Tree Removal on Lake Miona

[janmcn]

Janet Tutt announced earlier today that "there are no further leads to pursue", so case closed in the tree removal case on Lake Miona Drive, according to a new article in the on-line news.

The Project Wide Advisory Committee will pay the $45,000 to $50,000 tab, which means all districts south of CR466.

It will be interesting to see if one particular house that had been for sale for over a million dollars, comes back on the market after the listing mysteriously disappeared.

It would also be interesting to see how much investigative work was actually spent on this case. If the Sumter County Sheriff's Office couldn't solve this case, perhaps they don't deserve to have a police badge.

[RedChariot]

So I guess they got away with it. Hmmmm.......life is never fair is it.

[villagesmagtalk]

I do not see how they can charge me for replacement, when I do not even live near that Village? I hope there is some legal action those of us who had nothing to do with this can take to avoid the assessment. Socialism is alive and well in The Villages!!!!

[joldnol]

the rich almost always get away with it

[virgind]

How can we start a petition against pay for something the 99.99 percent didnt do. I cant believe this cover up is going to be allowed to be swept under the leaves(joke) why am I going to pay for this . Me and a whole lot of other people. I would expect this of our US government but not here. Where can we get a full report of the investigation.

[pmbinnj]

The online newspaper states "All leads exhausted in case of trees cut down at Lake Miona." It seems then, that MUCH MORE TIME should be spent generating new leads. While we all pay for this -- whether actual money or just the lost view of these magnificent trees; the bigger concern is the absolute gall of a homeowner felling the trees to increase the value of their home – and then GETTING AWAY WITH IT. There are plenty of issues on TOTV that should be allowed to die off – this is not one of them!

[virgind]

I think if we could find out who the sales agent was when the house was listed before we could probably get alot more info. Any one have any ideas as to finding this out, bring them forward . By the way was the sheriffs dept. involved. The results should be public record.

[Challenger]

I feel sure that the Sheriffs office has their own ideas about who, but cannot get the cooperation of witnesses needed to prosecute.
It defies belief that no neighbors would be able to give info that would allow the case to be solved.
I truly believe that there is a conspiracy of silence in this neighborhood.

My guess is that some investigative reporter could have a field day with this.

[wendyquat]

Call Greta!

[graciegirl]

the rich almost always get away with it


THE RICH? THE POOR? THE BLACK? THE CHINESE? THE DEMOCRATS? THE REPUBLICANS? THE OLD? THE YOUNG?

How about the people responsible?

WHAT if YOU lived in that neighborhood? That is SO unfair. That is just like saying that all people who live in a Designer home are less scrupulous than those who live in a Ranch home. People are people, how much or how little money they have in the bank does not make them good or bad unless they broke the law to get it..Every person needs to take care of themselves, obey the laws, and be responsible, whether they live in a teacup or a trailer or the Taj Mahal.

[handyman]

If I lived in that neighborhood, I would tell the authorities the truth .

[graciegirl]

If I lived in that neighborhood, I would tell the authorities the truth .


And so would I, If I KNEW the truth. I am sure that all people who live there know what the rest of us think we know, that one or more of the four are responsible, but they don't know which one or more are. AND you have to have proof.

It isn't fair to hang the whole neighborhood. That is NOT right. No matter what you suspect.

[onslowe]

I've refrained from any comments on this topic and its earlier threads to allow reasonable efforts to be undertaken by the authorities. I'm not Sherlock Holmes, but neither is this a case involving thousands of possible 'suspects' or leads. A scofflaw landscaper? A realtor with possible knowledge in part or whole? A homeowner or two? Broker notations prior to the sale? To an amateur, it doesn't seem to be a 'needle in a hay stack' problem.

Be that as it may, my prime complaint is the way too early capitulation and declaration that, in effect, the 'bad guys' got away with it. This is the kind of action that fosters distrust, unhelpful mutterings and attitudes, and plain and reasonable anger among citizens.

This is not the crime of the century. It is however, a real quality of life issue for each of us. Why? Because we all tacitly want government to do its job and leave us alone. We want to see that government works. That's the 'social contract,' a delicate trust born thing for sure.

We all have seen instances of government not working in our lives and in many of our cities. That's when people may say 'to hell with it' ,'it's no use,' and 'it's all corrupt.'

Hasty actions and decisions like this one are offensive to all of us. When the towel is just thrown in the second round, of course the finger pointers will come out. No one should expect less. It's wrong, hurtful to people and reputations, and divisive - but it is exactly the result to be expected.

Very disturbing.

[gomoho]

Call Greta!

My thought exactly, but I think she is too busy trying to save the marine that has been abandoned in Iran.

[dbussone]

My thought exactly, but I think she is too busy trying to save the marine that has been abandoned in Iran.


And that is appropriate!

[virgind]

If and I say if some one in the area doesnt tell the truth about who then is that considered perjury .

[janmcn]

If and I say if some one in the area doesnt tell the truth about who then is that considered perjury .


I think perjury only comes in when a person lies while under oath, and it's very doubtful that any of the suspects were ever questioned under oath.

We'll never know how much effort was put in to find the culprit, unless someone files a FOIA request for police reports, and there's just not that kind of interest.

There's a lot of good comments on the other website. One poster said that Barney Fife could solve this, but not the Sumter County Sheriff's Office. I tend to agree.

[Challenger]

I've refrained from any comments on this topic and its earlier threads to allow reasonable efforts to be undertaken by the authorities. I'm not Sherlock Holmes, but neither is this a case involving thousands of possible 'suspects' or leads. A scofflaw landscaper? A realtor with possible knowledge in part or whole? A homeowner or two? Broker notations prior to the sale? To an amateur, it doesn't seem to be a 'needle in a hay stack' problem.

Be that as it may, my prime complaint is the way too early capitulation and declaration that, in effect, the 'bad guys' got away with it. This is the kind of action that fosters distrust, unhelpful mutterings and attitudes, and plain and reasonable anger among citizens.

This is not the crime of the century. It is however, a real quality of life issue for each of us. Why? Because we all tacitly want government to do its job and leave us alone. We want to see that government works. That's the 'social contract,' a delicate trust born thing for sure.

We all have seen instances of government not working in our lives and in many of our cities. That's when people may say 'to hell with it' ,'it's no use,' and 'it's all corrupt.'

Hasty actions and decisions like this one are offensive to all of us. When the towel is just thrown in the second round, of course the finger pointers will come out. No one should expect less. It's wrong, hurtful to people and reputations, and divisive - but it is exactly the result to be expected.

Very disturbing.

This needs solving and I would hope our elected reps would keep the pressure on. This is becoming a nastier situation as time goe on. The longer it goes the more speculation there will be about who has the power to keep it shut down. I really don't like the trajectory of this one.

[manaboutown]

The nature of this crime is that it simply could not have gone unobserved and/or unheard (chain saws were used). Furthermore only a few could have benefitted from it in that unobstructed views of Lake Miona for a few properties resulted. It was not a random act. It was planned and carried out with malice aforethought. Although there may or may not have been a conspiracy in preparing to commit the crime failure to let authorities know criminal acts that one observes or knows about can cause one to become an accessory after the fact. http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/accessory_after_the_fact

[Indydealmaker]

Janet Tutt announced earlier today that "there are no further leads to pursue", so case closed in the tree removal case on Lake Miona Drive, according to a new article in the on-line news.

The Project Wide Advisory Committee will pay the $45,000 to $50,000 tab, which means all districts south of CR466.

It will be interesting to see if one particular house that had been for sale for over a million dollars, comes back on the market after the listing mysteriously disappeared.

It would also be interesting to see how much investigative work was actually spent on this case. If the Sumter County Sheriff's Office couldn't solve this case, perhaps they don't deserve to have a police badge.

Wow, this must be the crime of the century! Sumter sheriffs do an excellent job of policing this county as evidenced by their success at tracking down our burglars and rapists, etc.

If there is no paper trail and none of the neighbors admit witnessing anything and no one has sought after the reward, do you really want Sumter county wasting anymore time on this? I know I don't.

