Janet Tutt

[RItaly]

Good afternoon, I confess to absolute confusion as to how the Villages are "governed".
Janet Tutt seems to be in charge. She holds an unelected position as I understand it. To whom is she beholden, or put another way, for whom does she work, signs her pay check.

thanks,
Ron W

[REDCART]

Janet's official title is District Manager. But General Manager of the Villages might be more accurate IMHO. Here's a link to the Villages Organization Chart: Village Community Development Districts (http://www.districtgov.org/staff/orgchart.aspx)

[Warren Kiefer]

Good afternoon, I confess to absolute confusion as to how the Villages are "governed".
Janet Tutt seems to be in charge. She holds an unelected position as I understand it. To whom is she beholden, or put another way, for whom does she work, signs her pay check.

thanks,
Ron W


We pay her, and I believe she is employed by the vcdd board. Without going into a lot of complicated deails this is how it all shakes down.... Unfortunately, the VCCD board is elected by the property owners in that district and the only property owners in that district is the developer. Sumter Landing district has the identical set up...

[Bizdoc]

If it makes you feel better, figure that she is like the city manager...

Of course, given my opinion of elected officials, I can't see how she could possible do worse.

[janmcn]

If it makes you feel better, figure that she is like the city manager...

Of course, given my opinion of elected officials, I can't see how she could possible do worse.


Elected officials can be voted out of office. Janet Tutt has a lifetime appointment, at the discretion of the developer. You could think of her as "Queen Tutt".

[REDCART]

Elected officials can be voted out of office. Janet Tutt has a lifetime appointment, at the discretion of the developer. You could think of her as "Queen Tutt".

Janet Tutt has appeared at most POA monthly meetings to respond to questions by residents. I never got the impression from her remarks or her demeanor that she was imperious. I seriously doubt that she would continue as District Manager if she wasn't an effective leader. I would not be so quick to condemn her for her support of the developer unless you find serious shortcomings in the way the Villages is managed. It's a very efficient operation and it's no coincidence. So yes, I'm a fan of Janet Tutt.

[dblwyr]

I think Janet Tutt is one of the most capable executives I have seen. She is articulate, knows the specifics of this government form, and runs an excellent management operation. Give credit where it is due.

[golf2140]

Elected officials can be voted out of office. Janet Tutt has a lifetime appointment, at the discretion of the developer. You could think of her as "Queen Tutt".

She does a great job. Your comment is unwarranted

[downeaster]

The OP was not questioning Janet Tutt's performance. However, since it has been brought up, I would like to say the position she holds is not easy. I am fully aware of her position as it relates to the Supervisors, the Developer, and the residents. She has my complete confidence.

For those not familiar with CDD's or HOA's, Bizdoc's comparing her position with a City Manager is on the money.

BTW, I use the term HOA as it is used in Florida statutes not as it is used in reference to the Villages HOA. HOA's in a large community would normally hire a management firm who in turn would appoint a manager with responsibilities similar to Ms. Tutt's.

[TVMayor]

I witnessed Queen Tutt in person, when asked why and who put up the Berlin wall she replied, I do not know, that impressed me and that will always be the standard I judge her by.

[Bogie Shooter]

I witnessed Queen Tutt in person, when asked why and who put up the Berlin wall she replied, I do not know, that impressed me and that will always be the standard I judge her by.

Her name is Janet Tutt.

[TVMayor]

Her name is Janet Tutt.

I did not know that.

[REDCART]

I witnessed Queen Tutt in person, when asked why and who put up the Berlin wall she replied, I do not know, that impressed me and that will always be the standard I judge her by.

I would bet years from now when Janet is retired, she might tell you that the Berlin Wall debacle was a poor decision by the developer and that she wasn't prepared to defend it. So like any good executive (or politician), she denied any knowledge of it. The gate should have been in place from the beginning but this was obviously not her call to make. I don't think we should hold Janet Tutt accountable for decisions that she didn't make. It must have been a learning experience for her because she handled the Colony Blvd traffic issue differently. In that instance she explained that she drafted a letter to the developer for his input.

[jhrc4]

This is a really good posting, thumbs up to the person who posted it. I had no idea who what Janet's position entailed. A huge responsibility I wouldn't want it.

I will say this referring to Janet Tutt as " Queen Tutt " is uncalled for, demeaning, insulting.

[graciegirl]

I think she handles an impossible job well. I think she is capable, fair, responsible to us and to her duties and there is no amount of money in the world that would be enough to do what she does.


NO one is perfect and no plan is perfect but this place is better run than any place I have ever lived.


No one could ever know how big this place would become in the space of just fifteen years. There is no growth of any town similar anywhere. If this was run by the vote of the residents we would still be arguing about curbing or street lights or other minimal issues.


I have never met Janet Tutt, but she is one of my heroines.


I live in fear that she will quit and leave us to some lesser person.

[jerseyvillager]

Keep up the good work Ms. Tutt.

[mickey100]

She seems capable, but there are many capable managers available in this world. Frankly I would feel more comfortable with a manager who reported to the residents and has our best interests rather than the developer's, at heart.

[bike42]

It is your government. If you want to understand it better, start with the VCDD Resident Academy (http://www.districtgov.org/ResidentAcademy.aspx) You can participate, or you can sit on the sidelines and criticize.

[mickey100]

In most cases, the interests of the Developer and the residents coincide. From time to time, however, the Developer has acted in his own interests in a way that is detrimental to Villagers. To get a balanced view of the Villages, I'd suggest that one go to the POA website and look at past history. http://www.poa4us.org

[Bogie Shooter]

She seems capable, but there are many capable managers available in this world. Frankly I would feel more comfortable with a manager who reported to the residents and has our best interests rather than the developer's, at heart.

The POA on many occasions has said that very thing, "she works for the residents best interest".

[dillywho]

In most cases, the interests of the Developer and the residents coincide. From time to time, however, the Developer has acted in his own interests in a way that is detrimental to Villagers. To get a balanced view of the Villages, I'd suggest that one go to the POA website and look at past history. Property Owners, Association of Florida (http://www.poa4us.org)

Of course the Developer has acted in his own interests. Yes, Mr. Swartz started this place, but I am sure he intended for his kids to someday take over the same way other business owners/developers do. They are business people who have taken chance after chance that what they were doing would work. What if they had bought all this land, built, and then no one came or everyone left? They would be called fools and not envied.

I, for one, am glad this is not run like HOA communities. My son just left one in Jacksonville where their HOA fees were just under $200 a month, one pool, one party room, no yard (just a strip of grass between their entry and around the garage with a few little bushes the fees maintained), lanai large enough for a small table and chairs, no grills permitted, trash/recycle pickup once a week, no golf courses or golf carts, no age restrictions, etc.

With some of the suggestions that I have seen on here, if everyone got what they think about how things should be, within a few years it would resemble some teenagers' rooms...shambles.

We 'chose' to live here because of what it offered and it is far and above Hot Springs, AR's idea of a retirement community. We owned there first and then found this. WE have been thankful ever since.

[jblum315]

I think Janet Tutt is remarkable for her knowledge,her calm demeanor in a crisis, and fo r the sheer amount of time and work she puts into her job. I can't imagine doing her job for any amount of money. I hope she never retires

[jdsl1998]

I love the work she does...
I am not so sure that the use of "queen" was meant in a bad way...lots of queens are loved!

[mickey100]

The POA on many occasions has said that very thing, "she works for the residents best interest".

Non one is saying she is not acting in our interests, but we need to look at the whole picture here. Who pays her salary? The VCDD i.e. The Developer? If she answers directly to the Developer then she may try to act in our interests, but when push comes to shove, she'll always side with the Developer. And I'm not saying the Developer doesn't act in our interests, before the Developer lovers jump all over me. But, as others have stated, he is an astute businessman, and his interests are always going to come before ours. Hopefully our joint interests will be the same, but that doesn't always happen, to wit the $40 million lawsuit. My point wasn't that Janet Tutt doesn't do a good job, it was that I would feel better if the person in Tutt's position , i.e. Tutt or any other person, answered to the residents. I just don't like a setup where the Developer is omnipotent. A system of checks and balances would make me more comfortable. Obviously, those that are supporters of k the Developer and have complete trust, feel differently.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

Elected officials can be voted out of office. Janet Tutt has a lifetime appointment, at the discretion of the developer. You could think of her as "Queen Tutt".

City Managers are usually not voted into office. They are usually hired by a city council.

But, yes, we do not vote for those who control the Villages and as much as I am in favor of a representative republic, this seems to work out very well.

Sometimes people who know what they're doing, appointing people who know what they are doing works better than the unknowing, impressionable masses voting for people who make a good impression on them.

[Bogie Shooter]

Non one is saying she is not acting in our interests, but we need to look at the whole picture here. Who pays her salary? The VCDD i.e. The Developer? If she answers directly to the Developer then she may try to act in our interests, but when push comes to shove, she'll always side with the Developer. And I'm not saying the Developer doesn't act in our interests, before the Developer lovers jump all over me. But, as others have stated, he is an astute businessman, and his interests are always going to come before ours. Hopefully our joint interests will be the same, but that doesn't always happen, to wit the $40 million lawsuit. My point wasn't that Janet Tutt doesn't do a good job, it was that I would feel better if the person in Tutt's position , i.e. Tutt or any other person, answered to the residents. I just don't like a setup where the Developer is omnipotent. A system of checks and balances would make me more comfortable. Obviously, those that worship the Developer and have complete trust, feel differently.

Since you quoted my post, I take exception to your last one sentence shot. I do not worship the developer, however, I am not going to sit on the sidlines and not respond to people attacking Mrs. Tutt.

[cquick]

when The Villages is "built out" the developer will probably hand over the governing of the development to a board. The board will probably be elected by the residents. but we will still need a "city manager" who is in charge of the staff at the office.

[mickey100]

Since you quoted my post, I take exception to your last one sentence shot. I do not worship the developer, however, I am not going to sit on the sidlines and not respond to people attacking Mrs. Tutt.

Sorry, but didn't see anyone "attacking" Ms. Tutt. And I apologize if I implied you worship the developer. After reading your previous posts it was clear you are a big supporter of the morses. I've amended my previous post accordingly.

[mickey100]

when The Villages is "built out" the developer will probably hand over the governing of the development to a board. The board will probably be elected by the residents. but we will still need a "city manager" who is in charge of the staff at the office.

Yes, hopefully that will happen. Or we the residents may choose to hire a Board or group of some sort that will act in OUR interests.

[Abby10]

Sometimes people who know what they're doing, appointing people who know what they are doing works better than the unknowing, impressionable masses voting for people who make a good impression on them.

Amen to that! One of the reasons we are looking forward to making TV our future home is how things are run there. We are often tired and frustrated by how our local and state representatives operate. And if you think they are looking out for your best interests, I would respond "think again"! Yes we can throw them out of office in the next election, but mine is just one vote. Most people say they are too busy or just not interested enough in politics to really know what they are voting for, therefore, IMHO, elections tend to end up like a crapshoot anyway. I have seen issues discussed and resolved in TV quicker than most governments can even read the supporting documentation! I know TV may not exist in this form of government forever, but I'd be happy to live in a slice of heaven on earth even for a short period of time.

