerce and parking? Are we to believe that the Stonecrest Board Committee is reaching out to US Senators on behalf of 20 people? No...in fact in the referenced article, Genie Beaulieu, chair of the Stonecrest Board Committee, stated that "MANY of these people don’t have drivers’ licenses". How many is many, I don't know, but I think it is way more than the "few" that is often quoted.
I guess my point is, you can't have it both ways. You can't downplay the numbers when it fits one scenario, and then turn around and up the numbers when it fits another scenario.
And most importantly (to me), is the precedent that Peachie and others have brought up numerous times.
When the developer was in talks about the purchase of the land in Fruitland Park, the Fruitland Park commissioners specifically asked for golf cart access onto TV for (non-TV) Fruitland Park residents. The Developer said "no, that would be a deal breaker".
I'm sure that there are plenty of people in Fruitland Park who don't have driver's licenses, as well as people who do have driver's licenses, who would love golf cart access to medical, shopping, dining and entertainment venues in The Villages. But Fruitland Park isn't a retirement community. Some people don't have driver's licenses because they aren't old enough to drive a car. But they would be old enough to drive a golf cart. Do we want up to a couple thousand non residents of all ages driving golf carts through the community? The FP commissioners specifically mentioned access to Colony stores and facilities. Does Colony need more golf cart traffic?
I'm of the opinion that it was the FP issue that started all of this. The erection of the wall and later the gate closely coincided with the FP purchase. It's my personal belief that the developer was advised that having outside golf cart access at one location could set a legal precedent that would force us to allow outside golf cart access from other communities. I could be wrong, but the timing of it sure makes it look that way.