The obsession with conspiracy on this issue is bordering on psychosis.

The CDDs responsible will pay for mitigation just as they do all other infrastructure expenses and move on.

[Barefoot]

I truly believe that there is a conspiracy of silence in this neighborhood.


...my prime complaint is the way too early capitulation and declaration that, in effect, the 'bad guys' got away with it. This is the kind of action that fosters distrust, unhelpful mutterings and attitudes, and plain and reasonable anger among citizens.
We want to see that government works. That's the 'social contract,' a delicate trust born thing for sure.

I was told by a Villages employee: "Everyone knows who did it, they just can't prove anything".
It seems too early to make a public capitulation - it seems too early to call off the investigation.

[NYGUY]

The cost should be borne by the four homeowners....end of story!!!

[manaboutown]

How about bringing a civil action to recover the costs? The burden of proof is less than that for a criminal action.

[graciegirl]

The cost should be borne by the four homeowners....end of story!!!


Simple yes. But you can't fine someone without proof. It looks like I am protecting them, but I am not. I don't know them at all, but by law, you can't just level a judgment against someone because it is highly likely.

Just because the fine is going to be paid may not mean that the investigation is stopped. I bet that sooner or later the landscaper who did this will get drunk or aggravate a girlfriend and they will tell on him.

Although the figure seems very high, I know of people who have easily spent twelve or thirteen thousand dollars on landscaping a medium sized villages home. Today we played golf at Saddlebrook and saw someone....I guess from The Villages replacing a pretty good sized tree along the edge of 466, it must have been thirty or more feet tall. So repairs and replacements are made all of the time and it is part of some budget.

I am not trying to minimize this, but I can't think what else can be done if there is not proof of who done it.

It isn't right. It is sad and shameful.

The only good thing is that there is a lesson to be learned..... people will think twice before they start hacking down trees that don't belong to them....and get permission first before removing live oaks.

[Ecuadog]

If I was in charge of contracting the reforestation, I would inquire about a whole lot of additional plants, such as poison ivy, poison oak and poison sumac.

[maryanna630]

Yes, i think it is shameful. You cannot fine the neighborhood involved but you can fine an entire district? What is the rush to close the issue? Kinda sad that no ethics rule here and I find it very hard to believe that this information cannot be retrieved.....

[graciegirl]

Yes, i think it is shameful. You cannot fine the neighborhood involved but you can fine an entire district? What is the rush to close the issue? Kinda sad that no ethics rule here and I find it very hard to believe that this information cannot be retrieved.....

How? Water boarding is banned.

[Polar Bear]

The cost should be borne by the four homeowners....end of story!!!
You can't be serious. A very real possibility of three (at least) innocent parties pay because you think they might be guilty. Yeah...that's the American way.

[manaboutown]

That this crime goes unsolved is laughable given such a small number of folks who directly benefitted from its commission.

Why would someone with no skin in the game at great risk of being caught just go out and cut down some large, old oak trees to improve someone else's lake view just for the heck of it?

[CFrance]

If everyone south of 466 has to pay for restoring fully grown trees to the parcel, as was suggested in a former post, I'm glad that the self-entitled SOB who took them down to begin with will have his lack of view restored.

[handyman]

And so would I, If I KNEW the truth. I am sure that all people who live there know what the rest of us think we know, that one or more of the four are responsible, but they don't know which one or more are. AND you have to have proof.

It isn't fair to hang the whole neighborhood. That is NOT right. No matter what you suspect.

So let's hang everyone South of 466 and stick them with the fine !I am not an Einstein ,but I think I would know the sound of chain saws and work trucks rumbling through such a small and elite neighborhood, and want to know what is going on?No I am not happy paying for someone that has committed a crime,and the cutting of those oaks was a crime plain and simple......I am not looking for an argument just stating my opinion.

[Bonanza]

the rich almost always get away with it

THE RICH? THE POOR? THE BLACK? THE CHINESE? THE DEMOCRATS? THE REPUBLICANS? THE OLD? THE YOUNG?

How about the people responsible?

WHAT if YOU lived in that neighborhood? That is SO unfair. That is just like saying that all people who live in a Designer home are less scrupulous than those who live in a Ranch home. People are people, how much or how little money they have in the bank does not make them good or bad unless they broke the law to get it..Every person needs to take care of themselves, obey the laws, and be responsible, whether they live in a teacup or a trailer or the Taj Mahal.

Thank you for saying the right thing, Gracie. You responded correctly to a pretty unresponsible post.

[Bonanza]

I am incensed at the supposed outcome of this treeorama . . . .
that it is being dropped and closed at an apparent whim that no one wants to be bothered with it any longer???
A cold case that will remain cold ad infinitum???

I smell a fish and it stinks!

[mulligan]

How about call the media and stage a march around the roundabout at the entrance to Bridgeport. Just a coincidence that on the opposite side is the signature golf course. There must be an upcoming event........

[getdul981]

Just curious, but who decided that a select few, i.e. people south of CR 466, should bear the expense of this instead of the entire community?

You want to hear some squealing, just tell the folks up at Mulberry Grove that they have to chip in on this too.

I guess if someone should happen to come by and cut down one of our palm trees, we would get a replacement paid for by everyone south of CR 466.

[Challenger]

Not an issue of rich vs poor. Simply a criminal act perpetrated by one or more who benefitted and some neighbors who are either beind coerced (maybe scared)into silence or are complicit.

This definitely should not be allowed to stand. During WWII there was a popular admonision "Loose lips sink ships" If we keep the pressure on , someone will eventually loosen up.

[graciegirl]

I am incensed at the supposed outcome of this treeorama . . . .
that it is being dropped and closed at an apparent whim that no one wants to be bothered with it any longer???
A cold case that will remain cold ad infinitum???

I smell a fish and it stinks!

But I still don't understand, Bonanza. What do you suspect is the conspiracy? The bill, the fine, to the St.John's River Authority has to be paid. This happened last fall. That doesn't mean the district can't sue in the future if they find out which homeowner is responsible.

What am I missing? And thank you for the kind remark.

I don't get it. Who besides the people who PROBABLY had it done who wanted a clear view to the water could be at fault???? WHO would benefit? It is on a sort of island of land in Lake Miona behind four homes who reportedly (wasn't that in the paper?)had wood stacked behind their houses. The island does not belong to any of them. It belongs to the district, a kind of common area, a preserve that the St.John's River Authority has power over. It isn't the homeowners land but the homeowners benefited from a clear view to water. The land belongs to the CDD, i.e. all of us who live south of 466 are part of that CDD.

If someone stole all of the flowers from a piece of land in the middle of one of our streets and the district replaced them, we would be mad, but our money would pay to replace them. We could leave it bare. (But in this case The St. John's river bunch says to replace them)

. If someone saw a bunch of flowers in someone's yard that matched those flowers they'd be PRETTY SURE...but how can you prove that?

That is how it looks to me. How does it look to others????

I am hoping that someone is gonna find out and we on this forum will KNOW who did it and that landscaper is gonna be toast.

I HOPE Someone is gonna be found out. AND HOPEFULLY ante up, but you cannot convict someone even if they look guilty as hell. You have to have proof. Doesn't anyone watch true crime on TV like I do??? lol.

[virgind]

OK so I'm going to pay for something that I'm not going to get. It's the American way. I think this case should be looked at by the state attorney general.

[Challenger]

The conspiracy is not the act of cutting , but the obvious pact of silence by some in the neighborhood after the fact

[graciegirl]

OK so I'm going to pay for something that I'm not going to get. It's the American way. I think this case should be looked at by the state attorney general.


OH Gawd. I wish I had studied law. I don't think that is how it works. THANK goodness we have laws although it seems they are protecting the guilty way tooo much.

When a guy, a really bad guy does something wrong and is caught, and is put in jail for years, maybe life?...Guess who is paying for his baked beans? And his beddy bye?

I would love to have a bake sale in the street in front of these four homes in order to earn money to pay for the trees. I think things like this and my husband says, "that isn't nice and it would do NO good." He thinks the same about marches.