[mickey100]

City Managers are usually not voted into office. They are usually hired by a city council.

But, yes, we do not vote for those who control the Villages and as much as I am in favor of a representative republic, this seems to work out very well.

Sometimes people who know what they're doing, appointing people who know what they are doing works better than the unknowing, impressionable masses voting for people who make a good impression on them.

Unknowing, impressionable masses? That makes the residents sound like a bunch of dummies. There are a lot of well educated, successful people here. I feel confidant that the residents could hire or elect proper representation.

[Abby10]

Unknowing, impressionable masses? That makes the residents sound like a bunch of dummies. There are a lot of well educated, successful people here. I feel confidant that the residents could hire or elect proper representation.

Since I responded to Dr O Boogie's post with an "Amen to that!", I will respond to this too. I think the good Dr was speaking somewhat in generalities about how things often work in this world of ours and I was agreeing with that generality. The part that I agree with YOU about is that there does seem to be a lot of educated, successful people in TV and so with confidence I would consider moving there knowing where the transition of power may eventually go in the future. However, for now, why fix what is not broken? Although, I do not know Janet Tutt personally, or much about her really, she must be doing a darn good job considering all she has to handle. TV, in my very humble opinion and with limited knowledge of TV compared to many of you, seems to run like a well oiled machine. Much different than what I experience in the world outside "the bubble".

[mickey100]

As I said previously, My preference would be to have a manager that reports to the residents. Why - ? In most cases, the interests of the Developer and the residents coincide. From time to time, however, the Developer has acted in his own interests in a way that is detrimental to Villagers. As in the $40 million lawsuit. No one ever said Janet Tutt was not doing a good job. My concern has always been the Developer. For those of you who trust the Developer, all is fine and good. We will agree to disagree.

[Mikeod]

when The Villages is "built out" the developer will probably hand over the governing of the development to a board. The board will probably be elected by the residents. but we will still need a "city manager" who is in charge of the staff at the office.

That's not the way I understand it. The VCCDD and SLCDD will control the community. North of 466 essentially shows how it will work at build-out. I expect there will be either a second AAC or an expanded AAC that will administer amenity related funds beyond what is needed to service the bonds used to purchase the amenities from the developer. A position like Ms. Tutt's will remain and will remain appointed/hired by the central districts.

[dillywho]

As I said previously, My preference would be to have a manager that reports to the residents. Why - ? In most cases, the interests of the Developer and the residents coincide. From time to time, however, the Developer has acted in his own interests in a way that is detrimental to Villagers. As in the $40 million lawsuit. No one ever said Janet Tutt was not doing a good job. My concern has always been the Developer. For those of you who trust the Developer, all is fine and good. We will agree to disagree.

I live north of 466 where the ACC exists and is elected. I, for one, have not always agreed with or thought that they were doing things in the best interest for ALL the residents. Sometimes it seems like it is for only a select segment, regardless of what the others have had to say. Sometimes, I have felt that they operate more in the interests of the Board, but that might just be me. Like the Developer, they are not perfect but when they won the lawsuit, this board is what they got. The whole thing started with the issue of the cart paths and went from there. I have nothing that has to do with the RV storage lot, some do, and some of all the money went for lighting or some such something there. Some things have been really good; some not so much. Sometimes, it's wise to 'be careful what you wish for because you just might get it'.

The "wall" might have seemed like a good idea at the time, but apparently wasn't thought through as thoroughly as it could/should have been. I'm not even close to the area and never used that route, but I took it as an effort to protect the Villagers and their interests. It had some unintended consequences and was soon changed, albeit not to the satisfaction of all. It will always be virtually impossible to please everyone, no matter whose in charge.

Agreeing to disagree is always good. Thank God for allowing us to live in a country where we are free to do just that. Few on this planet are so fortunate.

[DougB]

Unknowing, impressionable masses? That makes the residents sound like a bunch of dummies. There are a lot of well educated, successful people here. I feel confidant that the residents could hire or elect proper representation.

You have a lot more confidence than me. I think I will go with the dummy theory.

[Indydealmaker]

I witnessed Queen Tutt in person, when asked why and who put up the Berlin wall she replied, I do not know, that impressed me and that will always be the standard I judge her by.

Apparently, you know for a fact that she lied. That acknowledgement means that you and Mrs. Tutt were the only two people at the meeting with that knowledge. I would say that it was incumbent upon you to speak up at that time since you have such intimate insight.

[Warren Kiefer]

The POA on many occasions has said that very thing, "she works for the residents best interest".

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 ????

[Mikeod]

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.

[Advogado]

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 ????
Everything you say is clearly correct, and it is not a healthy arrangement for the residents.

However, to her credit, Ms. Tutt has probably done as well as anybody could in coping with the inherent conflicts of interest that arise from time to time in her job. But she can never cross the developer. Again, thank goodness for the POA since we have no official who will represent our interests when they conflict with those of the Developer, as they have from time to time in the past and will probably from time to time do so in the future.

[graciegirl]

I am 74 years old and I have lived in many wonderful areas in my life but nothing has even come close to the way The Villages is run. I cringe to think of any change where the residents would make the decisions about this place. We would become a town like all of the ones we left, with elected mayors and too many projects where money is squandered and the amenity fees would have to go up. up. up. Everyone would get every little thing they want, we would have ten indoor pools, ten dog parks, an enormous performance center and we would be changing the street signs from hind side too and back again and there would be discussions about painting murals inside the tunnels and having five star chefs at McDonalds and pay a thousand dollars a month in amenities. We would keep changing contracts on the roadside landscaping and soon the mulch would disappear and weeds appear and the roundabouts would be changed to signs that say, every man for himself. We would squabble over speed limits and age limits and fences.


HORRORS.

[CFrance]

I am 74 years old and I have lived in many wonderful areas in my life but nothing has even come close to the way The Villages is run. I cringe to think of any change where the residents would make the decisions about this place. We would become a town like all of the ones we left, with elected mayors and too many projects where money is squandered and the amenity fees would have to go up. up. up. Everyone would get every little thing they want, we would have ten indoor pools, ten dog parks, and enormous performance center and we would be changing the street signs from hind side too and back again and there would be discussions about painting murals inside the tunnels and having five star chefs at McDonalds and pay a thousand dollars a month in amenities. We would keep changing contracts on the roadside landscaping and soon the mulch would disappear and weeds appear and the roundabouts would be changed to signs that say, every man for himself. We would squabble over speed limits and age limits and fences.


HORRORS.
Thanks for reminding me! We just left a town like that, making many poor choices with our tax dollars.:cus:

[mickey100]

Everything you say is clearly correct, and it is not a healthy arrangement for the residents.

However, to her credit, Ms. Tutt has probably done as well as anybody could in coping with the inherent conflicts of interest that arise from time to time in her job. But she can never cross the developer. Again, thank goodness for the POA since we have no official who will represent our interests when they conflict with those of the Developer, as they have from time to time in the past and will probably from time to time do so in the future.

Great post.

[jhrc4]

I am 74 years old and I have lived in many wonderful areas in my life but nothing has even come close to the way The Villages is run. I cringe to think of any change where the residents would make the decisions about this place. We would become a town like all of the ones we left, with elected mayors and too many projects where money is squandered and the amenity fees would have to go up. up. up. Everyone would get every little thing they want, we would have ten indoor pools, ten dog parks, an enormous performance center and we would be changing the street signs from hind side too and back again and there would be discussions about painting murals inside the tunnels and having five star chefs at McDonalds and pay a thousand dollars a month in amenities. We would keep changing contracts on the roadside landscaping and soon the mulch would disappear and weeds appear and the roundabouts would be changed to signs that say, every man for himself. We would squabble over speed limits and age limits and fences.


HORRORS.

A lot of thought went into what Gracie just wrote a lot ... Please take a second or two and think about what Gracie wrote. I have an opinion that as we all grow older we really do not get any smarter but... we all hopefully get so much Wiser . Well put Gracie, well put.

[mickey100]

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 ????

Well said. And this has nothing to do with Janet Tutt personally. From the sounds of it, she does a fine job, given the situation. Just can't imagine how this could be a healthy situation for the residents.

[Hancle704]

I have lived in TV long enough to remember what things were like before Mrs. Tutt arrived on the scene. I have found her to be very open to concerns of the residents unlike the time when the answer to residents complaints often was, if you don't like it, why don't you move. With population coming close to 100,000 it seems apparent that she can't satisfy every resident and their individual gripes. I think she and her staff do a fantastic job in making our remaining years as pleasant as possible. I am sure she was very instrumental in bringing a first class Public Safety Department to TV. So I for one, am most appreciative of Mrs. Tutt and her hardworking staff.

[Bogie Shooter]

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 ????

You make it sound like we have a problem with the way she performs her job right now. I don't believe we do.

[Bogie Shooter]

Well said. And this has nothing to do with Janet Tutt personally. From the sounds of it, she does a fine job, given the situation. Just can't imagine how this could be a healthy situation for the residents.

But it is and has been,don't let your imagination run wild.
What do you mean from the sounds of it, are you not here? .....a healthy situation for the residents.......are you a resident?

[Bogie Shooter]

I have lived in TV long enough to remember what things were like before Mrs. Tutt arrived on the scene. I have found her to be very open to concerns of the residents unlike the time when the answer to residents complaints often was, if you don't like it, why don't you move. With population coming close to 100,000 it seems apparent that she can't satisfy every resident and their individual gripes. I think she and her staff do a fantastic job in making our remaining years as pleasant as possible. I am sure she was very instrumental in bringing a first class Public Safety Department to TV. So I for one, am most appreciative of Mrs. Tutt and her hardworking staff.

Glad you brought that up. Here predecessor was a good example of exactly what a poor manager was. His decision making often left the residents needs out of the loop. Probably somewhere in the POA archives, some of his shenigans are documented.

[Villager Dude]

Many posters may not know but the annual budget that Mrs Tutt manages is

$ 254,000, 000 per year.

Having gone to the District Academy I was so very impressed with the effiency in which this whole operation is run. She will be retiring soon and I dread the day she is not at the helm.

[njbchbum]

when The Villages is "built out" the developer will probably hand over the governing of the development to a board. The board will probably be elected by the residents. but we will still need a "city manager" who is in charge of the staff at the office.

If/when this wonderful asylum is ever turned over to a governing board elected by villages residents...there will be a sign in my yard before the vote is ratified by whomever ratifies same!!!

[cquick]

well, I'm not too worried about any changes in the way The Villages are run, anyway. But somebody has to be in charge and I'm glad it's someone who knows what she is doing!

[mickey100]

But it is and has been,don't let your imagination run wild.
What do you mean from the sounds of it, are you not here? .....a healthy situation for the residents.......are you a resident?

