I know many of you detest Lauren Ritchie

[eweissenbach]

but here is her article on the latest development in the IRS bond issue.
Lauren Ritchie: Villages refunds tax-free bonds with taxable ones - Orlando Sentinel (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/lake/os-lk-lauren-ritchie-villages-bonds-taxable-20141128-column.html)

[justjim]

Interesting article "old Coach". Does this change anything for the residents of TV?

[Mikeod]

Detest Lauren Ritchie? No. She certainly has a message, but I believe it would carry more weight without all the derogatory adjectives and snide references. When I have been involved in negotiations, discussions or even heated debates, the person who resorts to hyperbole, innuendo, or name calling has simply admitted to having the weaker stance.

I had to chuckle at her assertion that, if the board had declined to purchase the amenities from the developer, we could have used the funds to provide our own amenities. Where? The golf courses, rec centers, etc., were all there! We would have to purchase land outside TV, or land within TV from the developer at what cost. Then construct amenities. Imagine all the controversy between the golfers and non-golfers over where to spend resources. Or between bowlers and non-bowlers. I look at what is available here at our current amenity fee and done mostly without resident input to planning, and wonder if the residents could do it as well.

[Bogie Shooter]

The first paragraph of the article. This is why she is so "loved".

That's the sound of The Villages giving up a $426 million battle with the Internal Revenue Service that started six years ago when a sharp agent figured out how fiendishly the developer had perverted a Florida law to be able to issue tax-free bonds.

[JourneyOfLife]

You have to admit... there is an unpleasant odor wafting about! Can't blame that on the messenger!

So...... who is going to get stuck with the tax bill... plus any related legal expenses?

[Xavier]

You have to admit... there is an unpleasant odor wafting about! Can't blame that on the messenger!

So...... who is going to get stuck with the tax bill... plus any related legal expenses?

Believe me, the sky is not falling, "Chicken Little."

Xavier

[T-325]

This seems like a happy ending to this long drawn out bond issue. No one is hurt... and the issue is in the rear view mirror.

Or am I missing something?

[manaboutown]

It seems to me that once again the developer made a well reasoned and correct business decision, settling the problem by taking advantage of extremely low current interest rates to refinance the debt. Now, back to the business of making lots and lots of money by providing a great product to a market that wants it.

[justjim]

It appears to me that The Developer made most, if not all, the final decisions. I am also certain that Gary Morse surrounded himself with some very capable and smart associates. It's often said that the camel was suppose to be a "super horse" that was put together by a committee who had the power of "decision making".

The former can work better than the latter IMHO. The results here in TV speaks volumes.

[rubicon]

I don't detest Lauren Ritchie and I won't show anger toward her for telling the truth.

[Advogado]

This seems like a happy ending to this long drawn out bond issue. No one is hurt... and the issue is in the rear view mirror.

Or am I missing something?

To answer your question, you are, in fact, missing something. The redemption of the purportedly tax-exempt (their actual tax exemption is the issue in the IRS investigation) bonds is a big step in the right direction. It does not, unfortunately, put the "issue in the rear view mirror".

The redemption keeps the potential liability of the Villages Center District from growing. The redemption, however, does not resolve the issue of whether the Villages Center District (which owns a big chunk of our amenities) will incur potentially crippling costs relating to taxes during the period between when the purportedly tax-exempt bonds were issued and the date on which they were redeemed.

In summary, the fat lady has not yet sung in the IRS investigation, but MAYBE she is warming up her vocal cords.

[Bogie Shooter]

Isn't it time for the IRS to assign a new agent to this case?

[janmcn]

Isn't it time for the IRS to assign a new agent to this case?


The IRS has never equivocated in its opinion of this case. It would seem that the investigative portion is over, and the only remaining action is to total up the damages (interest and penalties). There would be no need for a new agent assigned to this case.

[Bogie Shooter]

The IRS has never equivocated in its opinion of this case. It would seem that the investigative portion is over, and the only remaining action is to total up the damages (interest and penalties). There would be no need for a new agent assigned to this case.

How many times was it re-assigned in the past??

[Advogado]

but here is her article on the latest development in the IRS bond issue.
Lauren Ritchie: Villages refunds tax-free bonds with taxable ones - Orlando Sentinel (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/lake/os-lk-lauren-ritchie-villages-bonds-taxable-20141128-column.html)
In my view, Lauren Ritchie performs a valuable service for Villagers since she reports on stories, like the IRS investigation, that the Daily Sun either buries or distorts. The problem is that, while her articles tend to get the basic facts right, the articles sometimes misinterpret those facts.

For example, in this article:

Ritchie criticism: The price of the Villages homes does not include the use of amenities and the cost of infrastructure. Therefore, Villagers are paying twice for those when they pay their amenity fees and the bond amortization/interest charges.

Legitimate criticism: True, the price of the new houses does not include the infrastructure costs or use of amenities. However, mathematically, we clearly are not paying twice for those, and Ms. Ritchie is flat out wrong on this point. The legitimate criticism in this regard is the lack of disclosure by the Developer.

Nobody reasonably expects that the price of a home anywhere is going to include the free use of neighborhood amenities, and Ms. Ritchie is being disingenuous when she implies otherwise. However, the Developer does not, in his advertising, disclose the existence of the infrastructure bonds, which are unique to The Villages, amount to about 10% of the price of the new homes, are a lien on the property, and an obligation of the buyer. No other business could get away with understating the real price of its merchandise by 10%.