In this world there are the hot heads and there are the thinkers. And there is me, that used to think that there was an answer for all problems, that was when I was young and a lib....WHOOPS.

[Polar Bear]

...And there is me, that used to think that there was an answer for all problems, that was when I was young and a lib....WHOOPS.

Now now, gracie!!! You don't want to be banished to that other forum!! [emoji79]

[Barefoot]

I am incensed at the supposed outcome of this treeorama . . .that it is being dropped and closed at an apparent whim that no one wants to be bothered with it any longer? A cold case that will remain cold ad infinitum? I smell a fish and it stinks!


What am I missing?

Graciegirl -- we all know that you don't miss much!
However in this case, I think you're missing that the opening post started with the fact that Janet Tutt announced that "there are no further leads to pursue" so case closed in the tree removal case.

I think the inference that the matter isn't worth any more investigative time is leading to frustration on the part of the respondents.

Perhaps Ms. Tutt's comment should have been worded differently.
Perhaps if she'd said that the District will pay the fine but the case isn't closed and any further leads will be pursued, the comments would be softer.

[CFrance]

Graciegirl -- we all know that you don't miss much!
However in this case, I think you're missing that the opening post started with the fact that Janet Tutt announced that "there are no further leads to pursue" so case closed in the tree removal case.

I think the inference that the matter isn't worth any more investigative time is leading to frustration on the part of the respondents.

Perhaps Ms. Tutt's comment should have been worded differently.
Perhaps if she'd said that the District will pay the fine but the case isn't closed and any further leads will be pursued, the comments would be softer.

But she would have said that if that was the case. It sounds like they are thinking exactly what you said in your paragraph about the "inference."

[virgind]

Perhaps this could be crimes against seniors. After all we are the district we the district monies comes from us. Seeing as they cant find the culprits then?

[Bogie Shooter]

How about call the media and stage a march around the roundabout at the entrance to Bridgeport. Just a coincidence that on the opposite side is the signature golf course. There must be an upcoming event........

This makes so much sense...............not!

[Barefoot]

But she would have said that if that was the case. It sounds like they are thinking exactly what you said in your paragraph about the "inference."

I'm surprised that Ms. Tutt worded her announcement, that basically the case is closed, over, done.
She could have said: "Further investigation will be based on leads, should they materialize".
Semantics I know, but it would have seemed The District/The Police haven't "thrown in the towel".

[Bogie Shooter]

It was the OP who stated "case closed" not Janet Tutt.

[Polar Bear]

I'm surprised that Ms. Tutt worded her announcement, that basically the case is closed, over, done.
She could have said: "Further investigation will be based on leads, should they materialize".
Semantics I know, but it would have seemed The District/The Police haven't "thrown in the towel".
Can't argue with that.

[janmcn]

How about call the media and stage a march around the roundabout at the entrance to Bridgeport. Just a coincidence that on the opposite side is the signature golf course. There must be an upcoming event........

This makes so much sense...............not!


Probably especially to people that live in Bridgeport at Lake Miona.

[manaboutown]

IMHO Inspector Clouseau could have easily solved this one.

Could there be pole-it-ikal pressures/reasons behind the case being closed or at least inactivated?

[graciegirl]

IMHO Inspector Clouseau could have easily solved this one.

Could there be pole-it-ikal pressures/reasons behind the case being closed or at least inactivated?


But WHAT kind of politics? WHO stands to gain? I don't see anything but I am not the brightest bulb in the chandelier. WHO would stand to gain except the people who wanted clear space behind their homes to the water????

WHO?

[NYGUY]

You can't be serious. A very real possibility of three (at least) innocent parties pay because you think they might be guilty. Yeah...that's the American way.

Oh yes Bear, I am serious!! Only four homeowners derived any benefit from this crime, yet the powers that be have chosen to fine all of us. That is arbitrary and unjust. And since they are going to be arbitrary anyway, lets just be arbitrary against the only four homeowners who benefited (and just maybe someone will squeal). Wadda think Bear man?

[graciegirl]

Oh yes Bear, I am serious!! Only four homeowners derived any benefit from this crime, yet the powers that be have chosen to fine all of us. That is arbitrary and unjust. And since they are going to be arbitrary anyway, lets just be arbitrary against the only four homeowners who benefited (and just maybe someone will squeal). Wadda think Bear man?

We weren't fined. We are the district. Just like if we lived in Tarmack Texas and some goat ate the the water fountain in the square. They would replace it and we the Tarmackers would pay.

[Polar Bear]

Oh yes Bear, I am serious!! Only four homeowners derived any benefit from this crime, yet the powers that be have chosen to fine all of us. That is arbitrary and unjust. And since they are going to be arbitrary anyway, lets just be arbitrary against the only four homeowners who benefited (and just maybe someone will squeal). Wadda think Bear man?
What gracie said. We weren't fined. Just because you're angry and want to call it that doesn't make it true.

[GatorFan]

Agree Gracie. The Sumter County Sheriff's Department did investigate but could not get any evidence. No one would talk or claimed they did not see and knew nothing. Sad situation.

[graciegirl]

Probably especially to people that live in Bridgeport at Lake Miona.

I live in a small isolated village that has fewer houses than Bridgeport at Lake Miona.

At the other end, three streets down, they could be sawing each other legs off and we wouldn't hear it or see it, they back to the golf course and to the preserve..

If pressed we would likely KNOW who would be the leg sawers but we couldn't PROVE it.

My apologies to my neighbors, none of which look or act like the could do any heinous act.

[NYGUY]

We weren't fined. We are the district. Just like if we lived in Tarmack Texas and some goat ate the the water fountain in the square. They would replace it and we the Tarmackers would pay.

You are right, of course, Gracie, but then again WE didn't decide to fine US....THEY did. Where is Solomon when you need him?

[NYGUY]

What gracie said. We weren't fined. Just because you're angry and want to call it that doesn't make it true.

Relax, it's just a debate Bear!!

[janmcn]

I live in a small isolated village that has fewer houses than Bridgeport at Lake Miona.

At the other end, three streets down, they could be sawing each other legs off and we wouldn't hear it or see it, they back to the golf course and to the preserve..

If pressed we would likely KNOW who would be the leg sawers but we couldn't PROVE it.

My apologies to my neighbors, none of which look or act like the could do any heinous act.


What happened to the generation of people that took personal responsibility for themselves? You know, the generation that worked hard, and saved their money so that they could enjoy their retirement without being a burden on other people.

How about the neighbors that are always looking out for one another? The ones that keep an eye on each other's home all day, everyday? The retired people that never miss a trick?

IMO: these people are no different than welfare cheats who want others to pay their way.

[graciegirl]

What happened to the generation of people that took personal responsibility for themselves? You know, the generation that worked hard, and saved their money so that they could enjoy their retirement without being a burden on other people.

How about the neighbors that are always looking out for one another? The ones that keep an eye on each other's home all day, everyday? The retired people that never miss a trick?

IMO: these people are no different than welfare cheats who want others to pay their way.


Huh?

[Polar Bear]

Relax, it's just a debate Bear!!
Me relax? I'm still trying to figure that one out.

[Bogie Shooter]

I live in a small isolated village that has fewer houses than Bridgeport at Lake Miona.

At the other end, three streets down, they could be sawing each other legs off and we wouldn't hear it or see it, they back to the golf course and to the preserve..

If pressed we would likely KNOW who would be the leg sawers but we couldn't PROVE it.

My apologies to my neighbors, none of which look or act like the could do any heinous act.

Sawing of their legs is rather serious.........................

[mickey100]

What happened to the generation of people that took personal responsibility for themselves? You know, the generation that worked hard, and saved their money so that they could enjoy their retirement without being a burden on other people.

How about the neighbors that are always looking out for one another? The ones that keep an eye on each other's home all day, everyday? The retired people that never miss a trick?

IMO: these people are no different than welfare cheats who want others to pay their way.