I'm a full time resident. Don't let my imagination run wild? The $40 million lawsuit was not my imagination. It was the Developer taking advantage. As good as Janet Tutt is, I don't think she would have been able to talk the Developer into doing what was right. That has been my point - I would feel better if TV had freedom from the Developer. Sure things are going well now, but consider how things might have been had the POA not stood up for the residents a few years back. The Villages would look like a totally different place - no funds for maintenance of important buildings, recreational trails, etc.

Some posters seem to think that wishing for freedom from the Developer is some kind of affront to Janet Tutt. I don't get that logic. That is not the thought that is being discussed here. What is being discussed is that you have a manager that is tied by salary to her employer, the Developer, and that is not necessarily in the residents' best interest. If the Developer eventually signs off, we can hire Janet Tutt directly to work for the residents' interests, without worry about the Developer's desire to make money overriding our needs.

[graciegirl]

I'm a full time resident. Don't let my imagination run wild? The $40 million lawsuit was not my imagination. It was the Developer taking advantage. As good as Janet Tutt is, I don't think she would have been able to talk the Developer into doing what was right. That has been my point - I would feel better if TV had freedom from the Developer. Sure things are going well now, but consider how things might have been had the POA not stood up for the residents a few years back. The Villages would look like a totally different place - no funds for maintenance of important buildings, recreational trails, etc.

Some posters seem to think that wishing for freedom from the Developer is some kind of affront to Janet Tutt. I don't get that logic. That is not the thought that is being discussed here. What is being discussed is that you have a manager that is tied by salary to her employer, the Developer, and that is not necessarily in the residents' best interest. If the Developer eventually signs off, we can hire Janet Tutt directly to work for the residents' interests, without worry about the Developer's desire to make money overriding our needs.



We had just bought here when your much brought up law suit happened. Most of us didn't have a clue. And most of us still don't. We looked all around and saw no mold or mildew, no shabby care of buildings and we were pretty leery of this being way too good to be true. We were VERY skeptical about the low cost of amenities and the free golf and all of the beautiful, well maintained buildings, and if not for old friends who had lived here who assured us that this place was the real deal we wouldn't have purchased our designer in Hadley.


What I know about that lawsuit, and YOU know about that lawsuit, and everybody knows about that lawsuit is pretty close to nothing. Neither side is allowed to speak out on it. I know that anyone can bring a lawsuit for any reason and this was brought by a few villagers including a couple of lawyers. Here is what little we know, printed in The Orlando Sentinel in 2008.


Villages developer to pay $40 million for recreation upgrades to settle a lawsuit - Orlando Sentinel (http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2008-03-09/news/lvillages09_1_villages-fees-lawyer)


I know this. That lawsuit did not have a thing to do with anything south of 466 where we lived. We lived adjacent to the Odell Center, where I saw them power wash the wall a couple times of year and repaint all of the structures at Odell once a year. I saw them weed the beds that separated us from Odell several times a year and replace two palm trees on Odell property that had died. I saw them maintain the common areas without anyone complaining. All good.


About twenty years ago Gary Morse brought his family from Michigan to help his dad, Harold Schwartz. Harold had been married more than once and Gary Morse's mom had remarried a man named Morse after her divorce from Harold and I have heard a couple of reasons why she changed Gary's name from Schwartz to Morse. No one knows for sure, but Gary and his wife Sharon moved from Michigan where they had been involved in the original Brownwood, that is still alive and well today. By tales that I have heard Harold was a people guy with the idea to sell some land in central Florida to folks with "free golf for life". And in the beginning was the area on the north east of 441/27 with nice big lots and lakes and golf course to view with mostly modular homes. Still lovely and still loved.


But sometime after Gary joined his dad the plans became more ambitious and changed. Someone, maybe Gary, consulted the designers of Disney's Main Street to see how they could build a pretty, whimsical downtown area completely NOT based in any real history but a pretty place for restaurants and businesses to serve the folks they hoped would buy land so they could build houses and sell them.


I am pretty sure that they risked most all of their money at the time to do this.


And of course it worked. And continued to work. What I THINK happened is that someone researched and found the best contractors to build and to do infrastructure and to design and to decorate and to dream up all of this loveliness. If you didn't pass muster you would be out the door. Gary Morse may not have had all the good ideas but he knew who to hire. The CDD form of government was not new to the Villages. I think Disney used it but I am not sure.


As the place gained momentum, more people were hired and more people were employed. They built golf club houses with restaurants and staffed with good people in their employ. But it appears that their business plan was to sell the business part and own the property to rent to independent business people. So someone with not a lot of money became someone who with a good plan became a business success. This 77 year old man, Gary Morse still is at the helm but the business is now mostly run by his three children, all born and raised in the Brownwood area of Michigan and doing a pretty good job with this ever growing giant that employs thousands, makes the unemployment the lowest in the state and up there with llowest unemployment area in the country. Has made this the fastest growing area in the U.S. and built ten percent of all of the homes in the United States during the awful downturn in building and real estate sales.


I do not know the Morses but I do know that making a success of your venture is the American way. It is o.k. to become hugely financially successful. Most of the developers detractors are against ...well you know the politics that we are not allowed to discuss on this forum. I say build a business, employ people, keep them off the welfare roles. I am PROUD of where I live and how it was built. I am a fiscal conservative now that I am old and I say, well done Morses. Whoever you are.


Be rich, stay rich and thank you kindly.

[JB in TV]

Gracie, thank you! Very well written.

[mickey100]

Certainly the Developer has the right to make money, and he has done a fine job of doing that. But as residents, we are foolish if we elevate his right to make money, above our right to have a wonderful retirement community. Our needs come first, and we are paying for that right with our amenity fees. Some would say the past lawsuit is not relevant because it only involved those villages north of 466. I happen to live south of 466, and in my eyes, what happened there could be a precedent. The lawsuit alleged money had been misappropriated by the Developer and funds were not available cover improvements and repairs to recreation centers, swimming pools and other facilities that make the retirement community alluring. The people who filed the lawsuit had noticed a steady decline in building maintenance and conditions and services, and calls for action were completely ignored. The lawsuit was a last resort, and lucky for us a settlement was reached. We hope that lawsuits are a thing of the past, but I see no guarantees. And now we are embroiled in this whole IRS business, thanks to the Morses business acumen. Again, the residents could suffer financial consequences as a result.

We all have our own opinions. I am a financial conservative, and I do not like being beholden to a Developer that has this dubious record with lawsuits and the IRS. It just raises a red flag with me. I don't trust them. I personally will feel much better when we escape their omnipotence, and hire qualified people, like Janet Tutt for instance, to run things and to report to the residents directly. Our needs will come first.

[graciegirl]

Certainly the Developer has the right to make money, and he has done a fine job of doing that. But as residents, we are foolish if we elevate his right to make money, above our right to have a wonderful retirement community. Our needs come first, and we are paying for that right with our amenity fees. Some would say the past lawsuit is not relevant because it only involved those villages north of 466. I happen to live south of 466, and in my eyes, what happened there could be a precedent. The lawsuit alleged money had been misappropriated by the Developer and funds were not available cover improvements and repairs to recreation centers, swimming pools and other facilities that make the retirement community alluring. The people who filed the lawsuit had noticed a steady decline in building maintenance and conditions and services, and calls for action were completely ignored. The lawsuit was a last resort, and lucky for us a settlement was reached. We hope that lawsuits are a thing of the past, but I see no guarantees. And now we are embroiled in this whole IRS business, thanks to the Morses business acumen. Again, the residents could suffer financial consequences as a result.

We all have our own opinions. I am a financial conservative, and I do not like being beholden to a Developer that has this dubious record with lawsuits and the IRS. It just raises a red flag with me. I don't trust them. I personally will feel much better when we escape their omnipotence, and hire qualified people, like Janet Tutt for instance, to run things and to report to the residents directly. Our needs will come first.



Villages developer to pay $40 million for recreation upgrades to settle a lawsuit - Orlando Sentinel (http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2008-03-09/news/lvillages09_1_villages-fees-lawyer)

[Fourpar]

Villages developer to pay $40 million for recreation upgrades to settle a lawsuit - Orlando Sentinel (http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2008-03-09/news/lvillages09_1_villages-fees-lawyer)
:agree:
Gracie, you're a gem!

[Cedwards38]

I look around me each day, and see and utilize all the amenities that this community has to offer. I see what things Ms. Tutt and her staff manage, and how they manage it. Then I judge. Based on this, three cheers for Ms. Tutt and her staff. I don't care about her relationship with the developer as long as it is a strong working relationship.

[dillywho]

Certainly the Developer has the right to make money, and he has done a fine job of doing that. But as residents, we are foolish if we elevate his right to make money, above our right to have a wonderful retirement community. Our needs come first, and we are paying for that right with our amenity fees. Some would say the past lawsuit is not relevant because it only involved those villages north of 466. I happen to live south of 466, and in my eyes, what happened there could be a precedent. The lawsuit alleged money had been misappropriated by the Developer and funds were not available cover improvements and repairs to recreation centers, swimming pools and other facilities that make the retirement community alluring. The people who filed the lawsuit had noticed a steady decline in building maintenance and conditions and services, and calls for action were completely ignored. The lawsuit was a last resort, and lucky for us a settlement was reached. We hope that lawsuits are a thing of the past, but I see no guarantees. And now we are embroiled in this whole IRS business, thanks to the Morses business acumen. Again, the residents could suffer financial consequences as a result.

We all have our own opinions. I am a financial conservative, and I do not like being beholden to a Developer that has this dubious record with lawsuits and the IRS. It just raises a red flag with me. I don't trust them. I personally will feel much better when we escape their omnipotence, and hire qualified people, like Janet Tutt for instance, to run things and to report to the residents directly. Our needs will come first.

Not meaning to stir the pot nor argue, but could you please explain some of your statements?

1) Putting his right to make money over our needs to have a wonderful retirement community? Is that not what we have now? If not, why not?

2) Did you know about any of this or do any research before moving here? If not, why not? If you did, why didn't you have problems with the 'history' then and the way things are run now?

3) Since the Developer pays her check, why wouldn't she consider him over what every Tom, Dick, and Harry here wants to change?

4) The IRS issue has a long history with TV and has either lost or backed off in the past. If it had the substance that many think it has, don't you think it would have been resolved years ago. They (IRS) already have some issues themselves, so.....

5) Did you not read my post about how it is here north of 466 with the AAC? I believe I also said, "Be careful what you wish for..."

6) "The lawsuit alleged" you said and could set a precedent. As for residents being totally ignored, no. In the case of the cart paths, they wanted newer and wider ones. Patches to existing ones were all that was going to still be available. The suit was settled rather than fight because it was deemed by the defendants to "be in the best interest of the Villagers". The terms are also sealed and cannot be discussed by either side. Why live in the "what if" this happens/that happens?

7) Last, and most importantly, what of your needs are not being met by Ms. Tutt and the Developer; and if things are so bad, why do you stay? With that question I am not suggesting that you don't need to be here. Everyone is welcome. I just know that I do not settle for things that I have a major problem with or are not acceptable. Just ask my ex.