In fact, some buyers of new Villages homes apparently don't find out about the bonds until they have already contracted to buy a new home. In addition to those buyers, such unethical advertising also prejudices both (a) the Villagers who are trying to sell their pre-owned homes in competition with the new homes and (b) the independent realtors who represent those Villagers. It is surprising to me that the realtors haven't lodged a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission.

[eweissenbach]

In my view, Lauren Ritchie performs a valuable service for Villagers since she reports on stories, like the IRS investigation, that the Daily Sun either buries or distorts. The problem is that, while her articles tend to get the basic facts right, the articles sometimes misinterpret those facts.

For example, in this article:

Ritchie criticism: The price of the Villages homes does not include the use of amenities and the cost of infrastructure. Therefore, Villagers are paying twice for those when they pay their amenity fees and the bond amortization/interest charges.

Legitimate criticism: True, the price of the new houses does not include the infrastructure costs or use of amenities. However, mathematically, we clearly are not paying twice for those, and Ms. Ritchie is flat out wrong on this point. The legitimate criticism in this regard is the lack of disclosure by the Developer.

Nobody reasonably expects that the price of a home anywhere is going to include the free use of neighborhood amenities, and Ms. Ritchie is being disingenuous when she implies otherwise. However, the Developer does not, in his advertising, disclose the existence of the infrastructure bonds, which are unique to The Villages, amount to about 10% of the price of the new homes, are a lien on the property, and an obligation of the buyer. No other business could get away with understating the real price of its merchandise by 10%.

In fact, some buyers of new Villages homes apparently don't find out about the bonds until they have already contracted to buy a new home. In addition to those buyers, such unethical advertising also prejudices both (a) the Villagers who are trying to sell their pre-owned homes in competition with the new homes and (b) the independent realtors who represent those Villagers. In fact, it is surprising to me that the realtors haven't lodged a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission.

I am in agreement with all of this.

[eweissenbach]

What Is deceptive is the way the homes are marketed. I have heard more than one Villages salesperson attempt to minimize or dismiss the impact of the bond. The developer made a decision long ago to charge the homebuyers a separate fee to pay for the infrastructure, rather than wrapping those costs in the price of the home as is done almost everywhere else in the world. The cost of the bond is actually more than if it were in the overall price of the house - it is charged a higher rate of interest, the interest is not income tax deductible, and paying off the bond does not theoretically, increase ones equity in the home. (I say theoretically because the seller can try to recoup that outlay, but they may or may not get a buyer to agree. The price can then be advertised as lower than the true cost by not including the bond. Good marketing strategy, but unless fully disclosed prior to a buying decision, it is dishonest and deceptive. I have wondered if the salespeople are being devious about the bond on their own, or if that is the way they are trained (I have worked with Tony Trussler and he is very open about the bond and how it works) BTW I don't hate the developers and admire what has been built here, but this is concerning to me.

[Advogado]

What Is deceptive is the way the homes are marketed. I have heard more than one Villages salesperson attempt to minimize or dismiss the impact of the bond. The developer made a decision long ago to charge the homebuyers a separate fee to pay for the infrastructure, rather than wrapping those costs in the price of the home as is done almost everywhere else in the world. The cost of the bond is actually more than if it were in the overall price of the house - it is charged a higher rate of interest, the interest is not income tax deductible, and paying off the bond does not theoretically, increase ones equity in the home. (I say theoretically because the seller can try to recoup that outlay, but they may or may not get a buyer to agree. The price can then be advertised as lower than the true cost by not including the bond. Good marketing strategy, but unless fully disclosed prior to a buying decision, it is dishonest and deceptive. I have wondered if the salespeople are being devious about the bond on their own, or if that is the way they are trained (I have worked with Tony Trussler and he is very open about the bond and how it works) BTW I don't hate the developers and admire what has been built here, but this is concerning to me.
Agree. However, since the bond can be immediately prepaid, it would not be "actually more than if it were part of the house"-- IF IT WERE DISCLOSED BY THE DEVELOPER IN HIS ADVERTISING. As you correctly point out and as I indicated in my earlier post, the Developer's not disclosing the existence and amount of the bond is deceptive advertising and puts Villagers who pay off the bond at a competitive disadvantage when they resell their homes.

Do I think that the Developer will voluntarily disclose the bonds? Not a snowball's chance in hell.

[justjim]

The State of Florida passed CDD legislation as an incentive for economic development and to allow Developers to build without having to put huge amounts of their monies upfront for all that goes into a 55 plus community like The Villages. I think it was a super idea.

There are no free amenities---somebody has to pay for them. Would The Villages be the same without this CDD legislation? That is a good question and debatable.

Obviously, the developer has profited from all the commercial properties for which he maintains total control. As I understand the IRS issue of tax free bonds, this is where the "rub" with the IRS comes into play. I am not an attorney, but I cannot envision the residents being liable for any of the IRS issues with The Villages Developer.

[eweissenbach]

Agree. However, since the bond can be immediately prepaid, it would not be "actually more than if it were part of the house"-- IF IT WERE DISCLOSED BY THE DEVELOPER IN HIS ADVERTISING. As you correctly point out and as I indicated in my earlier post, the Developer's not disclosing the existence and amount of the bond is deceptive advertising and puts Villagers who pay off the bond at a competitive disadvantage when they resell their homes.

Do I think that the Developer will voluntarily disclose the bonds? Not a snowball's chance in hell.

In real world terms, if it were immediately prepaid it would still be more. For example, I would be paying say $300k for a home with a $30k bond - if I get a mortgage the mortgage will be based on a $300k sales price rather than $330k. Thus I would have to come out of pocket for the down payment PLUS the bond payoff. After paying off the bond if I had to sell right away for some reason, if I asked $330k, (without consideration for sales commission of 6%) I would be at a disadvantage competing with new homes just like mine advertised at $300k. If I sell ten years down the road and a potential buyer looks up what I paid for the house, the county site will reflect that I paid $300k, which may affect the offer they are willing to make. All of these are costs that I need to be prepared to absorb if I pay the bond off immediately.