Exactly. Its really a shame. You know someone knows what happened and isn't talking. The rest of us pay the price. Think of all the good that money could have done that would have benefitted ALL the residents, not just those few houses.

[justjim]

In a court of law just thinking something, believing something or feeling something isn't enough, you need to be able to prove it. End of story.

Here is a thought. Maybe the District should stand up to St. John's Authority. The District didn't authorize these trees to be cut down and had nothing to do with the removal. Let St Johns replace them if they want them replaced. Why is the District anymore responsible to replace the trees than another government entity?

Oh well, in the scope of things, it's just a "drop in the bucket"---lets move on.

[Polar Bear]

...Maybe the District should stand up to St. John's Authority. The District didn't authorize these trees to be cut down and had nothing to do with the removal. Let St Johns replace them if they want them replaced. Why is the District anymore responsible to replace the trees than another government entity?
My guess is the District is the permittee for the permit that was violated.

[rubicon]

Res ispa loquitur ( the thing speaks for itself). While res ispa will not have legal application here it does underscore what many people have said concerning this issue. There were four homes that benefited from the clearing of trees . It is hard to imagine that not one of these homeowners heard or saw someone well sawing and the view quickly changing

There is really not a thing the police can do. These homeowners may be suspects but that's all thy have unless someone comes forward and after this length of time its unlikely

I agree with justjim. If the district had a legal obligation to pay then I wish they explained it to us. And lastly let's hope the District just didn't say like most politicians "the heck with it let's just throw money at the problem its not coming out of our pockets"

[LndLocked]

In a court of law just thinking something, believing something or feeling something isn't enough, you need to be able to prove it. End of story.

Here is a thought. Maybe the District should stand up to St. John's Authority. The District didn't authorize these trees to be cut down and had nothing to do with the removal. Let St Johns replace them if they want them replaced. Why is the District anymore responsible to replace the trees than another government entity?

Oh well, in the scope of things, it's just a "drop in the bucket"---lets move on.

It is not the "St. John's" it is the South West Florida Water Management District that (SWFMD .... or typically called: swif-mud) is the agency that issued the fine. They have fined the district because the illegal, unpermitted removal of the tree was on district property .... the trees were actually NOT on a TV residents property.

[LndLocked]

What gracie said. We weren't fined. Just because you're angry and want to call it that doesn't make it true.

Who (will) pay? .... It has been stated that districts south of 466 will share in the cost of the fine

Where are the fine $$$ coming from? .... It has been stated that money will be taken from amenity fees paid by the districts south of 466.

Who pays into the amenity fees of districts south of 466 .... All TV property owners withing those districts.

Simple logic dictates that if you are a TV property owner south of 466 that pays amenity fees (which is everyone) ... you are for all practical purposes being FINED!!

[KeepingItReal]

I'm surprised that Ms. Tutt worded her announcement, that basically the case is closed, over, done.
She could have said: "Further investigation will be based on leads, should they materialize".
Semantics I know, but it would have seemed The District/The Police haven't "thrown in the towel".

Tutt has nothing to loose so why should she bother trying to really find out what happened. How come Community Watch didn't notice this being done? She has a money pot to take it from so why not do it. Definitely NOT a Janet Tutt or David Miles fan as she and he as well as Attorney Fuchs were part of the ordeal on the bond interest overcharging change. Tutt, Miles and Fuchs all had said everything was being done properly before the change was made at the direction of Gary Moyer proving it had never ever been done correctly. Tutt shouldn't be the final word on anything.

[maryanna630]

So agree...

[justjim]

It is not the "St. John's" it is the South West Florida Water Management District that (SWFMD .... or typically called: swif-mud) is the agency that issued the fine. They have fined the district because the illegal, unpermitted removal of the tree was on district property .... the trees were actually NOT on a TV residents property.

Thanks for clarifying which water district. I know part of TV is in one Water District and Part is in the other---I think depending on which County. I must have picked St. johns from another post. Anyway, the District owns This lake property? That could be but doesn't sound right to me.

I don't think the District owns Lake Miona.

[chuckinca]

We weren't fined. We are the district. Just like if we lived in Tarmack Texas and some goat ate the the water fountain in the square. They would replace it and we the Tarmackers would pay.


Huh?


Not nice to make fun of Texas!


.

[VT2TV]

Personally, I think this whole thing stinks. You can't possibly tell me they are our of leads, and they are just quitting. I happen to be in the lucky districts who have been selected to pay for the trees I have never seen, in an area where I don't know anybody, but we are also in the district that has been selected to help pay for the island having problems that is under the bridge on Morse coming into Lake Sumter. Since most people who live in the Villages has probably crossed that bridge as many or more times than the people in the Districts chosen to pay for the repair cost, I don't understand how they decided who would have to pay. I think if any Villagers have to pay for these 2 costs, then all Villagers should have to pay for both. I realize that spread out, it might not seem a problem to some, but it is just the priniciple of the thing. The first issue should not have to be paid by the residents for the actions of a few. I agree with the poster who said that the Villages/? should make the 4 residents pay for the trees. When one of them thinks they are going to have to pay out big money, it might not be so important to keep a pact. Then, I certainly think that the bridge/island issue should be spread out amonst all the residents. There are plenty of people who may not have lived here a month that are going to have to pay, and then those who have lived here for years and have used the bridge maybe daily, who don't have to pay. Just doesn't seem right. This is my opinion. Just for curosity, if anyone responds negativly to this post, please also share if you live above or below 466.

[Bonanza]

I am in agreement with you VT2TV, and I am south of 466.
Anyway::

It was determined that all residents south of 466 will pay the tree fine. However, they easily could have "determined" that the four people who would benefit from a better lake view should pay the fine. Of course those four families would bitch and moan, "why us?" Divided by four, the fine isn't chump change.

Take a deposition from the four of them, that they had no knowledge or any part in this. Logic tells me that THAT is the way to get some real answers. My guess is two of the four will probably fold and a couple more homes might be on the market soon!

[graciegirl]

I am in agreement with you VT2TV, and I am south of 466.
Anyway::

It was determined that all residents south of 466 will pay the tree fine. However, they easily could have "determined" that the four people who would benefit from a better lake view should pay the fine. Of course those four families would bitch and moan, "why us?" Divided by four, the fine isn't chump change.

Take a deposition from the four of them, that they had no knowledge or any part in this. Logic tells me that THAT is the way to get some real answers. My guess is two of the four will probably fold and a couple more homes might be on the market soon!


You can't make someone pay the tree fine if the trees are not on their property and there is no proof they cut them down or had them cut down. I think it is called circumstantial evidence. The circumstances make it look like so and so happened. But the burden of proof is not met. I don't know, I am not a lawyer and I haven't ever sued anyone or been sued or broke any law that I know of. I did break the speed limit law and got caught twice and admitted I did it, but I wasn't drinking...... and I try to stay away from lawyers except at family gatherings

If they didn't have laws like that folks would be going around saying it looks like you did it...your fanny is going to jail. That is the reason we have the law of the land.

Unfortunately it protects the innocent and the guilty.

I need coffee. Probably this is all wrong.

I mean, I know it is all wrong for people to hack down trees and their town gets fined and they don't have to be in the soup personally.

Good morning everyone. It's gonna be another beautiful day in The Villages.

[graciegirl]

Personally, I think this whole thing stinks. You can't possibly tell me they are our of leads, and they are just quitting. I happen to be in the lucky districts who have been selected to pay for the trees I have never seen, in an area where I don't know anybody, but we are also in the district that has been selected to help pay for the island having problems that is under the bridge on Morse coming into Lake Sumter. Since most people who live in the Villages has probably crossed that bridge as many or more times than the people in the Districts chosen to pay for the repair cost, I don't understand how they decided who would have to pay. I think if any Villagers have to pay for these 2 costs, then all Villagers should have to pay for both. I realize that spread out, it might not seem a problem to some, but it is just the priniciple of the thing. The first issue should not have to be paid by the residents for the actions of a few. I agree with the poster who said that the Villages/? should make the 4 residents pay for the trees. When one of them thinks they are going to have to pay out big money, it might not be so important to keep a pact. Then, I certainly think that the bridge/island issue should be spread out amonst all the residents. There are plenty of people who may not have lived here a month that are going to have to pay, and then those who have lived here for years and have used the bridge maybe daily, who don't have to pay. Just doesn't seem right. This is my opinion. Just for curosity, if anyone responds negativly to this post, please also share if you live above or below 466.


