Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren Kiefer
The bottom line in these comments is the fact that Janet Tutt owes her job to the developer. The following are the simple facts, the central district boards employ Janet Tutt. The central district board members are elected by a single property owner, that being the only property owner, the developer. The operating funds of the central districts come from from the residents. Janet Tutt is paid from these funds. Janet Tutt receives her salary from the Residents, she owes her employment to the central district boards who are 100% controlled by the developer. If push comes to shove, do you think Janet tutt would take a adversary role opposing the developer?? You make up your own mind if this is a healthy arrangement for the residents ????
|
Warren -There's nothing in your post that's inaccurate from my perspective. But I remember an incident several years ago that I think involved a failed retention pond liner that was on or near a golf course. The developer wanted the local CCD to cover the cost to repair the liner. Janet Tutt was able to convince the developer that the cost should be his since the pond was on a championship course he owned. So, I have seen her successfully oppose the developer where money was involved. This doesn't mean she will always do that, but it shows she does not automatically defer to the developer's opinion.