[eweissenbach]

The State of Florida passed CDD legislation as an incentive for economic development and to allow Developers to build without having to put huge amounts of their monies upfront for all that goes into a 55 plus community like The Villages. I think it was a super idea.

There are no free amenities---somebody has to pay for them. Would The Villages be the same without this CDD legislation? That is a good question and debatable.

Obviously, the developer has profited from all the commercial properties for which he maintains total control. As I understand the IRS issue of tax free bonds, this is where the "rub" with the IRS comes into play. I am not an attorney, but I cannot envision the residents being liable for any of the IRS issues with The Villages Developer.

Jim it is true there are no free amenities, but in most of the world those are covered in the overall sales price and/or maintenance fees. I do not object to the bond, as it is apparently provided for in Fl law, though obviously the tax-free nature has not been settled, and I understand that the wonderful amenities in TV need to be paid for somehow. I don't even feel they are necessarily overvalued. My concern is the lack of disclosure and education about bonds offered by many salespeople or the developer prior to the closing.

[Advogado]

The State of Florida passed CDD legislation as an incentive for economic development and to allow Developers to build without having to put huge amounts of their monies upfront for all that goes into a 55 plus community like The Villages. I think it was a super idea.

There are no free amenities---somebody has to pay for them. Would The Villages be the same without this CDD legislation? That is a good question and debatable.

Obviously, the developer has profited from all the commercial properties for which he maintains total control. As I understand the IRS issue of tax free bonds, this is where the "rub" with the IRS comes into play. I am not an attorney, but I cannot envision the residents being liable for any of the IRS issues with The Villages Developer.
The residents will certainly never be liable for any of the IRS issues. Some earlier remarks by Lauren Ritchie notwithstanding, that has never been viewed as a risk by anyone with an understanding of the matter.

To explain a complicated matter in a few words: At least so far, the IRS issues are not directly "with the Villages Developer". Instead, the IRS issues are with the Center Districts, which issued the purportedly tax-exempt bonds and which own a big chunk of our amenities. The risk to Villagers (which may or may not ever materialize) is that the resolution of the IRS issues may impose such a huge cost on those Districts that that they are unable, financially, to continue the amenity system. If that happens, things get dicey.

[janmcn]

The residents will certainly never be liable for any of the IRS issues. Some earlier remarks by Lauren Ritchie notwithstanding, that has never been viewed as a risk by anyone with an understanding of the matter.

To explain a complicated matter in a few words: At least so far, the IRS issues are not directly "with the Villages Developer". Instead, the IRS issues are with the Center Districts, which issued the purportedly tax-exempt bonds and which own a big chunk of our amenities. The risk to Villagers (which may or may not ever materialize) is that the resolution of the IRS issues may impose such a huge cost on those Districts that that they are unable, financially, to continue the amenity system. If that happens, things get dicey.


The developer walks away with one billion dollars in profits, by selling the facilities that he built to himself at greatly inflated prices, verified by his very own appraiser. And the IRS is only investigating the sale of amenities north of CR466.

What happens when the developer begins his march from CR466 all the way to SR44, selling all those wonderful facilities that residents have enjoyed so much? Will they have the nerve to use tax-free bonds to finance the sale of these facilities, or have they learned their lesson? What do I have wrong?

[applesoffh]

In real world terms, if it were immediately prepaid it would still be more. For example, I would be paying say $300k for a home with a $30k bond - if I get a mortgage the mortgage will be based on a $300k sales price rather than $330k. Thus I would have to come out of pocket for the down payment PLUS the bond payoff. After paying off the bond if I had to sell right away for some reason, if I asked $330k, (without consideration for sales commission of 6%) I would be at a disadvantage competing with new homes just like mine advertised at $300k. If I sell ten years down the road and a potential buyer looks up what I paid for the house, the county site will reflect that I paid $300k, which may affect the offer they are willing to make. All of these are costs that I need to be prepared to absorb if I pay the bond off immediately.

It is my understanding that the homes being built in The Villages of Fruitland Park will have the bond built into the price of the house since Lake County does not allow a developer's bond, per se.

It is also my undertanding that Celebration, the Disney-owned development outside of Orlando, is also a community of CDDs.

I know I read the above information somewhere. Please don't attack me if I mis-stated anything. If I've got it wrong, I'd appreciate being corrected - but not vilified.

[bike42]

Ritchie is a columnist, not a reporter. No reporter would be able to get away with this sentence:

"H. Gary Morse, the developer behind The Villages who cashed out for $925 million thanks to the tax-free bonds, died a week after district officials reported the results of the new sale to the board of supervisors controlled by the 77-year-old developer."

[rubicon]

In my view, Lauren Ritchie performs a valuable service for Villagers since she reports on stories, like the IRS investigation, that the Daily Sun either buries or distorts. The problem is that, while her articles tend to get the basic facts right, the articles sometimes misinterpret those facts.

For example, in this article:

Ritchie criticism: The price of the Villages homes does not include the use of amenities and the cost of infrastructure. Therefore, Villagers are paying twice for those when they pay their amenity fees and the bond amortization/interest charges.

Legitimate criticism: True, the price of the new houses does not include the infrastructure costs or use of amenities. However, mathematically, we clearly are not paying twice for those, and Ms. Ritchie is flat out wrong on this point. The legitimate criticism in this regard is the lack of disclosure by the Developer.