They are going to pay for the fine. I would guess if they find out something later they will lower the boom.

But now the district is going to pay the fine leveled by the folks who have authority over protected trees whatever their name is..St John's River is what I thought it was called.

Substitute the word TOWN for district. It is the way things work everyplace.

I think sometime....someone is gonna find out the truth. Someone is going to tell on the landscapers who were hired to do it.

If you want to see a visual about where the trees were and where this happened. Go to sumterpa.com and type in the name of the street. Click on one of the addresses and you can see a map of the area and the little islands just behind some of the homes on Lake Miona. It enlarges.

It will keep us all busy while we fume.

So far in the eight years that I have lived here THEY have set aside money for things like this and no extra charges have ever personally hit anyone in the form of a bill like in other places where they charge you for painting the bocce courts or something like that with an assessment. The district will pay and the district has probably held funds for these purposes.

[Bonanza]

You can't make someone pay the tree fine if the trees are not on their property and there is no proof they cut them down or had them cut down. I think it is called circumstantial evidence. The circumstances make it look like so and so happened. But the burden of proof is not met. I don't know, I am not a lawyer and I haven't ever sued anyone or been sued or broke any law that I know of. I did break the speed limit law and got caught twice and admitted I did it, but I wasn't drinking...... and I try to stay away from lawyers except at family gatherings

If they didn't have laws like that folks would be going around saying it looks like you did it...your fanny is going to jail. That is the reason we have the law of the land.

Unfortunately it protects the innocent and the guilty.

I need coffee. Probably this is all wrong.

I mean, I know it is all wrong for people to hack down trees and their town gets fined and they don't have to be in the soup personally.

Good morning everyone. It's gonna be another beautiful day in The Villages.

Gracie -- I know you can't make these four residences pay for the fine and new plantings. But I still think to depose these owners is a good idea.

I just wonder how it's "determined" who pays in some of these instances? What is the deciding factor? Just like residents south of 466 have to pay for the erosion under the bridge, as though no one north of the bridge or non residents don't use the bridge. In my mind, that is stupidity at its finest!

[twoplanekid]

From the PWAC ( Project Wide Advisory Committee) meeting minutes from March 2, 2015 as posted on the districtgov.org web site
Members
Ron Ruggeri Vice Chairman (District 7)
Steve Printz Committee Member (District 9)
Chuck Wildzunas Committee Member (District 5)
Staff
Sam Wartinbee District Property Management Director

The following from the minutes :

“Vice Chairman Ruggeri stated with the amount of time it took to cut the trees down, someone that lives in that area had to have seen something, and maybe in this specific instance, the Project Wide Fund does not need to pay the costs.

PWAC - Meeting Minutes
March 2, 2015
Page 10

Supervisor Printz stated he understands Vice Chairman Ruggeri’s sentiment; however, this issue needs to be remedied under the current process so everyone can move beyond it. Possibly in the future the Committee can review if there is some other governance process that can be amended to address these types of instances.

Supervisor Wildzunas stated he has discussed the issue with the SCSO and has been advised that the SCSO is very proactively investigating the issue.

Mr. Wartinbee stated damage to conservation areas has occurred two (2) other times but the homeowners who had the maintenance completed in the conservation area admitted that they had done so and paid for the remediation.”

The minutes from the April 5 meeting have not as yet been posted!

[NYGUY]

Supervisor Printz stated he understands Vice Chairman Ruggeri’s sentiment; however, this issue needs to be remedied under the current process so everyone can move beyond it. Possibly in the future the Committee can review if there is some other governance process that can be amended to address these types of instances.

Supervisor Printz sounds like a pacifist....things become clearer!!

[Topspinmo]

Not to worry! The Money will probably come out of the general slush fund. $191,400,000.00:$: annually plenty of cash to go around. how did I get to that number? 145 x 110,000 = 15,950,000 times 12 = 191,400,000.00. That way it fair we all get to pay for it. :22yikes: I heard on here it also pays for lawyers. :loco:

[janmcn]

Not to worry! The Money will probably come out of the general slush fund. $191,400,000.00:$: annually plenty of cash to go around. how did I get to that number? 145 x 110,000 = 15,950,000 times 12 = 191,400,000.00. That way it fair we all get to pay for it. :22yikes: I heard on here it also pays for lawyers. :loco:


First of all, there are 110,000 residents, not 110,000 homes in The Villages. Secondly, only the homes south of CR466 are paying for the damage. So deduct the number of homes north of 466 from the total of homes in TV for a more accurate figure.

[tuccillo]

I am not an attorney (all of my knowledge of the law comes from "Law and Order" reruns) but I am pretty sure those property owners cannot be compelled to talk to anyone. Apparently there is no evidence against anyone. Like it not, our system protects both the guilty and the innocent.

Gracie -- I know you can't make these four residences pay for the fine and new plantings. But I still think to depose these owners is a good idea.

I just wonder how it's "determined" who pays in some of these instances? What is the deciding factor? Just like residents south of 466 have to pay for the erosion under the bridge, as though no one north of the bridge or non residents don't use the bridge. In my mind, that is stupidity at its finest!

[graciegirl]

Not to worry! The Money will probably come out of the general slush fund. $191,400,000.00:$: annually plenty of cash to go around. how did I get to that number? 145 x 110,000 = 15,950,000 times 12 = 191,400,000.00. That way it fair we all get to pay for it. :22yikes: I heard on here it also pays for lawyers. :loco:

But what else can be done? You can't go further in arresting someone without proof. We could beat them up, a bunch of us. I think we would all end up in jail.

If back where you lived, someone vandalized the public library or they ran their car through the plantings in the middle of the street, (if you had them) and wasn't seen or caught, it would come out of the public's pocket to repair it. I don't see the difference. It was wrong, and we all pay. That is how it is in this country. We pay when someone on welfare abuses the system.

I don't know what a slush fund is, but I do know that in our family we were taught to not live hand to mouth or from pay check to paycheck, but to save for an unforeseen disaster. That way you can take care of nasty surprises when they come that are not insured. This bill, which was not caused by all of us, still has to be paid.

[dolpterry]

The next big story will be about the trees cut down on lake Deaton.

[twoplanekid]

I live in Lake Deaton and I no nothing about that.

[superbat1]

There is 55,000 homes not 110,000 so cut your amount in half.

[Mleeja]

Not to worry! The Money will probably come out of the general slush fund. $191,400,000.00:$: annually plenty of cash to go around. how did I get to that number? 145 x 110,000 = 15,950,000 times 12 = 191,400,000.00. That way it fair we all get to pay for it. :22yikes: I heard on here it also pays for lawyers. :loco:
Your math is corect, but your assumption is flawed. The amenity fee is per household. It would be roughtly 50%, probably more like 60% of the total quoted. Still a big chunk of change. However, this money is used for maintaining the common areas, not just some big pile of cash. If you want to know where it goes, checkout the meeting minutes from the CDDs or the ACC. There is always a finiacial statement. Then you will not need to make wild claims and assumptions. :024:

[janmcn]

The next big story will be about the trees cut down on lake Deaton.


This is what happens when one resident or group of residents gets away with something, then others are sure to follow.