[PennBF]

It is one thing to support the Developer regardless of his/her actions. It is another to claim the $40M awarded was somehow a miscarriage of justice of the courts. The courts heard all of the evidence and ruled. To say I don't have the "Court Facts" regarding the suit but challenge the results is really a show of such bias as to defy any logic. Regarding Ms. Tutt. Whether of not she does a good job is not the question. The question is it is right to allow the Developer to appoint a person who rules everything for the Villages. Of course she can and does effect the actions of the CDD's as she has great power over them plus the influence. If you read the law governing the Condo management you will see a signifiant difference, (Fl Law 718). In that case the Developer MUST turn the operations/government of the Condo over to an independent board and cannot have ANY influence over the Condo. A majority of the residents under the influence of the Developer really have no idea regarding what is done to foster his influence and revenue. How many actually know the difference between "Project Wide" and the "Ammenity Rules". How many actually know the alleged 'abuse of these two at the disadvantage of the residents and the advantage to the Developer? All of this is not a judgement on the performance of Janet Tutt but rather openings for abuses
and the lack of control of the residents. :read:

[mickey100]

It is one thing to support the Developer regardless of his/her actions. It is another to claim the $40M awarded was somehow a miscarriage of justice of the courts. The courts heard all of the evidence and ruled. To say I don't have the "Court Facts" regarding the suit but challenge the results is really a show of such bias as to defy any logic. Regarding Ms. Tutt. Whether of not she does a good job is not the question. The question is it is right to allow the Developer to appoint a person who rules everything for the Villages. Of course she can and does effect the actions of the CDD's as she has great power over them plus the influence. If you read the law governing the Condo management you will see a signifiant difference, (Fl Law 718). In that case the Developer MUST turn the operations/government of the Condo over to an independent board and cannot have ANY influence over the Condo. A majority of the residents under the influence of the Developer really have no idea regarding what is done to foster his influence and revenue. How many actually know the difference between "Project Wide" and the "Ammenity Rules". How many actually know the alleged 'abuse of these two at the disadvantage of the residents and the advantage to the Developer? All of this is not a judgement on the performance of Janet Tutt but rather openings for abuses
and the lack of control of the residents. :read:


The above is such a good post. Finally someone actually uses logic. :BigApplause:

I note, the original poster started this thread and asked who Janet Tutt reports to. Asked and answered - THE DEVELOPER. Since the thread has veered off into another realm regarding the pros and cons of the developer, which has been hashed and re-hashed a gazillion times in other threads, perhaps its time this thread is closed. Moderator?

[Michigandress]

Certainly the Developer has the right to make money, and he has done a fine job of doing that. But as residents, we are foolish if we elevate his right to make money, above our right to have a wonderful retirement community. Our needs come first, and we are paying for that right with our amenity fees. Some would say the past lawsuit is not relevant because it only involved those villages north of 466. I happen to live south of 466, and in my eyes, what happened there could be a precedent. The lawsuit alleged money had been misappropriated by the Developer and funds were not available cover improvements and repairs to recreation centers, swimming pools and other facilities that make the retirement community alluring. The people who filed the lawsuit had noticed a steady decline in building maintenance and conditions and services, and calls for action were completely ignored. The lawsuit was a last resort, and lucky for us a settlement was reached. We hope that lawsuits are a thing of the past, but I see no guarantees. And now we are embroiled in this whole IRS business, thanks to the Morses business acumen. Again, the residents could suffer financial consequences as a result.

We all have our own opinions. I am a financial conservative, and I do not like being beholden to a Developer that has this dubious record with lawsuits and the IRS. It just raises a red flag with me. I don't trust them. I personally will feel much better when we escape their omnipotence, and hire qualified people, like Janet Tutt for instance, to run things and to report to the residents directly. Our needs will come first.
You are right.

But looking at the situation differently, I would like to stipulate that the Developer is a genius in planning, building, and operating a retirement community. The Villages is well run, I like living here, and I have no intention of leaving.

However, there is an old saying to the effect that if you are dealing with either an idiot or a genius, you had better be careful and watch what is going on. That adage applies here, and the the Developer's actions underlying such situations as the class-action lawsuit and the IRS investigation prove it. But, I think that if Villagers keep an eye on the situation and if the Developer is unsuccessful in his efforts to undermine the only real check on his actions that residents have--the POA, I think everything will probably turn out just fine for everybody-- including the Developer.

[rubicon]

Non one is saying she is not acting in our interests, but we need to look at the whole picture here. Who pays her salary? The VCDD i.e. The Developer? If she answers directly to the Developer then she may try to act in our interests, but when push comes to shove, she'll always side with the Developer. And I'm not saying the Developer doesn't act in our interests, before the Developer lovers jump all over me. But, as others have stated, he is an astute businessman, and his interests are always going to come before ours. Hopefully our joint interests will be the same, but that doesn't always happen, to wit the $40 million lawsuit. My point wasn't that Janet Tutt doesn't do a good job, it was that I would feel better if the person in Tutt's position , i.e. Tutt or any other person, answered to the residents. I just don't like a setup where the Developer is omnipotent. A system of checks and balances would make me more comfortable. Obviously, those that are supporters of k the Developer and have complete trust, feel differently.



mickey 100: you are spot on. I have had dealings with Janet Tutt. she does appear to be a capable person but the position she is in leaves little room for creativity. The Developer as the IRS has learned is quite clever in that he claims an arms length distance when it comes to the bond issue but then has the ability to shape the villages to his economic advantage. Its all about timing and the manner in which business is transacted. Keep in mind that we are separated as CDD's but that controlling are the VCCDD and SLCCD much of what the Developer controls and has the assistance of 5 county commissioners under the heading Sumter One. It may be a good thing or it may be a bad thing or it may just be? You choose

To me its all about expectations and those expectations were derived from a resident's understanding of what he/she bought into. Did you believe you were buying into a retirement community or a vacation destination? Did you believe that this was a gated community? Did you believe that the town squares and champions course were mainly for residents and family? Did you understand that although they call this a town it is not a town because it is simply comprised of villages? Did you approach buying into this development with rose colored glasses (ie. Disneyworld for Adults)?etc. etc. etc . I do not find fault here but lay the base for why such things as Janet Tutt's position and performance may mean different things to different people. And I wish her well and have always thrown my support behind her

[Lady L_Commissioner_Ward4]

I have in the past, and will defend Janet, I have known here for years, have had many business dealings with her, she is straightforward, extremely knowledgable, and doubt if there is another person that could do the job she does, with so much on her plate.
Just my opinion as an elected official in the municipality of Lady Lake.




John 8:7 (KJV)

So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
Amen

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

It is one thing to support the Developer regardless of his/her actions. It is another to claim the $40M awarded was somehow a miscarriage of justice of the courts. The courts heard all of the evidence and ruled. To say I don't have the "Court Facts" regarding the suit but challenge the results is really a show of such bias as to defy any logic. Regarding Ms. Tutt. Whether of not she does a good job is not the question. The question is it is right to allow the Developer to appoint a person who rules everything for the Villages. Of course she can and does effect the actions of the CDD's as she has great power over them plus the influence. If you read the law governing the Condo management you will see a signifiant difference, (Fl Law 718). In that case the Developer MUST turn the operations/government of the Condo over to an independent board and cannot have ANY influence over the Condo. A majority of the residents under the influence of the Developer really have no idea regarding what is done to foster his influence and revenue. How many actually know the difference between "Project Wide" and the "Ammenity Rules". How many actually know the alleged 'abuse of these two at the disadvantage of the residents and the advantage to the Developer? All of this is not a judgement on the performance of Janet Tutt but rather openings for abuses
and the lack of control of the residents. :read:

I think that you'll find that when we all signed all of those papers when we we're buying our homes here, we agreed to allow the developer to appoint someone who rule everything for The Villages.
The Villages, by the way, is not a condominium.

[mickey100]

I have in the past, and will defend Janet, I have known here for years, have had many business dealings with her, she is straightforward, extremely knowledgable, and doubt if there is another person that could do the job she does, with so much on her plate.
Just my opinion as an elected official in the municipality ...

Thank you for your post. I'd like to point out, however, there is no need to defend her. I really don't know where this is all coming from, but no posts say Janet is not doing a good job. In fact, just the opposite. There seems to be universal approval of her job performance.

But There are questions regarding the way her position is aligned with the Developer that raise concern. This has nothing to do with Ms. Tutt, but rather the way she reports to the Developer and ultimately is required to act in the Developer's interest, rather than the interests of the residents. As mentioned before, those interests generally coincide, but when they don't, the residents could get the short end of the stick.

[mickey100]

mickey 100: you are spot on. I have had dealings with Janet Tutt. she does appear to be a capable person but the position she is in leaves little room for creativity. The Developer as the IRS has learned is quite clever in that he claims an arms length distance when it comes to the bond issue but then has the ability to shape the villages to his economic advantage. Its all about timing and the manner in which business is transacted. Keep in mind that we are separated as CDD's but that controlling are the VCCDD and SLCCD much of what the Developer controls and has the assistance of 5 county commissioners under the heading Sumter One. It may be a good thing or it may be a bad thing or it may just be? You choose

To me its all about expectations and those expectations were derived from a resident's understanding of what he/she bought into. Did you believe you were buying into a retirement community or a vacation destination? Did you believe that this was a gated community? Did you believe that the town squares and champions course were mainly for residents and family? Did you understand that although they call this a town it is not a town because it is simply comprised of villages? Did you approach buying into this development with rose colored glasses (ie. Disneyworld for Adults)?etc. etc. etc . I do not find fault here but lay the base for why such things as Janet Tutt's position and performance may mean different things to different people. And I wish her well and have always thrown my support behind her

Spot on. :BigApplause:

[Bogie Shooter]

Thank you for your post. I'd like to point out, however, there is no need to defend her. I really don't know where this is all coming from, but no posts say Janet is not doing a good job. In fact, just the opposite. There seems to be universal approval of her job performance.

But There are questions regarding the way her position is aligned with the Developer that raise concern. This has nothing to do with Ms. Tutt, but rather the way she reports to the Developer and ultimately is required to act in the Developer's interest, rather than the interests of the residents. As mentioned before, those interests generally coincide, but when they don't, the residents could get the short end of the stick.

This is the statement that keeps raising the issue of condeming Mrs. Tutt.
Your implication that she will act in the Developer's interest is what posters are challenging. You say she will....................

[mickey100]

This is the statement that keeps raising the issue of condeming Mrs. Tutt.
Your implication that she will act in the Developer's interest is what posters are challenging. You say she will....................

Acting in the Developer's interest is not an implication that she doesn't do a good job. That is a misinterpretation on someone's part.

No one is condemning her or implying anything negative regarding her work skills. As mentioned numerous times, she is doing a good job given the framework she has to work within.