Nobody reasonably expects that the price of a home anywhere is going to include the free use of neighborhood amenities, and Ms. Ritchie is being disingenuous when she implies otherwise. However, the Developer does not, in his advertising, disclose the existence of the infrastructure bonds, which are unique to The Villages, amount to about 10% of the price of the new homes, are a lien on the property, and an obligation of the buyer. No other business could get away with understating the real price of its merchandise by 10%.

In fact, some buyers of new Villages homes apparently don't find out about the bonds until they have already contracted to buy a new home. In addition to those buyers, such unethical advertising also prejudices both (a) the Villagers who are trying to sell their pre-owned homes in competition with the new homes and (b) the independent realtors who represent those Villagers. It is surprising to me that the realtors haven't lodged a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission.

Advogado: Agree with your explanation. Lake County would not allow bonds. The IRS wondered, (didn't make an accusation) how a buyer could determine if they were paying twice when the bond price was applied separately

[Advogado]

The developer walks away with one billion dollars in profits, by selling the facilities that he built to himself at greatly inflated prices, verified by his very own appraiser. And the IRS is only investigating the sale of amenities north of CR466.

What happens when the developer begins his march from CR466 all the way to SR44, selling all those wonderful facilities that residents have enjoyed so much? Will they have the nerve to use tax-free bonds to finance the sale of these facilities, or have they learned their lesson? What do I have wrong?
I agree with your concerns.

On a technical point, however, I believe that you will find that the IRS is actually (commencing July 2, 2009), investigating bonds issued by the Sumter Landing Community Development District, i.e., pertaining to the sale of facilities south of 466, as well as the bond sales pertaining to the facilities north of 466. (Go to poa4us.org for a summary.)

As to future use of tax-exempt bonds, it looks like the Developer has thrown in the towel on that strategy. Otherwise, the Villages Center Community Development District would have issued new tax-exempt, rather than taxable, bonds to raise the cash to pay off the old purportedly tax-exempt bonds.

Whether or not tax-exempt bonds are used in the future, I hope that somebody (the POA, I guess) takes a sharp look at the prices that the Developer basically pays himself when he sells facilities to a Community Development District that he controls. We Villagers should try to ensure that they are arm's-length.

[mickey100]

I agree with your concerns.

On a technical point, however, I believe that you will find that the IRS is actually (commencing July 2, 2009), investigating bonds issued by the Sumter Landing Community Development District, i.e., pertaining to the sale of facilities south of 466, as well as the bond sales pertaining to the facilities north of 466. (Go to poa4us.org for a summary.)

As to future use of tax-exempt bonds, it looks like the Developer has thrown in the towel on that strategy. Otherwise, the Villages Center Community Development District would have issued new tax-exempt, rather than taxable, bonds to raise the cash to pay off the old purportedly tax-exempt bonds.

Whether or not tax-exempt bonds are used in the future, I hope that somebody (the POA, I guess) takes a sharp look at the prices that the Developer basically pays himself when he sells facilities to a Community Development District that he controls. We Villagers should try to ensure that they are arm's-length.

Good points. Yes, I hope the POA has the resources to review facilities prices.

[mulligan]

It is my understanding that the homes being built in The Villages of Fruitland Park will have the bond built into the price of the house since Lake County does not allow a developer's bond, per se.

It is also my undertanding that Celebration, the Disney-owned development outside of Orlando, is also a community of CDDs.

I know I read the above information somewhere. Please don't attack me if I mis-stated anything. If I've got it wrong, I'd appreciate being corrected - but not vilified.

Infrastructure bonds for the Fruitland Park area were issued about a month ago. So much for that rumor.

[Fanman]

If you really want to understand how The Villages works sign up for the VCDD Resident Academy and get the numbers and facts from the horses mouth. You may very well stop listening to people like Ms. Ritchie who doesn't know what she's talking about. I for one thank the Morses everyday for giving me this beautiful place to live out the rest of my years.

[applesoffh]

Infrastructure bonds for the Fruitland Park area were issued about a month ago. So much for that rumor.

If I understand what you wrote, those are municipal bonds, and not a bond charged per house by the Developer, which is very different. Do I have that right?

[livsea2]

The residents will certainly never be liable for any of the IRS issues. Some earlier remarks by Lauren Ritchie notwithstanding, that has never been viewed as a risk by anyone with an understanding of the matter.

To explain a complicated matter in a few words: At least so far, the IRS issues are not directly "with the Villages Developer". Instead, the IRS issues are with the Center Districts, which issued the purportedly tax-exempt bonds and which own a big chunk of our amenities. The risk to Villagers (which may or may not ever materialize) is that the resolution of the IRS issues may impose such a huge cost on those Districts that that they are unable, financially, to continue the amenity system. If that happens, things get dicey.

Your comment is partially correct in that it may or may not materialize, however one solution allowed under the CDD laws is that the CDD can issue a second bond to "pay off their mistakes" it could run concurrent with the exisisting bond this is why the CDD form is so dangerous and only legal in a very few states. It has happened to other CDDs in Florida. Lucky us.

[eweissenbach]

Florida CDD Bonds: What You Need To Know (http://www.floridaforboomers.com/florida-cdd-bonds/)

[ROCKETMAN]

Some people forget laura richie is a not a news reporter but a columnist. All she does is examine issues and writes her opinion, like it or hate it. I actually like to read different opinions on current issues. She does do her homework, i give her credit for that.

[graciegirl]

Some people forget laura richie is a not a news reporter but a columnist. All she does is examine issues and writes her opinion, like it or hate it. I actually like to read different opinions on current issues. She does do her homework, i give her credit for that.