[ricthemic]

Personally, I think this whole thing stinks. You can't possibly tell me they are our of leads, and they are just quitting. I happen to be in the lucky districts who have been selected to pay for the trees I have never seen, in an area where I don't know anybody, but we are also in the district that has been selected to help pay for the island having problems that is under the bridge on Morse coming into Lake Sumter. Since most people who live in the Villages has probably crossed that bridge as many or more times than the people in the Districts chosen to pay for the repair cost, I don't understand how they decided who would have to pay. I think if any Villagers have to pay for these 2 costs, then all Villagers should have to pay for both. I realize that spread out, it might not seem a problem to some, but it is just the priniciple of the thing. The first issue should not have to be paid by the residents for the actions of a few. I agree with the poster who said that the Villages/? should make the 4 residents pay for the trees. When one of them thinks they are going to have to pay out big money, it might not be so important to keep a pact. Then, I certainly think that the bridge/island issue should be spread out amonst all the residents. There are plenty of people who may not have lived here a month that are going to have to pay, and then those who have lived here for years and have used the bridge maybe daily, who don't have to pay. Just doesn't seem right. This is my opinion. Just for curosity, if anyone responds negativly to this post, please also share if you live above or below 466.

Have not read all the post on this subject.
Hypothetically, what would Sumter County and Ms Tutt have said if in the same area one morning last November a body was found? "Well we asked everyone and no one knows anything"

[virgind]

I drove past that area on Lake Miona and that is right across the street from the rec center and no one saw any thing I really find that hard to believe. I think a farther investigation needs to be done but would the sheriffs dept do it.

[Barefoot]

Have not read all the post on this subject.
Hypothetically, what would Sumter County and Ms Tutt have said if in the same area one morning last November a body was found? "Well we asked everyone and no one knows anything"

I don't think anyone has asked that particular question before. :22yikes:
A Villages employee told me "We know who did it but we can't prove anything".
I would guess it works the same way with dead bodies. ... presumption of innocence.

[tuccillo]

I am not sure what you are expecting to happen. If you can't get anyone to talk there is really no recourse. You can't exactly take them in the back room and beat the tar out of them until they talk. The residents here are not teenagers that you can intimidate. I imagine the investigation going something like this:

Investigator: Did you see any trees being cut down?
Resident: No.
Investigator: I think you did and you better come clean.
Resident: I have a tee time, gotta go.




I drove past that area on Lake Miona and that is right across the street from the rec center and no one saw any thing I really find that hard to believe. I think a farther investigation needs to be done but would the sheriffs dept do it.

[Chi-Town]

Let's hope the fine is mitigated which is fairly common. This is a cold case.

[janmcn]

I am not sure what you are expecting to happen. If you can't get anyone to talk there is really no recourse. You can't exactly take them in the back room and beat the tar out of them until they talk. The residents here are not teenagers that you can intimidate. I imagine the investigation going something like this:

Investigator: Did you see any trees being cut down?
Resident: No.
Investigator: I think you did and you better come clean.
Resident: I have a tee time, gotta go.

Investigator: Have a wonderful day in The Villages.

[CFrance]

Investigator: Have a wonderful day in The Villages.
Further investigation of the investigator reveals he is employed at the Bridgeport gate!:wave:

[downeaster]

Your math is corect, but your assumption is flawed. The amenity fee is per household. It would be roughtly 50%, probably more like 60% of the total quoted. Still a big chunk of change. However, this money is used for maintaining the common areas, not just some big pile of cash. If you want to know where it goes, checkout the meeting minutes from the CDDs or the ACC. There is always a finiacial statement. Then you will not need to make wild claims and assumptions. :024:

The amenity fee is for maintaining amenities, not common areas. There is an annual maintenance fee for the purpose of maintaining common ares.

[Mleeja]

The amenity fee is for maintaining amenities, not common areas. There is an annual maintenance fee for the purpose of maintaining common ares.

Ok, I think you are splitting hairs here. Are not the amenities common areas also? However, my point does not change. The money from the amenity fees are already budgeted for other uses. It is not some big slush fund as suggested by the poster.

[Skybo]

The amenity fee is for maintaining amenities, not common areas. There is an annual maintenance fee for the purpose of maintaining common ares.

Ok, I think you are splitting hairs here. Are not the amenities common areas also? However, my point does not change. The money from the amenity fees are already budgeted for other uses. It is not some big slush fund as suggested by the poster.

Mleeja, I understand your "slush-fund" point, but Downeaster was not splitting hairs when he corrected your misstatement. "Amenities" and "Common Areas" are distinctly different entities and are paid for from different funds. It's an important point, especially in a thread where we are discussing what our amenity fees pay for.

[rubicon]

The amenity fee is for maintaining amenities, not common areas. There is an annual maintenance fee for the purpose of maintaining common ares.

We should all email Janet Tutt and express our frustration with this malfeasance being paid out of our fees. downeaster is right and were being dumped on

[graciegirl]

We should all email Janet Tutt and express our frustration with this malfeasance being paid out of our fees. downeaster is right and were being dumped on


I respect you mightily Rubicon, but who would the bill go to? The District is us. WHAT am I not seeing here???

[Challenger]

I think a lot could be cleared up if Ms Tutt would comment on what legal principle, agreement, or contract makes the CDD responsible to pay a fine and or mitigate, I feel quite confident that she would have a sound response.
The lack of factual comments on the issue has caused numerous conspiracy theories and rumors.
That being said the community and the various CDDs should keep the issue hot by continuing to ask questions of the Police and the CDDs. Someone will eventually blab.
This is not a Quixotic effort. a crime has been committed. The dollar amount of damage would probably rise to the definition of Grand Theft if it had been a robery.
If the Community is responsible for a fine and mitigation, certainly we should comply.
The amount is pennies in the overall scheme of things. It is the principle that is huge.

[Polar Bear]

I really don't think this situation is all that complicated. (Finding a guilty party may be, but the permit issue is not.) I haven't done any research, but it appears to be nothing more than a permit violation. The permit is violated. The permittee pays the fine and then pursues any avenues available to recover any losses.

The permitting agency is not going to wait for a long, drawn out investigation before they issue the fines. To the agency, it's clear cut...there is a violation and a permittee. The permittee pays the fine regardless of who might have actually committed the acts.

[Mikeod]

I really don't think this situation is all that complicated. (Finding a guilty party may be, but the permit issue is not.) I haven't done any research, but it appears to be nothing more than a permit violation. The permit is violated. The permittee pays the fine and then pursues any avenues available to recover any losses.

The permitting agency is not going to wait for a long, drawn out investigation before they issue the fines. To the agency, it's clear cut...there is a violation and a permittee. The permittee pays the fine regardless of who might have actually committed the acts.
I think you are correct. I recall TV entered into an agreement with the water district to maintain that area in its natural, unaltered state in order to build on the adjacent land. Because the trees were destroyed, the district was in violation of the agreement and required to restore the property. The PWAC will fund the project. The PWAC is funded by the residential CDDs below 466 which is why it is reported that only those are involved.

PWAC funds are used for other things. The new park near the Haciendas at Mission Hills was done with PWAC funds, I believe. And the bridge/island repair is likely being proposed for PWAC funding, again falling on the CDDs below 466. Not saying it's right, just how some things are funded.

[philnpat]

But what else can be done? You can't go further in arresting someone without proof. We could beat them up, a bunch of us. I think we would all end up in jail.

If back where you lived, someone vandalized the public library or they ran their car through the plantings in the middle of the street, (if you had them) and wasn't seen or caught, it would come out of the public's pocket to repair it. I don't see the difference. It was wrong, and we all pay. That is how it is in this country. We pay when someone on welfare abuses the system.

I don't know what a slush fund is, but I do know that in our family we were taught to not live hand to mouth or from pay check to paycheck, but to save for an unforeseen disaster. That way you can take care of nasty surprises when they come that are not insured. This bill, which was not caused by all of us, still has to be paid.

Gracie, I think you're as frustrated as we are with what was done and the fact that we're stuck with the bill.
But your example of youth vandalism doesn't seem to fit.
The person or persons who did this did it for their benefit whether it was a financial opportunity or an esthetic improvement on their property to be enjoyed by them only.
Vandalism is kid stuff that most outgrow.