But, for the last time - the point of my post, is that I would prefer to have a manager that is not tied to the Developer. The Developer pays her salary. When the interests of the Developer and residents coincide, all will be well. When they don't, Ms. Tutt can make a recommendation in the residents' favor, but the Developer can and will and override it if it is not in his business interests. She will be forced to go along with the Developer i.e. act in his interests, or she will lose her job. That is reality.

[Bogie Shooter]

I'm gone on this one..........................

[graciegirl]

I'm gone on this one..........................



I'm out too.


One last thing.


If it ain't broke, please don't fix it. And if you have the need to fix something, please go somewhere else and fix it. This place is doing fine and if the developer messes up, there will be 100,000 mean old people all over him.

[rubicon]

Not meaning to stir the pot nor argue, but could you please explain some of your statements?

1) Putting his right to make money over our needs to have a wonderful retirement community? Is that not what we have now? If not, why not?

2) Did you know about any of this or do any research before moving here? If not, why not? If you did, why didn't you have problems with the 'history' then and the way things are run now?

3) Since the Developer pays her check, why wouldn't she consider him over what every Tom, Dick, and Harry here wants to change?

4) The IRS issue has a long history with TV and has either lost or backed off in the past. If it had the substance that many think it has, don't you think it would have been resolved years ago. They (IRS) already have some issues themselves, so.....

5) Did you not read my post about how it is here north of 466 with the AAC? I believe I also said, "Be careful what you wish for..."

6) "The lawsuit alleged" you said and could set a precedent. As for residents being totally ignored, no. In the case of the cart paths, they wanted newer and wider ones. Patches to existing ones were all that was going to still be available. The suit was settled rather than fight because it was deemed by the defendants to "be in the best interest of the Villagers". The terms are also sealed and cannot be discussed by either side. Why live in the "what if" this happens/that happens?

7) Last, and most importantly, what of your needs are not being met by Ms. Tutt and the Developer; and if things are so bad, why do you stay? With that question I am not suggesting that you don't need to be here. Everyone is welcome. I just know that I do not settle for things that I have a major problem with or are not acceptable. Just ask my ex.

Hi dillywho: Let me preface my remarks by explaining that to me to suggest that if someone doesn't like it they should move is not a cogent argument, its an emotional reaction. Secondly, I am perplex by people who seem to defend the reputation of the Developer. Now going down your list:

1) do we have a retirement community or has it turned into a vacation destination?

2) As to its history you would have to apply the "What did they know"and "when did they know it". so it depends on when someone moved here and what transpired before they arrived?

3) you don't see a problem with the Developer paying the check for the one person who has the responsibility for protecting our interest? I mean you don't see this as a "conflict of interests"?

4) I strongly suggest that you read the Notice of Proposed Issue #1, #2, #3 filed by the IRS .

5) The ACC was a result of the Amenity settlement that was suppose to give residents freedom to decide on how to spend amenities. Janet Tutt and others aligned with the developer sit on that council. I am not saying it is right or wrong, in fact I believe some of the decision coming from the ACC are not well thought out. But I won't manage from beneath because I do not know what they are dealing with

6) This lawsuit was settled but why was it sealed and why didn't the residents north of 466 have an opportunity to hear the proposals before they settled. It was styled a class action and residents were told the suit was going to be settled and if they want to opt out they had to file on their own behalf. Did the plaintiff lawyers settle this suit too quickly? Ask yourself why would the developer make an offer only after 15 months? As to precedent how can we ever have one because the settlement was settled for that reason among others. Had the plaintiffs in this case made it more difficult for the POA or residents in the future t bring suit against the Developer? We simply don't know

7) You know my feeling about telling people to move. What are we not getting. I suggest residents begin with understanding the financial statements and follow through with daily transactions. I mean we don't know what we don't know.

I have a good feeling about Janet Tutt but business is business and far too many residents ignore the business goings on here


Personal Best Regards

[PennBF]

If anyone is interested in knowing how a community, whether it be a Condo or HOA/Villages, etc. should be controlled they should familiarize themselves with Florida Law 718 which is the law Condo's and Condo Boards must follow and the limitations of the Developer. It controls the Developer from continuing to rule the community once the homes/condos have been built and places very tough laws for the Boards to follow. It is amazing the difference in the way the developer is controlled and the prevention of "Developer Abuses". In addition there is pretty a long schedule of fines for violating the rules. Somehow it has been possible for a group to convince the Florida State Reps. to allow almost unlimited abuses by the Developer when they call it an HOA? It is clear that under 718 there would not be an IRS abuse as is the case with The Villages. It would be checked at the very start of the practice! Boards are not only held accountable to the residents but the Government and both fines and criminal charges can be brought forward if there are certain violations. There is no accountability to the "Board" in The Villages as the "Psedo"Board" is the Developer. Checks and balances do not exist. The developer is a business and too many want to give a business a "soul". A business is a "profit making organization" and does not have a soul no matter how many want to pretend it does. :read:

[CFrance]

Acting in the Developer's interest is not an implication that she doesn't do a good job. That is a misinterpretation on someone's part.

No one is condemning her or implying anything negative regarding her work skills. As mentioned numerous times, she is doing a good job given the framework she has to work within.

But, for the last time - the point of my post, is that I would prefer to have a manager that is not tied to the Developer. The Developer pays her salary. When the interests of the Developer and residents coincide, all will be well. When they don't, Ms. Tutt can make a recommendation in the residents' favor, but the Developer can and will and override it if it is not in his business interests. She will be forced to go along with the Developer i.e. act in his interests, or she will lose her job. That is reality.

I hesitate to weigh in here, but isn't the point of a manager to work for the owner and keep his "company" well oiled and running smoothly? Take over the day-to-day ops and free him up to work on bigger things?

[Advogado]

I hesitate to weigh in here, but isn't the point of a manager to work for the owner and keep his "company" well oiled and running smoothly? Take over the day-to-day ops and free him up to work on bigger things?
Yes, but the job of a government official is to represent the interests of her constituents. That is very hard for anybody in Janet Tutt's position to do in cases where the interests of the Developer conflict with those of her constituents and the Developer can fire her at any time. From what I have seen, Ms. Tutt does a reasonably good job of dealing with the situation. But residents should be aware of the fact that she can never cross the Developer when his interests are at odds with those of the residents.

[graciegirl]

If anyone is interested in knowing how a community, whether it be a Condo or HOA/Villages, etc. should be controlled they should familiarize themselves with Florida Law 718 which is the law Condo's and Condo Boards must follow and the limitations of the Developer. It controls the Developer from continuing to rule the community once the homes/condos have been built and places very tough laws for the Boards to follow. It is amazing the difference in the way the developer is controlled and the prevention of "Developer Abuses". In addition there is pretty a long schedule of fines for violating the rules. Somehow it has been possible for a group to convince the Florida State Reps. to allow almost unlimited abuses by the Developer when they call it an HOA? It is clear that under 718 there would not be an IRS abuse as is the case with The Villages. It would be checked at the very start of the practice! Boards are not only held accountable to the residents but the Government and both fines and criminal charges can be brought forward if there are certain violations. There is no accountability to the "Board" in The Villages as the "Psedo"Board" is the Developer. Checks and balances do not exist. The developer is a business and too many want to give a business a "soul". A business is a "profit making organization" and does not have a soul no matter how many want to pretend it does. :read:



I said I was done. But we are a CDD not a condo or an HOA.
http://activerain.com/blogsview/24019/what-is-a-cdd-community-development-district

[PennBF]

The purpose was to point out that both cover communities and both should have the objective to do what is best for the resident consumer. One prevents abuses of the consumer resident by law and fines and criminal charges the other avoids protection of the consumer resident in favor of the Deverloper. These are facts and not arguable. CDD's are protections of the resident only to the degree the developer wants to support the CDD. They are in the main totally influenced by the Villages manager who has the power to constrain/direct their behavior. It is possible to cloud the facts and over look reality. It is a shame to do that since it is unfair to the residents who need protection. In today's world the POA is the only one which the resident have to protect them from abuse. There should be laws on the books which do that and not ask the POA to carry that burden.:read:

[dillywho]

Hi dillywho: Let me preface my remarks by explaining that to me to suggest that if someone doesn't like it they should move is not a cogent argument, its an emotional reaction. Secondly, I am perplex by people who seem to defend the reputation of the Developer. Now going down your list:

1) do we have a retirement community or has it turned into a vacation destination?

2) As to its history you would have to apply the "What did they know"and "when did they know it". so it depends on when someone moved here and what transpired before they arrived?

3) you don't see a problem with the Developer paying the check for the one person who has the responsibility for protecting our interest? I mean you don't see this as a "conflict of interests"?

4) I strongly suggest that you read the Notice of Proposed Issue #1, #2, #3 filed by the IRS .

5) The ACC was a result of the Amenity settlement that was suppose to give residents freedom to decide on how to spend amenities. Janet Tutt and others aligned with the developer sit on that council. I am not saying it is right or wrong, in fact I believe some of the decision coming from the ACC are not well thought out. But I won't manage from beneath because I do not know what they are dealing with

6) This lawsuit was settled but why was it sealed and why didn't the residents north of 466 have an opportunity to hear the proposals before they settled. It was styled a class action and residents were told the suit was going to be settled and if they want to opt out they had to file on their own behalf. Did the plaintiff lawyers settle this suit too quickly? Ask yourself why would the developer make an offer only after 15 months? As to precedent how can we ever have one because the settlement was settled for that reason among others. Had the plaintiffs in this case made it more difficult for the POA or residents in the future t bring suit against the Developer? We simply don't know

7) You know my feeling about telling people to move. What are we not getting. I suggest residents begin with understanding the financial statements and follow through with daily transactions. I mean we don't know what we don't know.

I have a good feeling about Janet Tutt but business is business and far too many residents ignore the business goings on here


Personal Best Regards

First, let me say thank you for taking the time to respond to my post. Let's get one thing out of the way first. Please read my post again because I stated that I am not telling anyone to leave. Quite the contrary. I merely asked why someone would stay if they were so unhappy, dissatisfied, and bothered by what they signed on for. Some, if not most, of the issues that have been brought out are old and general knowledge, so do people not do any research beforehand? There are no bones made about how The Villages operates.

What I'm about to say is and isn't along the same lines, so please don't be offended. I am noticing more and more that people are moving here and then immediately want to start changing things to what "they are accustomed to back home". They don't like this, they don't like that, etc. Once again, do they not check it out first? Everything is not about what I like/don't like, you like/don't like, etc. That's why there is so much here....something for everyone. We knew when we moved here that there are no fences, no hedges above a certain height allowed, pet limits, etc., and accepted it.

Don't know who remembers, but Sumter One came about because our county taxes were being used everywhere in the county but here, because there was no representation for our part of the county. I don't see that being the case with the Developer because we do benefit from our own monies and always have. Maybe not like some would prefer, but we do reap the benefits.

I agree with your question about whether this is still a retirement community or more a vacation destination. I have seen it evolving since I've been here into more of a vacation spot for people who have no family or friends here. I don't like that. Maybe the hope is that they will like it and move here, but I don't really see that happening because so many are young families.