Lauren Ritchie has never written anything that I remember that makes The Villages look wonderful. The view of The Sentinel is very different than the slant of The Daily Sun too. And therein lies part of the rub.

[livsea2]

Lauren Ritchie has never written anything that I remember that makes The Villages look wonderful. The view of The Sentinel is very different than the slant of The Daily Sun too. And therein lies part of the rub.

Well the Villages Sun exisists solely as a marketing tool for the developer... Hopefully the Orlando Sentinel does not... perhaps therein lies the whole rub?

[graciegirl]

Well the Villages Sun exisists solely as a marketing tool for the developer... Hopefully the Orlando Sentinel does not... perhaps therein lies the whole rub?


The Daily Sun has newsfeeds from all over the world as well as local events. It is NOT owned by the developer, only the building and equipment are the Morses. The newspaper was sold three years ago to a friend of the developer who has very much the same views, so it was not obvious that it had changed hands. The editorial writers are extremely different than those in the Sentinel.

[mickey100]

Well the Villages Sun exisists solely as a marketing tool for the developer... Hopefully the Orlando Sentinel does not... perhaps therein lies the whole rub?

:bigbow:

New owners, same type of paper with the same biased slant the Developer projects. Most people read it for the local activities, local sports etc. and get their national news from other sources.

[Moderator]

The topic is Lauren Ritchie's column on the Villages Bond situation. Please stay on topic.

[Advogado]

This appeared on Dec. 3: Lauren Ritchie: Villages bonds now taxable - Orlando Sentinel (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/lake/os-lk-lauren-ritchie-villages-bonds-20141203-column.html)

[eweissenbach]

From the article:
If my email is any indication, residents hate hearing what is behind the curtain at The Villages. As things stand, they play golf and countless other games, are offered nearly limitless recreation choices and have restaurants and shopping that cater to them. For this, they pay what they consider a reasonable monthly fee. Where else, they demand, can they find such a deal?

I just don't get the mentality of,"you are either all for us or you are against us". I would liken it to those people who only read the columnists in the daily sun, or only watch Fox News, or for that matter, only watch MSNBC. If all you are willing to read, listen, or watch is material that confirms your beliefs, without ever challenging those beliefs by looking at another point of view, you are destined to be ill informed on many issues. Ritchie may be overly aggressive in her disdain for the developer, but you should at least examine the evidence to know if she has a point or not. Loving living in TV, is not necessarily inconsistent with being suspicious of some of the developers tactics or motives. Being very fond of the developer (the Morse family of corporations), does not preclude one from opposing or being suspicious of some of their actions. The Villages has apparently not conformed with the intent of the Florida CDD guidelines, by turning over control to residents within eight years, so shouldn't residents be a bit concerned about that?

[graciegirl]

From the article:
If my email is any indication, residents hate hearing what is behind the curtain at The Villages. As things stand, they play golf and countless other games, are offered nearly limitless recreation choices and have restaurants and shopping that cater to them. For this, they pay what they consider a reasonable monthly fee. Where else, they demand, can they find such a deal?

I just don't get the mentality of,"you are either all for us or you are against us". I would liken it to those people who only read the columnists in the daily sun, or only watch Fox News, or for that matter, only watch MSNBC. If all you are willing to read, listen, or watch is material that confirms your beliefs, without ever challenging those beliefs by looking at another point of view, you are destined to be ill informed on many issues. Ritchie may be overly aggressive in her disdain for the developer, but you should at least examine the evidence to know if she has a point or not. Loving living in TV, is not necessarily inconsistent with being suspicious of some of the developers tactics or motives. Being very fond of the developer (the Morse family of corporations), does not preclude one from opposing or being suspicious of some of their actions. The Villages has apparently not conformed with the intent of the Florida CDD guidelines, by turning over control to residents within eight years, so shouldn't residents be a bit concerned about that?

I don't think you have read Lauren Ritchie as much as I have. She is not using the skills and values that guide most journalists who report issues... in my opinion. I think she is employed by The Orlando Sentinel as a columnist giving her opinions rather than a reporter who prints just facts... She is also not supportive of the views that most of us who live here espouse. We are cheering for the success of a business like the Morses have built. We are mostly moderate to conservative which is not the views of the paper that employs her.

[dbussone]

From the article:

If my email is any indication, residents hate hearing what is behind the curtain at The Villages. As things stand, they play golf and countless other games, are offered nearly limitless recreation choices and have restaurants and shopping that cater to them. For this, they pay what they consider a reasonable monthly fee. Where else, they demand, can they find such a deal?



I just don't get the mentality of,"you are either all for us or you are against us". I would liken it to those people who only read the columnists in the daily sun, or only watch Fox News, or for that matter, only watch MSNBC. If all you are willing to read, listen, or watch is material that confirms your beliefs, without ever challenging those beliefs by looking at another point of view, you are destined to be ill informed on many issues. Ritchie may be overly aggressive in her disdain for the developer, but you should at least examine the evidence to know if she has a point or not. Loving living in TV, is not necessarily inconsistent with being suspicious of some of the developers tactics or motives. Being very fond of the developer (the Morse family of corporations), does not preclude one from opposing or being suspicious of some of their actions. The Villages has apparently not conformed with the intent of the Florida CDD guidelines, by turning over control to residents within eight years, so shouldn't residents be a bit concerned about that?


And just because it is presented by a columnist does not make what is written "evidence." Columnists are not reporters. The very nature of their writings is full of opinion. Nothing very "fair and balanced" about that.