[manaboutown]

I think a lot could be cleared up if Ms Tutt would comment on what legal principle, agreement, or contract makes the CDD responsible to pay a fine and or mitigate, I feel quite confident that she would have a sound response.
The lack of factual comments on the issue has caused numerous conspiracy theories and rumors.
That being said the community and the various CDDs should keep the issue hot by continuing to ask questions of the Police and the CDDs. Someone will eventually blab.
This is not a Quixotic effort. a crime has been committed. The dollar amount of damage would probably rise to the definition of Grand Theft if it had been a robery.
If the Community is responsible for a fine and mitigation, certainly we should comply.
The amount is pennies in the overall scheme of things. It is the principle that is huge.

In addition to the act or acts being felonious, intentional torts were committed. Perhaps some civil remedy could be pursued. The burden of proof would be less than for a criminal charge. (Remember the Goldmans vs. OJ?) Can access to the records of the investigation(s) be obtained? They might make interesting reading, at least.

My concern is not $50,000 spread among many folks; it is the precedent set for anyone wanting to lawlessly cut down trees to improve their view, for example.

[buzzy]

Let's just hope they put surveillance cameras in the new trees.

[NYGUY]

I am not sure what you are expecting to happen. If you can't get anyone to talk there is really no recourse. You can't exactly take them in the back room and beat the tar out of them until they talk....

I don't think anyone wants their heads (but, maybe some other parts) cut off, but financial penalties are a possibility.

[graciegirl]

I think you are correct. I recall TV entered into an agreement with the water district to maintain that area in its natural, unaltered state in order to build on the adjacent land. Because the trees were destroyed, the district was in violation of the agreement and required to restore the property. The PWAC will fund the project. The PWAC is funded by the residential CDDs below 466 which is why it is reported that only those are involved.

PWAC funds are used for other things. The new park near the Haciendas at Mission Hills was done with PWAC funds, I believe. And the bridge/island repair is likely being proposed for PWAC funding, again falling on the CDDs below 466. Not saying it's right, just how some things are funded.


This is a very good post.

[tuccillo]

Yes, possibly, if there is some evidence. It isn't clear to me that there is any evidence.

I don't think anyone wants their heads (but, maybe some other parts) cut off, but financial penalties are a possibility.

[bimmertl]

I think you are correct. I recall TV entered into an agreement with the water district to maintain that area in its natural, unaltered state in order to build on the adjacent land. Because the trees were destroyed, the district was in violation of the agreement and required to restore the property. The PWAC will fund the project. The PWAC is funded by the residential CDDs below 466 which is why it is reported that only those are involved.

PWAC funds are used for other things. The new park near the Haciendas at Mission Hills was done with PWAC funds, I believe. And the bridge/island repair is likely being proposed for PWAC funding, again falling on the CDDs below 466. Not saying it's right, just how some things are funded.

The cost of the bridge/island repairs will dwarf the cost of the tree replacement. Estimated to cost up to 1.5 million, although a prolific poster on this site states this is a small amount, and until recently said it's all the fault of the "danged lawsuit". Who gets to pay for all this is outlined in the Project Wide "Agreement" set up by the developer and it is what the PWAC is bound to follow.

Here is the "agreement", and it's history, and as they say, for all of you south of 466, read it and weep!


PROJECT WIDE AGREEMENT AFFIDAVIT (http://www.poa4us.org/project_wide.html)

[shanson99]

I think you are correct. I recall TV entered into an agreement with the water district to maintain that area in its natural, unaltered state in order to build on the adjacent land. Because the trees were destroyed, the district was in violation of the agreement and required to restore the property. The PWAC will fund the project. The PWAC is funded by the residential CDDs below 466 which is why it is reported that only those are involved.

PWAC funds are used for other things. The new park near the Haciendas at Mission Hills was done with PWAC funds, I believe. And the bridge/island repair is likely being proposed for PWAC funding, again falling on the CDDs below 466. Not saying it's right, just how some things are funded.

I recall a State Agency was supposed to take over the investigation from Sumter County Sheriff's Office and that they would have the power to take sworn statements from anyone they wished to. The District should pursue the criminals to recover restitution for the residents within the District. How do you pursue the criminals, by insisting the State Authority (Water District or Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission or whoever) investigate until all efforts are exhausted. Were sworn statements taken from each of the homeowners under suspicion and others who might have seen or heard something. It is a lot of money to restore that area and the District should not just say we must move on. I wonder why they feel that way?

[Polar Bear]

...How do you pursue the criminals, by insisting the State Authority (Water District or Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission or whoever) investigate until all efforts are exhausted. Were sworn statements taken from each of the homeowners under suspicion and others who might have seen or heard something. It is a lot of money to restore that area and the District should not just say we must move on. I wonder why they feel that way?

It simply doesn't work that way. The District is not a law enforcement agency. They are a permitting agency. They deal with the permittee. End of story for them. If the permittee wants to investigate further, that is up to them.

[tuccillo]

I seem to recall an article in the paper that said the investigation was closed, presumably because they had nowhere else to go. Are you suggesting that some other entity would conduct a better investigation and would have powers, that exceed those of the local law enforcement, to make people talk? You can probably FOIA the investigation and report back on what the investigators found.

I recall a State Agency was supposed to take over the investigation from Sumter County Sheriff's Office and that they would have the power to take sworn statements from anyone they wished to. The District should pursue the criminals to recover restitution for the residents within the District. How do you pursue the criminals, by insisting the State Authority (Water District or Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission or whoever) investigate until all efforts are exhausted. Were sworn statements taken from each of the homeowners under suspicion and others who might have seen or heard something. It is a lot of money to restore that area and the District should not just say we must move on. I wonder why they feel that way?

[shanson99]

It simply doesn't work that way. The District is not a law enforcement agency. They are a permitting agency. They deal with the permittee. End of story for them. If the permittee wants to investigate further, that is up to them.
I look at it as though we (the District and residents) are the victims of a criminal act. The investigators are the law enforcement agencies not the District. The law enforcement investigators such as the Water District or the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission or the Sheriffs office investigate, take sworn statements, question anyone that may have heard or seen something, etc. If probable cause is found, then the district attorney or state attorney's office can file criminal charges and if found guilty then restitution can be ordered for the victims, that is The District for their residents so we are not left with the burden of paying. Who actually determined the case was closed? The investigating agency would do that only after all efforts are exhausted unless the victim says forget about it. Can we see what has been done to this point by the investigators? Were the gate keepers questioned, what about cameras? Who was questioned? Any statements in writing and sworn? It is probably in the category of a felony.

[graciegirl]

I look at it as though we (the District and residents) are the victims of a criminal act. The investigators are the law enforcement agencies not the District. The law enforcement investigators such as the Water District or the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission or the Sheriffs office investigate, take sworn statements, question anyone that may have heard or seen something, etc. If probable cause is found, then the district attorney or state attorney's office can file criminal charges and if found guilty then restitution can be ordered for the victims, that is The District for their residents so we are not left with the burden of paying. Who actually determined the case was closed? The investigating agency would do that only after all efforts are exhausted unless the victim says forget about it. Can we see what has been done to this point by the investigators? Were the gate keepers questioned, what about cameras? Who was questioned? Any statements in writing and sworn? It is probably in the category of a felony.



There have been many discussions on this. Thousands and thousands of words written. Many threads.

I think everything that can be done is done, but it doesn't rule out if and when something comes to light that the district can't sue for reimbursement. That is how it looks to me.

I think if people understood a little more how a CDD worked, there would be less tension.

[shanson99]

A CDD can be a victim of a crime or could commit a crime. ,

[dolpterry]

Just why is everyone thinking it is a individual home owner and not the Villages that cut the trees. I believe the lots there were some of the highest priced lots around, and a clear view of the lake would help with a high dollar sale.

[Bogie Shooter]

I look at it as though we (the District and residents) are the victims of a criminal act. The investigators are the law enforcement agencies not the District. The law enforcement investigators such as the Water District or the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission or the Sheriffs office investigate, take sworn statements, question anyone that may have heard or seen something, etc. If probable cause is found, then the district attorney or state attorney's office can file criminal charges and if found guilty then restitution can be ordered for the victims, that is The District for their residents so we are not left with the burden of paying. Who actually determined the case was closed? The investigating agency would do that only after all efforts are exhausted unless the victim says forget about it. Can we see what has been done to this point by the investigators? Were the gate keepers questioned, what about cameras? Who was questioned? Any statements in writing and sworn? It is probably in the category of a felony.
You should call the sheriffs department..........