This is already too long, but as to the lawsuit, I agree with a lot of what you were saying about the lack of transparency. I don't agree with some getting personal settlements, either. I don't agree with some of the decisions made by the "Board (AAC)", but some good has come out of all of it. They were not refused by the Developer to do anything about the cart paths, but patches only were in the offing. Once the AAC was established, new paths were constructed. Much better.

As for the IRS, if their case were as strong as they would have others believe, it would not still be a lingering issue. This is only the 3rd or 4th time for this fight.

Thanks again for engaging me. We may not see completely eye-to-eye, but you and I both have some valid points. I do love discussions.

[Advogado]

Hi dillywho: Let me preface my remarks by explaining that to me to suggest that if someone doesn't like it they should move is not a cogent argument, its an emotional reaction. Secondly, I am perplex by people who seem to defend the reputation of the Developer. Now going down your list:

1) do we have a retirement community or has it turned into a vacation destination?

2) As to its history you would have to apply the "What did they know"and "when did they know it". so it depends on when someone moved here and what transpired before they arrived?

3) you don't see a problem with the Developer paying the check for the one person who has the responsibility for protecting our interest? I mean you don't see this as a "conflict of interests"?

4) I strongly suggest that you read the Notice of Proposed Issue #1, #2, #3 filed by the IRS .

5) The ACC was a result of the Amenity settlement that was suppose to give residents freedom to decide on how to spend amenities. Janet Tutt and others aligned with the developer sit on that council. I am not saying it is right or wrong, in fact I believe some of the decision coming from the ACC are not well thought out. But I won't manage from beneath because I do not know what they are dealing with

6) This lawsuit was settled but why was it sealed and why didn't the residents north of 466 have an opportunity to hear the proposals before they settled. It was styled a class action and residents were told the suit was going to be settled and if they want to opt out they had to file on their own behalf. Did the plaintiff lawyers settle this suit too quickly? Ask yourself why would the developer make an offer only after 15 months? As to precedent how can we ever have one because the settlement was settled for that reason among others. Had the plaintiffs in this case made it more difficult for the POA or residents in the future t bring suit against the Developer? We simply don't know

7) You know my feeling about telling people to move. What are we not getting. I suggest residents begin with understanding the financial statements and follow through with daily transactions. I mean we don't know what we don't know.

I have a good feeling about Janet Tutt but business is business and far too many residents ignore the business goings on here


Personal Best Regards
Re your point 6. We are entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts. On what basis do you say the settlement terms were sealed? The court summary is here: The Villages, FL - Class Action Settlement Notice - www.thevillagesfl.us (http://www.thevillagesfl.us/classactionsettlement.htm)
That "Notice of Settlement" clearly states that all records related to the case may be inspected at the courthouse.

In earlier posts, I have suggested that those critics who think that the class action against the Developer was unjustified can cleanse their consciences by refunding, to the Developer, their prorata share of the settlement proceeds. To the best of my knowledge, none of the critics has done so.

[PennBF]

Darn, I was going to just stay out of this now and move on to other things in my life but it is hard to ignore distortions. The facts of the settlement are well documented and after hearing all the "Facts" the court ruled. That is the American way of life. I don't think anyone who moved to The Villages suggests they want to leave but that does not remove the right to representative government which is the "foundation" of the American system and what many have fought and died for. Does anyone really believe it is the right system to give the Developer (a good or bad one) a life time ability to rule over 100,000 residents without a solid check and balance. Our fore fathers thought a check and balance system was significant enough to establish the American form of government which is based on a Judicial, Executive and Legistative form of government. What makes the governing of the Villages any different in terms of control for the best interests of the residents. Some have given the Developer a sort of "King" form of government. That ultimately failed in England, etc. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Lets all pray that those who feel it is in the best interest to give one person the ability to rule their lives comes to their senses and recognize the folly in that form of governing.:ohdear:

[mickey100]

Darn, I was going to just stay out of this now and move on to other things in my life but it is hard to ignore distortions. The facts of the settlement are well documented and after hearing all the "Facts" the court ruled. That is the American way of life. I don't think anyone who moved to The Villages suggests they want to leave but that does not remove the right to representative government which is the "foundation" of the American system and what many have fought and died for. Does anyone really believe it is the right system to give the Developer (a good or bad one) a life time ability to rule over 100,000 residents without a solid check and balance. Our fore fathers thought a check and balance system was significant enough to establish the American form of government which is based on a Judicial, Executive and Legistative form of government. What makes the governing of the Villages any different in terms of control for the best interests of the residents. Some have given the Developer a sort of "King" form of government. That ultimately failed in England, etc. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Lets all pray that those who feel it is in the best interest to give one person the ability to rule their lives comes to their senses and recognize the folly in that form of governing.:ohdear:

Well said! :bigbow:

[mickey100]

…...

In earlier posts, I have suggested that those critics who think that the class action against the Developer was unjustified can cleanse their consciences by refunding, to the Developer, their prorata share of the settlement proceeds. To the best of my knowledge, none of the critics has done so.

:a040:

[graciegirl]

Darn, I was going to just stay out of this now and move on to other things in my life but it is hard to ignore distortions. The facts of the settlement are well documented and after hearing all the "Facts" the court ruled. That is the American way of life. I don't think anyone who moved to The Villages suggests they want to leave but that does not remove the right to representative government which is the "foundation" of the American system and what many have fought and died for. Does anyone really believe it is the right system to give the Developer (a good or bad one) a life time ability to rule over 100,000 residents without a solid check and balance. Our fore fathers thought a check and balance system was significant enough to establish the American form of government which is based on a Judicial, Executive and Legistative form of government. What makes the governing of the Villages any different in terms of control for the best interests of the residents. Some have given the Developer a sort of "King" form of government. That ultimately failed in England, etc. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Lets all pray that those who feel it is in the best interest to give one person the ability to rule their lives comes to their senses and recognize the folly in that form of governing.:ohdear:



I moved here because this place is unique and well run. If there is a movement to change it and it works, I will be out of here. I want to ask you PennBF and I want you to answer honestly. Have you ever served on a homeowners association? If so where and how long? How big was the community?

[graciegirl]

Re your point 6. We are entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts. On what basis do you say the settlement terms were sealed? The court summary is here: The Villages, FL - Class Action Settlement Notice - www.thevillagesfl.us (http://www.thevillagesfl.us/classactionsettlement.htm)
That "Notice of Settlement" clearly states that all records related to the case may be inspected at the courthouse.

In earlier posts, I have suggested that those critics who think that the class action against the Developer was unjustified can cleanse their consciences by refunding, to the Developer, their prorata share of the settlement proceeds. To the best of my knowledge, none of the critics has done so.




I am of the belief that this place would be just as good if not better without this lawsuit. I see that as this place has grown, it gets better, as the knowledge of just what is best is presented, it is added. If the developers were greedy we would see evidence of it. I personally think this is an impossible situation that is working wonderfully well and I am hoping the developers will stay and build until I die for that very reason.


And I say that some of this attitude against the developer is somewhat politically motivated because of his large contributions to one of the political parties. One of the posters very involved in this discussion has placed a notice of local meeting for the political party that was not given the large contributions.

[Polar Bear]

...Does anyone really believe it is the right system to give the Developer (a good or bad one) a life time ability to rule over 100,000 residents without a solid check and balance. Our fore fathers thought a check and balance system was significant enough to establish the American form of government which is based on a Judicial, Executive and Legistative form of government. What makes the governing of the Villages any different in terms of control for the best interests of the residents...

There is one HUGE difference...

The Villages is a PRIVATE development. Residents have chosen to move here, knowing the rules and organization beforehand.

(And please don't use the lame argument that citizen's have chosen to live in the US. Obviously that's apples and oranges.)

[Michigandress]

I don't necessarily disagree with some of your thoughts, but there is one HUGE difference...

The Villages is a PRIVATE development. Residents have chosen to move here, knowing the rules and organization beforehand.

(And please don't use the lame argument that citizen's have chosen to live in the US. Obviously that's apples and oranges.)
Wrong.

The Villages is not a private development. True, it has been built by one Developer, but it is supposedly governed by Community Development Districts. Community Development Districts (as the Developer argues when confronted by the IRS) are, or are supposed to be, governmental units and not part of the Developer's private fiefdom.

[graciegirl]

Wrong.

The Villages is not a private development. True, it has been built by one Developer, but it is supposedly governed by Community Development Districts. Community Development Districts (as the Developer argues when confronted by the IRS) are, or are supposed to be, governmental units and not part of the Developer's private fiefdom.



The CDD form of government is unique to Florida. There are almost 600 other CDD's, but none nearly as successful.


I sense a movement to try to change this place and frankly I am terrified.


The IRS is challenging the MUNICIPAL bonds being tax exempt. Please remember that. If that was a slam dunk, the points would be on the scoreboard.

[Bogie Shooter]

The CDD form of government is unique to Florida. There are almost 600 other CDD's, but none nearly as successful.


I sense a movement to try to change this place and frankly I am terrified.


The IRS is challenging the MUNICIPAL bonds being tax exempt. Please remember that. If that was a slam dunk, the points would be on the scoreboard.

Two people don't make a movement!

[graciegirl]

Two people don't make a movement!



You are right Bogie. Sorry.

[Michigandress]

Two people don't make a movement!

You are quite right. The chances of any kind of a political movement taking root in The Villages, unless something goes disastorously wrong, are between nothing and zero, and I don't think any posters in this thread have advocated starting one. Bottom line: Gracie Girl has nothing to be "terrified" about.

[Polar Bear]

It's not wrong.

A CDD is a unique form of governing body. But it does not change the fact that TV is a privately controlled development. We could argue this point all day long. It could come down to semantics or a bit of a gray area. But TV would not exist if a private developer didn't build it and agree to forming a governing body of a certain sort...over which he still maintains great control.

To somebody deciding whether or not to come here, it's very little different from a subdivision (a huge one for sure...heheh) with deed restrictions. There is some similarity (very little imo) to a city government. No comparison at all to a county/state/federal government.




Wrong.

The Villages is not a private development. True, it has been built by one Developer, but it is supposedly governed by Community Development Districts. Community Development Districts (as the Developer argues when confronted by the IRS) are, or are supposed to be, governmental units and not part of the Developer's private fiefdom.

[Advogado]

It's not wrong.

A CDD is a unique form of governing body. But it does not change the fact that TV is a privately controlled development. We could argue this point all day long. It could come down to semantics or a bit of a gray area. But TV would not exist if a private developer didn't build it and agree to forming a governing body of a certain sort...over which he still maintains great control.

To somebody deciding whether or not to come here, it's very little different from a subdivision (a huge one for sure...heheh) with deed restrictions. There is some similarity (very little imo) to a city government. No comparison at all to a county/state/federal government.

You are making the same argument that the IRS is making in its tax-exempt-bond investigation. I hope for all our sakes that your argument does not prevail in that process. If it does, we have a problem.