[dbussone]

I don't think you have read Lauren Ritchie as much as I have. She is not using the skills and values that guide most journalists who report issues... in my opinion. I think she is employed by The Orlando Sentinel as a columnist giving her opinions rather than a reporter who prints just facts... She is also not supportive of the views that most of us who live here espouse. We are cheering for the success of a business like the Morses have built. We are mostly moderate to conservative which is not the views of the paper that employs her.


I believe we have essentially just said the same thing - only you type faster.

[eweissenbach]

I don't think you have read Lauren Ritchie as much as I have. She is not using the skills and values that guide most journalists who report issues... in my opinion. I think she is employed by The Orlando Sentinel as a columnist giving her opinions rather than a reporter who prints just facts... She is also not supportive of the views that most of us who live here espouse. We are cheering for the success of a business like the Morses have built. We are mostly moderate to conservative which is not the views of the paper that employs her.
She is a columnist, her opinions are part of what she does, just as most of the people who opine on those networks I mentioned as well as the columnists who are printed by the Sun. The very point of my post was that you should consider her work even if "she is not supportive of your views".

And just because it is presented by a columnist does not make what is written "evidence." Columnists are not reporters. The very nature of their writings is full of opinion. Nothing very "fair and balanced" about that.
And I presume you think the commentators on those networks I mentioned are "fair and balanced"? I said in my post that even if you don't like her you should examine the evidence, I didn't say that was proof she was offering part or all the evidence, just that an examination might be worthwhile.

Every time I suggest someone should open their mind on this forum I, or my post gets attacked. I find it frustrating but humerous.

[graciegirl]

She is a columnist, her opinions are part of what she does, just as most of the people who opine on those networks I mentioned as well as the columnists who are printed by the Sun. The very point of my post was that you should consider her work even if "she is not supportive of your views".


And I presume you think the commentators on those networks I mentioned are "fair and balanced"? I said in my post that even if you don't like her you should examine the evidence, I didn't say that was proof she was offering part or all the evidence, just that an examination might be worthwhile.

Every time I suggest someone should open their mind on this forum I, or my post gets attacked. I find it frustrating but humerous.


Watch a little Fox Ed, It is essentially asking many of us to do the same thing. I watch mostly CNN and check on Fox but MSNBC is tooooo bitter for me.

Like most people who live here I was once a big supporter of the views you hold. If you are not a......... at twenty, you have no heart. If you are not a ...... at sixty, you have no mind.

[eweissenbach]

Watch a little Fox Ed, It is essentially asking many of us to do the same thing. I watch mostly CNN and check on Fox but MSNBC is tooooo bitter for me.

Like most people who live here I was once a big supporter of the views you hold. If you are not a......... at twenty, you have no heart. If you are not a ...... at sixty, you have no mind.

I guess that means, according to the quote, I ha

[eweissenbach]

Watch a little Fox Ed, It is essentially asking many of us to do the same thing. I watch mostly CNN and check on Fox but MSNBC is tooooo bitter for me.

Like most people who live here I was once a big supporter of the views you hold. If you are not a......... at twenty, you have no heart. If you are not a ...... at sixty, you have no mind.

I guess that means, according to the quote, I have no mind. That's okay, I know lots of People my age that apparently "have no mind", that seem to be quite intelligent.

[graciegirl]

She is a columnist, her opinions are part of what she does, just as most of the people who opine on those networks I mentioned as well as the columnists who are printed by the Sun. The very point of my post was that you should consider her work even if "she is not supportive of your views".


And I presume you think the commentators on those networks I mentioned are "fair and balanced"? I said in my post that even if you don't like her you should examine the evidence, I didn't say that was proof she was offering part or all the evidence, just that an examination might be worthwhile.

Every time I suggest someone should open their mind on this forum I, or my post gets attacked. I find it frustrating but humerous.

It all depends where you stand whether one's mind is open or closed.

[janmcn]

People who are contemplating moving to The Villages should give Lauren Ritchie a big thanks for offering her opinions on the IRS situation. Her columns are factual, for the most part, and explained in a simple to understand manner, no legal mumbo jumbo. Forewarned is forearmed.

[mickey100]

People who are contemplating moving to The Villages should give Lauren Ritchie a big thanks for offering her opinions on the IRS situation. Her columns are factual, for the most part, and explained in a simple to understand manner, no legal mumbo jumbo. Forewarned is forearmed.

I agree. I hope that potential newbies see her columns and review the information before deciding to buy or not to buy. I too, don't understand the mentality of people who are so afraid to hear of anything that is possibly imperfect about the villages. I learned from an early age, that wherever there are huge sums of money involved, there is huge potential for financial misuse. Apparently the IRS thinks that is the case with the whole bond situation. Frankly I'm glad Ritchie has done her exposé and maybe in the long run we will be thanking her.

[rubicon]

I agree. I hope that potential newbies see her columns and review the information before deciding to buy or not to buy. I too, don't understand the mentality of people who are so afraid to hear of anything that is possibly imperfect about the villages. I learned from an early age, that wherever there are huge sums of money involved, there is huge potential for financial misuse. Apparently the IRS thinks that is the case with the whole bond situation. Frankly I'm glad Ritchie has done her exposé and maybe in the long run we will be thanking her.