[Bogie Shooter]

Where was it announced the case was closed?
Not that you heard but factual information.

[Average Guy]

Where was it announced the case was closed?
Not that you heard but factual information.

The OP on this thread stated "Janet Tutt announced earlier today that "there are no further leads to pursue", so case closed in the tree removal case on Lake Miona Drive, according to a new article in the on-line news."

I went back and read the article referenced in that quote. It does not state that the case is closed. It states the following:

"The Sumter County Sheriff’s Office has exhausted all of its leads in its investigation into the unlawful removal of the trees late last year at Lake Miona, according to District Manager Janet Tutt."

“There are no further leads to pursue,” Tutt said.

There is no mention that the case is closed.

[graciegirl]

Just why is everyone thinking it is a individual home owner and not the Villages that cut the trees. I believe the lots there were some of the highest priced lots around, and a clear view of the lake would help with a high dollar sale.


The lots are no longer owned by The Villages. They are all owned by residents and have been for years. There are no vacant lots or new homes for sale in Bridgeport at Lake Miona.

The Villages don't have to commit crimes to sell their homes either. THIS is the fastest growing community in the country.

[joldnol]

Just why is everyone thinking it is a individual home owner and not the Villages that cut the trees. I believe the lots there were some of the highest priced lots around, and a clear view of the lake would help with a high dollar sale.

these lots were sold a long time ago. TV doesn't stand to profit but the home owners sure will especially with the apparent don't snitch mentality of the neighborhood or should I say the 'hood

[Mleeja]

This thread has been going on for sometime now. Has the questions asked here been asked at the CDD meetings? There is a period for open comments. The April meetings minutes are not available, but I could not find where this topic was brought up in the March meetings. Or is it just easier to b#%*h here?

[Average Guy]

This thread has been going on for sometime now. Has the questions asked here been asked at the CDD meetings? There is a period for open comments. The April meetings minutes are not available, but I could not find where this topic was brought up in the March meetings. Or is it just easier to b#%*h here?

This thread started less than a week ago and was based on an article in the online news from April 17th, so it would not have been brought up in any meetings in March. If you are tired of reading this thread, then just ignore it in the future.

[Bogie Shooter]

The OP on this thread stated "Janet Tutt announced earlier today that "there are no further leads to pursue", so case closed in the tree removal case on Lake Miona Drive, according to a new article in the on-line news."

I went back and read the article referenced in that quote. It does not state that the case is closed. It states the following:

"The Sumter County Sheriff’s Office has exhausted all of its leads in its investigation into the unlawful removal of the trees late last year at Lake Miona, according to District Manager Janet Tutt."

“There are no further leads to pursue,” Tutt said.

There is no mention that the case is closed.

Thank you for researching the answer to my question. I thought that was what I read.
Just look at how many posters have assumed the "case is closed" and went on to complain.....................

[Indydealmaker]

The oldest investigative trick in the book: announce that leads are dead and nowhere to go. Criminals relax. Someone slips. Simple.

[looneycat]

Thank you for researching the answer to my question. I thought that was what I read.
Just look at how many posters have assumed the "case is closed" and went on to complain.....................

I don't think you were wrong, Ms. Tutt's statements are the same as case closed!

[billethkid]

these lots were sold a long time ago. TV doesn't stand to profit but the home owners sure will especially with the apparent don't snitch mentality of the neighborhood or should I say the 'hood

Totally uncalled for remark.
Do you know everything going on in your "hood"?

How about if somebody three blocks away around 6 corners from your house where you do not go anywhere near. Are you in any way party to what might be going on there? If they for example took down their bird cage and put in a new one that was two feet into the set back....would you allow that you being in the "hood" should know about it?

Of course not to all the above.

The remarks made are insensitive even in jest.

[janmcn]

Just why is everyone thinking it is a individual home owner and not the Villages that cut the trees. I believe the lots there were some of the highest priced lots around, and a clear view of the lake would help with a high dollar sale.


This poster could be on to something. Is there any chance that new lots could be cleared and sold in this area? Of course that still doesn't explain why no one saw anything or heard anything while this was going on.

[billethkid]

There are no more new lots in the village of Bridgeport at Lake Miona.
It has been built out for several years.

While speculation and opinion is the most abundant I will offer another hypothesis. There are homes in the area of question that are for sale. Is it a possibility some "enhancements" were made that had no residents involved?

Just thinking out loud with everybody else.

[shanson99]

Hmmm, Sounds like a new lead for investigators!

[shanson99]

There are no more new lots in the village of Bridgeport at Lake Miona.
It has been built out for several years.

While speculation and opinion is the most abundant I will offer another hypothesis. There are homes in the area of question that are for sale. Is it a possibility some "enhancements" were made that had no residents involved?

Just thinking out loud with everybody else.

Investigation needed! local landscapers need to be questioned, they know who hired them to commit the crime.

[graciegirl]

This poster could be on to something. Is there any chance that new lots could be cleared and sold in this area? Of course that still doesn't explain why no one saw anything or heard anything while this was going on.


NOT IF YOU LOOK AT THE MAP. Go to sumterpa.com and type in Lake Miona. There will be a test on Monday.

[Average Guy]

Investigation needed! local landscapers need to be questioned, they know who hired them to commit the crime.

How do you know that law enforcement has not already done that? After all, they are trained to investigate crimes.

[tuccillo]

It was in the paper.

Where was it announced the case was closed?
Not that you heard but factual information.

[Bogie Shooter]

I don't think you were wrong, Ms. Tutt's statements are the same as case closed!

I disagree.................

[Bogie Shooter]

This poster could be on to something. Is there any chance that new lots could be cleared and sold in this area? Of course that still doesn't explain why no one saw anything or heard anything while this was going on.

No other lots in that area. You need to go for a car ride.

[Bogie Shooter]

Investigation needed! local landscapers need to be questioned, they know who hired them to commit the crime.

Do you really think that the sheriff's depatment never thought of that?

[Bogie Shooter]

It was in the paper.

It never said "case closed".

[rubicon]

I respect you mightily Rubicon, but who would the bill go to? The District is us. WHAT am I not seeing here???

Send IT to county or Project Wide. appears villagers are easy targets

[rubicon]

It simply doesn't work that way. The District is not a law enforcement agency. They are a permitting agency. They deal with the permittee. End of story for them. If the permittee wants to investigate further, that is up to them.

If you are correct that is all the more reason why the district should not pay this bill Force the issue into investigation because the district did not commit any acts of omission or commission individual(s) did. As to Project wide it appears the Developer got the better of the deal again. Push it to the county. Play hard ball. villagers ought to threaten a boycott of all establisments until the culprits come clean. Villagers should vow not one red cent will you get...sue us:D

Actually this has been a dead issue for the powers to be before this thread ever began. And so honestly I have really never been invested in this thread but playful with it. Not because I do not care about you, my neighbors, because I do but because valuable time is passing much too quickly and like all of us I am trying to hang on for a longer ride


Personal Best Regards

[Mleeja]

This thread started less than a week ago and was based on an article in the online news from April 17th, so it would not have been brought up in any meetings in March. If you are tired of reading this thread, then just ignore it in the future.

OK, let me restate this TOPIC has been going on for sometime now. The first thread on this topic "District to Pay for Unauthorized Tree Cutting" was started on 1/17/15, had 273 post with the latest being 4/13/15. Nothing was resolved in the original tread and there has been nothing new in this one. Don't make the assumption that I am "tired of reading this thread". I want to read were someone has done something productive. If this has been going on since January, there have been ample opportunities to bring this topic up in the CDD meetings.

I do not have a direct dog in this hunt, but I would certainly encourage those who are doing the most "suggesting" take their suggestions to the CDD meeting. I don't care how popular some of the folks are here on this site, they are not the ones that can resolve this issue.