[Polar Bear]

You are making the same argument that the IRS is making in its tax-exempt-bond investigation...

That's your opinion. I respectfully disagree.

[PennBF]

Graciegirl, you asked if I ever served on a Community Board. After seeing the terrible abuse you have taken for exposing personal information there is no way I would put myself in that bullseye. My words speak for themselves !! My private life and history is mine. I am sorry you were attacked and although I have great differences with your position on a number of issues I continue to respect your right to voice them. ;)

[dillywho]

Graciegirl, you asked if I ever served on a Community Board. After seeing the terrible abuse you have taken for exposing personal information there is no way I would put myself in that bullseye. My words speak for themselves !! My private life and history is mine. I am sorry you were attacked and although I have great differences with your position on a number of issues I continue to respect your right to voice them. ;)

Excellent post! We should each respect one another's right to voice our opinions. You are spot on. Thank you. We don't have to agree with one another but respect is due everyone.

[Warren Kiefer]

when The Villages is "built out" the developer will probably hand over the governing of the development to a board. The board will probably be elected by the residents. but we will still need a "city manager" who is in charge of the staff at the office.

yOU JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND THE VCDD AND SLCDD MAKE UP... THE CENTRAL BOARD THAT IS PRESENTLY ELECTED BY THE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THAT DISTRICT. THE VCDD BOUNDARIES ENCOMPASS THE SPANISH SPRINGS "DOWNTOWN AREA" AND THERE IS NOT A SINGLE RESIDENT THAT LIVES WITHIN THOSE BOUNDARIES AND NEVER WILL. IF THE DEVELOPER WOULD CHOOSE TO SELL THAT PROPERTY TO PERHAPS A INVESTMENT GROUP, THEY THEN WOULD HAVE THE ONLY VOTE OF WHO WOULD SERVE ON THE VCDD BOARD. THIS IS WHERE I BECOME A LITTLE UNEASY, OUR GOVERNING BODY ( THE VCDD) COULD IN FACT BECOME UNDER THE CONTROL OF ANY LARGE OF INVESTMENT ORGANIZATION.

[Warren Kiefer]

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.

the truth here is that the poa was the driving force to get the money refunded from the developer. The developer had no defence, the residents were charged for a liner that was on the developers private property. Actually it was a savvy resident that caught the error. Why the residents were charged for the liner in the first place is still a puzzle to me.

[rubicon]

Re your point 6. We are entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts. On what basis do you say the settlement terms were sealed? The court summary is here: The Villages, FL - Class Action Settlement Notice - www.thevillagesfl.us (http://www.thevillagesfl.us/classactionsettlement.htm)
That "Notice of Settlement" clearly states that all records related to the case may be inspected at the courthouse.

In earlier posts, I have suggested that those critics who think that the class action against the Developer was unjustified can cleanse their consciences by refunding, to the Developer, their prorata share of the settlement proceeds. To the best of my knowledge, none of the critics has done so.

Hi Avogado: I believe you might dig a little deeper because the plaintiff attorney signed a confidentially agreement with the Developer. what you are referring to was the lawsuit filed with the causes of actions not this agreement and its this agreement many are interested in reading because it contains some covenants

Personal Best Regards

[Warren Kiefer]

you make it sound like we have a problem with the way she performs her job right now. I don't believe we do.

I don't have a problem with anything. I am simply making a point for everyone to consider. Janet tutt is hired by a board that is 100% under the control of the developer. The developer does not pay her salary, the residents actually provide the funds. If a situation arose where the developer was at severe odds with the residents, perhaps a huge law suit, do you actually think janet tutt would do battle for the residents against the developer ??? And if she did , how long do you think she would have her present job ???

[Villages Kahuna]

The answers to this question can be a bit confusing. There are actually different kinds of development districts--the residential ones like Districts 1 thru 9, or what ever it's up to now. And the development districts which govern the affairs of the commercial districts like Spanish Springs, Lake Sumter Landing and Brownwood, the Central Development Districts. Janet Tutt actually serves at the pleasure ('elected', if you will) of the property owners of those commercial districts, which happens to be the Developer of The Villages.

What she governs are the affairs and operation of those commercial districts. Each of the residential districts after they are established for a number of years, are governed by residents who are elected to fill the roles of district commisioners. It's a little more complicated than that in that the number of residents on the residential district boards increase over time from one to five as the Developer withdraws from the management of those districts.

By the way, I think Ms.Tutt does a helluva good job of executing her responsibilities.

[Warren Kiefer]

i hesitate to weigh in here, but isn't the point of a manager to work for the owner and keep his "company" well oiled and running smoothly? Take over the day-to-day ops and free him up to work on bigger things?

you have a misunderstanding of the vcdd and slcdd as it pertains to janet tutt. Let me explain once again. Janet tutt does not work work for the developer period !!!!! She works as a manager and in the interest of the residents who actually fund her salary thru the vcdd and slcdd. Now for the possible conflict of interest, these central board members are elected by a single landowner, that being the developer. These two boards being under the control of the developer hire janet tutt and pay her with resident money..

[Bogie Shooter]

i don't have a problem with anything. I am simply making a point for everyone to consider. Janet tutt is hired by a board that is 100% under the control of the developer. The developer does not pay her salary, the residents actually provide the funds. If a situation arose where the developer was at severe odds with the residents, perhaps a huge law suit, do you actually think janet tutt would do battle for the residents against the developer ??? And if she did , how long do you think she would have her present job ???

This sounds like a broken record...................................

[Bogie Shooter]

The answers to this question can be a bit confusing. There are actually different kinds of development districts--the residential ones like Districts 1 thru 9, or what ever it's up to now. And the development districts which govern the affairs of the commercial districts like Spanish Springs, Lake Sumter Landing and Brownwood, the Central Development Districts. Janet Tutt actually serves at the pleasure ('elected', if you will) of the property owners of those commercial districts, which happens to be the Developer of The Villages.

What she governs are the affairs and operation of those commercial districts. Each of the residential districts after they are established for a number of years, are governed by residents who are elected to fill the roles of district commisioners. It's a little more complicated than that in that the number of residents on the residential district boards increase over time from one to five as the Developer withdraws from the management of those districts.

By the way, I think Ms.Tutt does a helluva good job of executing her responsibilities.

You are soon to get a - yes, but............reply.

[Advogado]

Hi Avogado: I believe you might dig a little deeper because the plaintiff attorney signed a confidentially agreement with the Developer. what you are referring to was the lawsuit filed with the causes of actions not this agreement and its this agreement many are interested in reading because it contains some covenants

Personal Best Regards
I am always willing to be educated, but it is inconceivable to me that the terms of a settlement in a class-action suit could ever be kept confidential from the members of the class (i.e., all the residents north of 466), but that is what you are alleging. Could you clarify for me exactly what confidentiality agreement you are referring to? I am relatively familiar with the class action, and a this is the first time that I have heard of it.

By the way, I personally know most of the plaintiffs in the class action and I have a lot of respect for them and for what they did for all of us. If you have any questions about the settlement, I am sure that they would be glad to answer them. Furthermore, if you have any concerns that the plaintiffs were motivated by anything other than protecting the rights of the Villagers, which at the time were being abused by the Developer, I can assure you that you are barking up the wrong tree.

My only concern about the settlement is that maybe the $43,000,000 might turn out not to be enough (if, for example we get a huge increase in the minimum wage or the IRS investigation turns out badly), but we will have to deal with that if and when a problem arises.

[robertj1954]

I have had a few opportunities to talk with Ms. Tutt. I have a very high opinion of her leadership and her interaction with residents of The Villages. She is very engaged with both the districts and the Developer in making The Villages the best retirement community in America. I feel she is doing an outstanding job.

[mickey100]

...
By the way, I personally know most of the plaintiffs in the class action and I have a lot of respect for them and for what they did for all of us. If you have any questions about the settlement, I am sure that they would be glad to answer them. Furthermore, if you have any concerns that the plaintiffs were motivated by anything other than protecting the rights of the Villagers, which at the time were being abused by the Developer, I can assure you that you are barking up the wrong tree.

My only concern about the settlement is that maybe the $43,000,000 might turn out not to be enough (if, for example we get a huge increase in the minimum wage or the IRS investigation turns out badly), but we will have to deal with that if and when a problem arises.

I read some of these posts where people attack the plaintiffs, and I just have to shake my head. They sacrificed several years of their lives to move the lawsuit ahead, a lawsuit that was brought unselfishly to benefit the residents of The Villages. We are so fortunate they worked in our behalf.

[nitehawk]

This sounds like a broken record...................................

I turn off broken records --- and i stop making comments

[mickey100]

This sounds like a broken record...................................

Sometimes it takes many tries to get through to people.

[PennBF]

In a number of cases the person(s) commenting bring up "Personalities" and how terrific someone in authority of The Villages Management is. The important and critical item is the "Governing System" in place and not the "Personality/Person". I know a lot admire the Developer and tout him to the point of being blind. He is a "Billionaire". He runs The Villages and continues to build his personal wealth based on income from The Village residents. Is that wrong? Only if he is gaining that income from abuses because of his authority. What is important is for TV's to have a governing system which prevents abuses and that does not exist. That is a fact and cannot be argued. Although Janet Tutt may be doing a good job it should not be forgotton nor lost that she is in the position/appointed by a series of actions that allegedly lead back to the Developer. Is that a healthy system, heck no. It is only as good as the person and the residents deserve better than that. Do I love the Villages? As I have said many times ..You betcha.Do I plan to stay and enjoy the community, You betcha. Do I think it is open to abuse because of the system of Personality vs Governing law, You betcha. What ever happened to those that have studied history and understand what I am saying? I am sure not that many cut those classes in school/college. :confused::

[Warren Kiefer]

This sounds like a broken record...................................

It wouldn't sound like a broken record if before posting people would know the facts. Should we ignore a person stating that the developer pays Janet Tutt's salary when this absolutely untrue ??? Or that Janet Tutt works for the Developer, which is also totally false. It is very important that all information regarding any subject be factual. Otherwise, incorrect information gets passed on and on. :pepper2:

[dillywho]

Anybody see the independent audit results in today's paper? Sounds like somebody's doing something right. Just sayin'.

[Bogie Shooter]

Anybody see the independent audit results in today's paper? Sounds like somebody's doing something right. Just sayin'.

Oh but, what if?