Ritchie told the truth> The Developer (VLSI) dominated the negotiations on the sell of the amenities nd told the District what they were going to pay him using his appriasers. so it does cause me some concern that VLSI is walking away profit free

People ouht to ask themselves why is it that after all thes years VLSI still has control of the VCCDD and how long willhe hang on to both VCCDD and SLCCD? VLSI appoints a number of county commissioners and one who was a previous president of villages Homeowner Assoc and utilized Sumter One to keep captive these five commissioners. Most people here don't care as long as they can golf and go out to eat But the chickens will someday come home to roost

[graciegirl]

I agree. I hope that potential newbies see her columns and review the information before deciding to buy or not to buy. I too, don't understand the mentality of people who are so afraid to hear of anything that is possibly imperfect about the villages. I learned from an early age, that wherever there are huge sums of money involved, there is huge potential for financial misuse. Apparently the IRS thinks that is the case with the whole bond situation. Frankly I'm glad Ritchie has done her exposé and maybe in the long run we will be thanking her.


Yes, there is potential for abuse.. But why in the world would anyone believe that all people are the same? That all financially successful people and businesses are suspect and corrupt? That is profiling. And it is wrong and it hurts people. Do you think only poor people have feelings? Do you not want your children or grandchildren to be head of a successful company?

[Advogado]

Yes, there is potential for abuse.. But why in the world would anyone believe that all people are the same? That all financially successful people and businesses are suspect and corrupt? That is profiling. And it is wrong and it hurts people. Do you think only poor people have feelings? Do you not want your children or grandchildren to be head of a successful company?
In the posts on this subject, I don't think anybody has criticized the Developer's success. However, the Developer's actions regarding the sale of amenity facilities raise legitimate concerns for residents.

While I thank Lauren Ritchie for publicizing the issue, which has been buried and distorted by the Daily Sun, her columns have not been a reliable source of information or analysis. For those members who really want to understand the matter, I would recommend the POA website: poa4us.org. Click on Current Issues and then IRS Investigation.

[eweissenbach]

Yes, there is potential for abuse.. But why in the world would anyone believe that all people are the same? That all financially successful people and businesses are suspect and corrupt? That is profiling. And it is wrong and it hurts people. Do you think only poor people have feelings? Do you not want your children or grandchildren to be head of a successful company?

Who said, or even implied, that all successful or wealthy people are suspect and corrupt? I think your sensitivity on this particular subject is irrational for a usually extremely rational person. All successful people are not corrupt or unethical, or devious, but some probably are. The Morse group has done wonderful things here in TV and deserve to be fabulously wealthy as the result. However, that does not mean that everything they have done is beyond reproach. It is always wise to be vigilant.

[dbussone]

She is a columnist, her opinions are part of what she does, just as most of the people who opine on those networks I mentioned as well as the columnists who are printed by the Sun. The very point of my post was that you should consider her work even if "she is not supportive of your views".





And I presume you think the commentators on those networks I mentioned are "fair and balanced"? I said in my post that even if you don't like her you should examine the evidence, I didn't say that was proof she was offering part or all the evidence, just that an examination might be worthwhile.



Every time I suggest someone should open their mind on this forum I, or my post gets attacked. I find it frustrating but humerous.


I didn't attack your post. I gave you my thoughts as you gave yours to other readers. I seldom take what any columnist says as fact. I prefer to go to sources and develop my own opinions. And why are you making suppositions about news outlets I monitor? I have about 20 news sources on my iPad that I scan frequently. Most are newspapers from various cities around the country. My father taught me to keep an open mind when I was a teenager.

[graciegirl]

Who said, or even implied, that all successful or wealthy people are suspect and corrupt? I think your sensitivity on this particular subject is irrational for a usually extremely rational person. All successful people are not corrupt or unethical, or devious, but some probably are. The Morse group has done wonderful things here in TV and deserve to be fabulously wealthy as the result. However, that does not mean that everything they have done is beyond reproach. It is always wise to be vigilant.

I was not replying to posters in general. Only to THAT post.

You see I have never gone to any political meetings and I have voted both ways in my life. Some people are very involved with political groups and make that known on this forum.

I find that envy of an entire class is wrong or being derogatory toward an entire group is wrong. Not all blacks are criminals and not all successful and financially secure people are bad.

And yet I read people on Facebook who think so. So many people are anti big business. They are for small business until that great person figures out how to make a lot of money honestly...

[Rags123]

I was not replying to posters in general. Only to THAT post.

You see I have never gone to any political meetings and I have voted both ways in my life. Some people are very involved with political groups and make that known on this forum.

I find that envy of an entire class is wrong or being derogatory toward an entire group is wrong. Not all blacks are criminals and not all successful and financially secure people are bad.

And yet I read people on Facebook who think so. So many people are anti big business. They are for small business until that great person figures out how to make a lot of money honestly...

Good post. The kind of generalities you speak of are what anchors us down not only in the USA but worldwide. We, generally speaking, make no effort to know anyone. We make assumptions and attack. Shame really.

We, who have been on the receiving end of that generalization, tend to become a bit jaded. Yet it continues and another shame.

[mickey100]

Who said, or even implied, that all successful or wealthy people are suspect and corrupt? I think your sensitivity on this particular subject is irrational for a usually extremely rational person. All successful people are not corrupt or unethical, or devious, but some probably are. The Morse group has done wonderful things here in TV and deserve to be fabulously wealthy as the result. However, that does not mean that everything they have done is beyond reproach. It is always wise to be vigilant.

Exactly. Well said!

But the thread has gone off track. The bottom line is, the Developer set up the Central Districts as entities that could issue tax exempt bonds, which in the eyes of the law, required them to act like political subdivisions. The IRS investigated, and found for a variety of factors, including the fact that the Developer has control of the governing board of the central districts, that the district is not a government that represents the Villagers like a normal political subdivision but is instead an alter ego of the Developer. The issuance of tax exempt bonds was hence deemed illegal, and now it appears the Central Districts are scrambling to make amends. Ritchie is just reporting on the process, and the fact that the Developer made millions on this illegal process.