:smiley:

[mickey100]

In a number of cases the person(s) commenting bring up "Personalities" and how terrific someone in authority of The Villages Management is. The important and critical item is the "Governing System" in place and not the "Personality/Person". I know a lot admire the Developer and tout him to the point of being blind. He is a "Billionaire". He runs The Villages and continues to build his personal wealth based on income from The Village residents. Is that wrong? Only if he is gaining that income from abuses because of his authority. What is important is for TV's to have a governing system which prevents abuses and that does not exist. That is a fact and cannot be argued. Although Janet Tutt may be doing a good job it should not be forgotton nor lost that she is in the position/appointed by a series of actions that allegedly lead back to the Developer. Is that a healthy system, heck no. It is only as good as the person and the residents deserve better than that. Do I love the Villages? As I have said many times ..You betcha.Do I plan to stay and enjoy the community, You betcha. Do I think it is open to abuse because of the system of Personality vs Governing law, You betcha. What ever happened to those that have studied history and understand what I am saying? I am sure not that many cut those classes in school/college. :confused::


:bowdown:

[rubicon]

First, let me say thank you for taking the time to respond to my post. Let's get one thing out of the way first. Please read my post again because I stated that I am not telling anyone to leave. Quite the contrary. I merely asked why someone would stay if they were so unhappy, dissatisfied, and bothered by what they signed on for. Some, if not most, of the issues that have been brought out are old and general knowledge, so do people not do any research beforehand? There are no bones made about how The Villages operates.

What I'm about to say is and isn't along the same lines, so please don't be offended. I am noticing more and more that people are moving here and then immediately want to start changing things to what "they are accustomed to back home". They don't like this, they don't like that, etc. Once again, do they not check it out first? Everything is not about what I like/don't like, you like/don't like, etc. That's why there is so much here....something for everyone. We knew when we moved here that there are no fences, no hedges above a certain height allowed, pet limits, etc., and accepted it.

Don't know who remembers, but Sumter One came about because our county taxes were being used everywhere in the county but here, because there was no representation for our part of the county. I don't see that being the case with the Developer because we do benefit from our own monies and always have. Maybe not like some would prefer, but we do reap the benefits.

I agree with your question about whether this is still a retirement community or more a vacation destination. I have seen it evolving since I've been here into more of a vacation spot for people who have no family or friends here. I don't like that. Maybe the hope is that they will like it and move here, but I don't really see that happening because so many are young families.

This is already too long, but as to the lawsuit, I agree with a lot of what you were saying about the lack of transparency. I don't agree with some getting personal settlements, either. I don't agree with some of the decisions made by the "Board (AAC)", but some good has come out of all of it. They were not refused by the Developer to do anything about the cart paths, but patches only were in the offing. Once the AAC was established, new paths were constructed. Much better.

As for the IRS, if their case were as strong as they would have others believe, it would not still be a lingering issue. This is only the 3rd or 4th time for this fight.

Thanks again for engaging me. We may not see completely eye-to-eye, but you and I both have some valid points. I do love discussions.

Hi dillywho: we do agree on most things concerning this topic. However as to my comments regarding if you don't like it....what I am trying to say is disagreement is not disloyalty I may not like something or some event going on in TV but it does not mean I do not like TV or want to live here.

As to Sumter One I get concerned that 5 county commissioners being so close aligned with TV. It is always prudent and good business that there never be even" the appearance of impropriety and or a conflict of interest"

As to the multi modal cart paths I do not know if theACC attempted to have the Developer re-do them on his dime because in my view they were improperly designed (width) and the Developer should have at minimum thrown in some of his own money

Nothing goes quickly with the government except taxpayers monies so I am not surprised by the lengthy IRS battle and I don't see it as a sign that either side has lost or won

I also love a good discussion but unfortunately the climate of our time makes the impossible because there are far too many overseers who shut down any worthwhile debate. I long for the days of Bill Buckley debates where extreme opinions met fought and then celebrated in friendships forged owing to mutual respect.

Personal Best Regards

[rubicon]

I am always willing to be educated, but it is inconceivable to me that the terms of a settlement in a class-action suit could ever be kept confidential from the members of the class (i.e., all the residents north of 466), but that is what you are alleging. Could you clarify for me exactly what confidentiality agreement you are referring to? I am relatively familiar with the class action, and a this is the first time that I have heard of it.

By the way, I personally know most of the plaintiffs in the class action and I have a lot of respect for them and for what they did for all of us. If you have any questions about the settlement, I am sure that they would be glad to answer them. Furthermore, if you have any concerns that the plaintiffs were motivated by anything other than protecting the rights of the Villagers, which at the time were being abused by the Developer, I can assure you that you are barking up the wrong tree.

My only concern about the settlement is that maybe the $43,000,000 might turn out not to be enough (if, for example we get a huge increase in the minimum wage or the IRS investigation turns out badly), but we will have to deal with that if and when a problem arises.

Hi Avogado: I didn't make this up it came from the plaintiff attorney herself when she reported the facts of the settlement in a special 3/18/09 meeting. She said there were certain things she could not discuss because there was a confidentiality agreement made. a meeting by the way to explain why the parties never divulged the amounts paid to the plaintiffs or the plaintiff attorney and which local Orlando and Ocala newspapers did report the settlements which caused an uproar and forced the 3/18/09 meeting. I draw no conclusions here I imply and infer nothing about this settlement

since you know all of the plaintiffs perhaps you best be served to ask them yourself. Frankly I don't care because I don't have a dog in this fight. I was simply sharing information. I do not imply or infer anything about this settlement other than sharing information

I don't have any concerns about the settlement except the concern you cite...was the first offer sufficient or was more to be had? I say more because the Developer doesn't give in to anyone unless it is not in his best interests.

Personal Best Regards

[Advogado]

I simply cannot fathom the complaints, by a few posters on this board, about lack of transparency or some dark, underlying conspiracy in the class-action lawsuit. While one may have legitimate concerns (I do) about whether the $43 million settlement may turn out to be inadequate, the complaints expressed in this board, in my view, have no basis in fact. There is nothing opaque about the class-action lawsuit or its settlement, except for the obfuscation that have appeared from time-to-time in the Daily Sun, the Homeowners' Association newsletter, and statements made by Janet Tutt. There is certainly no dark, underlying conspiracy. Everything is a matter of public record, and it has been explained over the years in numerous POA Bulletins. But it does take some effort to actually understand everything-- much more effort than sitting at one's computer keyboard and carping and speculating.

If anyone has any concerns about the class action, he or she can walk away from the computer keyboard, go to the courthouse, and look at the case file. Then, if any questions remain, go to the next POA meeting, and ask your questions to one or more of the lead plaintiffs. I am confident that they will be glad to answer them. They have nothing to hide, and I think that they should be proud of what they have done for us. It would be nice if some of the beneficiaries of their actions would take the time to understand the facts before criticizing.

[the square]

You see what happens when there is a slow news day or crappy weather. Some people just have to scratch where there is no itch. If some of these pot stirrers did all they're home work BEFORE they moved here and liked what they saw, this needless nitpicking
would not occur. Then we could move on to "dogs at the squares" and other major gripes. LOL

[Warren Kiefer]

Hi dillywho: we do agree on most things concerning this topic. However as to my comments regarding if you don't like it....what I am trying to say is disagreement is not disloyalty I may not like something or some event going on in TV but it does not mean I do not like TV or want to live here.

As to Sumter One I get concerned that 5 county commissioners being so close aligned with TV. It is always prudent and good business that there never be even" the appearance of impropriety and or a conflict of interest"

As to the multi modal cart paths I do not know if theACC attempted to have the Developer re-do them on his dime because in my view they were improperly designed (width) and the Developer should have at minimum thrown in some of his own money

Nothing goes quickly with the government except taxpayers monies so I am not surprised by the lengthy IRS battle and I don't see it as a sign that either side has lost or won

I also love a good discussion but unfortunately the climate of our time makes the impossible because there are far too many overseers who shut down any worthwhile debate. I long for the days of Bill Buckley debates where extreme opinions met fought and then celebrated in friendships forged owing to mutual respect.

Personal Best Regards My background is Civil Engineering and I always have an interest in all types of construction. I did some personal checking of the failing multi modal paths at various locations. The concrete was at times only a 3 inch thickness and at times less. The plan required a depth of at least 4 inches. This is a 25% loss in strength, a serious loss for sure. While I was working, every aspect of the construction was inspected so as to be in accordance with specifications. As far as I can determine, no construction inspector is normally on hand to insure the contractor is doing exactly what he is paid to do. Most contractors will cut every corner possible if it puts money in his pockets.

[dillywho]

When the trails were first built north of CR 466, the population was very, very small. Unless one had a crystal ball, the growth explosion could not have been too accurately forecast. I'm sure they hoped and planned for expansion but not an explosion.

When we came here for our LSV in 2002, carts were only allowed to be operated between the hours of dawn and dusk. Night driving was not permitted. At that time, with very limited use, the original cart paths were quite adequate. Nothing was built or being built beyond 466 and not much up to it. The rules for night operation of the carts came about sometime in 2003. We returned in 2003, bought, and built. Summerhill was just a baby then. We had to go to SS or Mulberry to shop, eat out, etc. (no Southern Trace) or to Leesburg and Ocala.

You, as an engineer, probably know that much has changed and much knowledge has been gained in your field of expertise since the late 80's and early 90's. This would probably account for the better paths being built now as opposed to then.

Hope this sheds a little light on the whys for some things. What is adequate now, may not be in the future.

[dillywho]

Hi dillywho: we do agree on most things concerning this topic. However as to my comments regarding if you don't like it....what I am trying to say is disagreement is not disloyalty I may not like something or some event going on in TV but it does not mean I do not like TV or want to live here.

As to Sumter One I get concerned that 5 county commissioners being so close aligned with TV. It is always prudent and good business that there never be even" the appearance of impropriety and or a conflict of interest"

As to the multi modal cart paths I do not know if theACC attempted to have the Developer re-do them on his dime because in my view they were improperly designed (width) and the Developer should have at minimum thrown in some of his own money

Nothing goes quickly with the government except taxpayers monies so I am not surprised by the lengthy IRS battle and I don't see it as a sign that either side has lost or won

I also love a good discussion but unfortunately the climate of our time makes the impossible because there are far too many overseers who shut down any worthwhile debate. I long for the days of Bill Buckley debates where extreme opinions met fought and then celebrated in friendships forged owing to mutual respect.

Personal Best Regards

Hello to you again. I have to agree with you on the debates of old.

You're right, disagreement does not equate to disloyalty, and everyone has the right to be here. My personal opinion is that the more of us there are, the better it is for everyone. I just simply question why some apparently do no prior research or question how this place operates before buying in. At the time we came to check it out, my husband could still talk (has had a stroke) and had plenty of questions. They were answered to our satisfaction and we made our decision afterwards. Believe me, with whatever faults there are, this is eons above and beyond what we had or what we have seen anywhere else.

You brought up Sumter One again and once again, I have to disagree with your take on it. These guys are elected by us to look out for the expenditures of our tax monies here in TV. Before the process was changed, there were two choices on the ballot. I can't remember the names of the two guys before the change was made, but they took our tax monies to spend in primarily the lower portion of Sumter County (their area) and basically told us that we had enough money that they didn't need to spend it here, even though the largest percentage of those taxes were generated right here in TV.

Thanks again, for a good discussion. The best to you, too.

[Polar Bear]

...That is a fact and cannot be argued...

This sort of statement invariably means that the point can be adamantly argued.