[dillywho]

I don't understand all the animosity toward the Developer(s). My son lived in a condo in Jacksonville for several years (just finished building a new house) and his HOA fee was right at $200 a month with no rec centers and all they offer, one outdoor pool, no golf courses at all, and one "party room". They were saddled with many more restrictions than we have here, as well....no grills, no pets, etc. Seems like we have it pretty good here. By the way, don't know if his community is controlled by an HOA or not now. I will have to ask about that.

As for the bond, when we came here in 2004, the bond structure WAS explained thoroughly to us. No problem.

The reason for the title? Given their own troubles and shenanigans, WHY would you trust the IRS more than the Developer(s)? Or Ritchie, for that matter? She seems to have her own agenda and it is definitely anything but favorable to us. Seems Orlando has enough problems of its own without worrying about us. Why is she not writing about the truly "gated" communities there with all their crime occurring? What are they getting for their monies?

[rubicon]

In the posts on this subject, I don't think anybody has criticized the Developer's success. However, the Developer's actions regarding the sale of amenity facilities raise legitimate concerns for residents.

While I thank Lauren Ritchie for publicizing the issue, which has been buried and distorted by the Daily Sun, her columns have not been a reliable source of information or analysis. For those members who really want to understand the matter, I would recommend the POA website: poa4us.org. Click on Current Issues and then IRS Investigation.

OR read the original filings by the IRS and ongoing public filings

[mickey100]

I don't understand all the animosity toward the Developer(s). My son lived in a condo in Jacksonville for several years (just finished building a new house) and his HOA fee was right at $200 a month with no rec centers and all they offer, one outdoor pool, no golf courses at all, and one "party room". They were saddled with many more restrictions than we have here, as well....no grills, no pets, etc. Seems like we have it pretty good here. By the way, don't know if his community is controlled by an HOA or not now. I will have to ask about that.

As for the bond, when we came here in 2004, the bond structure WAS explained thoroughly to us. No problem.

The reason for the title? Given their own troubles and shenanigans, WHY would you trust the IRS more than the Developer(s)? Or Ritchie, for that matter? She seems to have her own agenda and it is definitely anything but favorable to us. Seems Orlando has enough problems of its own without worrying about us. Why is she not writing about the truly "gated" communities there with all their crime occurring? What are they getting for their monies?

No one said they trust the IRS more than the Developer. But the IRS enforces the laws. In fact, their missions to serve the American public investigating potential criminal violations of the Internal Revenue Code and related financial crimes. The issuance of the tax free bonds by the districts is in violation of the law. Sorry if you don't the like IRS and the criminal code, but they certainly have the upper hand here.

[iaudit]

I don't understand all the animosity toward the Developer(s). My son lived in a condo in Jacksonville for several years (just finished building a new house) and his HOA fee was right at $200 a month with no rec centers and all they offer, one outdoor pool, no golf courses at all, and one "party room". They were saddled with many more restrictions than we have here, as well....no grills, no pets, etc. Seems like we have it pretty good here. By the way, don't know if his community is controlled by an HOA or not now. I will have to ask about that.

As for the bond, when we came here in 2004, the bond structure WAS explained thoroughly to us. No problem.

The reason for the title? Given their own troubles and shenanigans, WHY would you trust the IRS more than the Developer(s)? Or Ritchie, for that matter? She seems to have her own agenda and it is definitely anything but favorable to us. Seems Orlando has enough problems of its own without worrying about us. Why is she not writing about the truly "gated" communities there with all their crime occurring? What are they getting for their monies?

Probably not a fair comparison. Condo fees usually cover outside landscaping, maintaining driveways, roof repair and replacement. All of these expenses in the villages are the responsibility of the homeowner

[eweissenbach]

Ritchie "is definitely anything but favorable to US"? The Us presumably is the residents of the Villages unless you are a Morse. How can you come to that conclusion. She does seem unfavorably inclined toward the Developer, whether fairly or not, but I can't see any bias against Villagers.

[Bonanza]

I don't understand all the animosity toward the Developer(s). My son lived in a condo in Jacksonville for several years (just finished building a new house) and his HOA fee was right at $200 a month with no rec centers and all they offer, one outdoor pool, no golf courses at all, and one "party room". They were saddled with many more restrictions than we have here, as well....no grills, no pets, etc. Seems like we have it pretty good here. By the way, don't know if his community is controlled by an HOA or not now. I will have to ask about that.

As for the bond, when we came here in 2004, the bond structure WAS explained thoroughly to us. No problem.

The reason for the title? Given their own troubles and shenanigans, WHY would you trust the IRS more than the Developer(s)? Or Ritchie, for that matter? She seems to have her own agenda and it is definitely anything but favorable to us. Seems Orlando has enough problems of its own without worrying about us. Why is she not writing about the truly "gated" communities there with all their crime occurring? What are they getting for their monies?

There are many expensive and probable expenses which you didn't recognize and/or mention, for which your son's condo may be responsible, according to their documents, which you have not read. Things which may be covered by his association could be the roofs, all landscaping and grass cutting, painting of all the buildings, maintaining the roads, insurances, a reserve and more. All of these expenses are covered in an owner's monthly fee and although some is put into a reserve, these amounts are still charged on a monthly basis. I can almost guarantee that there are more restrictions here than your son had in his condo.

Unless you subscribe to the Orlando Sentinel, you don't know what other topics Lauren Ritchie writes about. There are only a few examples, in total, of her writing about The Villages. Judging from some of the items of hers which I have read, she really has no agenda, does her homework and simply tells it like it is.