So Who is Lying ??

[Warren Kiefer]

Is it not true than when you have two people giving exact opposite stories, that one must be lying ?? Recently the Daily Sun and Mike Berning, SLCDD Board Chairman came out with guns blazing in an attack on the plaintiffs who filed the complaint regarding the issue of having an AAC south of 466 just like the AAC north of 466. The Daily Editors left no stone unturned in their attempts to connect the three person plaintiff party to the POA. Yesterday the POA paper was delivered to our driveways. In that publication the POA presented an abundance of data that the remarks of Mike Berning board chairman SCLDD; Curt Hills, editor of the Daily Sun; and Janet Tutt , District manager had presented false information. It appeared that Ms Tutt gave out a lot of misinformation as to lawyer fees and the work they were supposedly providing. The POA has specific numbers to discredit the data given by Ms Tutt. I went into this issue much in a neutral position but as I spent more and more time studying the issue and considering the letters put forth by Gary Morse and Mark Morse, I concluded they themselves supported a AAC system for those folks south of 466. Mr. Berning seems to have forgotten the words of Gary Morse and the savings resulting in the establishment of an AAC in the area north of 466. As to the Daily Sun article and the follow up in the POA publication, I think I know who fits the adage "liar, liar pants on fire".

[manaboutown]

This is likely to develop into a very interesting thread!

[CWGUY]

For more info. also read Ms. Tutt's "Our Place" in today's Rec News.

[outlaw]

The koolaid drinkers will be out in force.

[CWGUY]

The koolaid drinkers will be out in force.

And would that include the people that always have "half empty" glasses? :shrug:

[outlaw]

And would that include the people that always have "half empty" glasses? :shrug:

Ah yes. A version of the "Negative Nellie" comment. Don't forget the favorite, "if you don't like it, you can move".

[JoMar]

There are always at least two sides to everything and advocates always believe their's is always the only right view. It's interesting that when someone makes a pledge or promise or statement "years ago", when it doesn't happen we reject that someone can change their mind, or the conditions change or there is another way. Unless of course, all that lines up with what we believe. We go back 30 years to find something on our politicians that can exploit, we make commitments to our family that we don't always honor (just ask your wife, she can probably give you dates and times) and always with the best intentions. In this case, we weren't there, didn't have the conversation with the Morse's so we listen to third party's interpretation and opinions and chose up sides.

[bagboy]

The plaintiffs case was dismissed by a court judge with prejudice, the plaintiffs withdrew a subsequent complaint to the original. That speaks volumes.

[Bogie Shooter]

This is likely to develop into a very interesting thread!

I offer that the multiple posters on the "tree cutting" thread wil be just as active ,here, with their repetitive posts.

[graciegirl]

Is it not true than when you have two people giving exact opposite stories, that one must be lying ?? Recently the Daily Sun and Mike Berning, SLCDD Board Chairman came out with guns blazing in an attack on the plaintiffs who filed the complaint regarding the issue of having an AAC south of 466 just like the AAC north of 466. The Daily Editors left no stone unturned in their attempts to connect the three person plaintiff party to the POA. Yesterday the POA paper was delivered to our driveways. In that publication the POA presented an abundance of data that the remarks of Mike Berning board chairman SCLDD; Curt Hills, editor of the Daily Sun; and Janet Tutt , District manager had presented false information. It appeared that Ms Tutt gave out a lot of misinformation as to lawyer fees and the work they were supposedly providing. The POA has specific numbers to discredit the data given by Ms Tutt. I went into this issue much in a neutral position but as I spent more and more time studying the issue and considering the letters put forth by Gary Morse and Mark Morse, I concluded they themselves supported a AAC system for those folks south of 466. Mr. Berning seems to have forgotten the words of Gary Morse and the savings resulting in the establishment of an AAC in the area north of 466. As to the Daily Sun article and the follow up in the POA publication, I think I know who fits the adage "liar, liar pants on fire".



In my memory the OP has always been a supporter of the POA.

[Mleeja]

This is likely to develop into a very interesting thread!

I was wondering when this topic would hit TOTV. Last week when the lawsiut announce was made...crickets. The followup article a couple of days later...crickets. The editorial in the VHA newsletter...crickets. The POA newsletter yesterday...crickets. I guess today's DS article and the follow up in the Recreation News was the tipping point. It will be fun! :pepper2:

I have one question for the group. Can someone explain to me why it is not a conflict of interest for Gerald Ferlisi to be a plaintiff in the lawsuit against The Villages while serving as a District 5 Supeervisor. Wouldn't he be making decisions on topics that would help him in his case against The Villages?

Was he elected or appointed to the position? Can can The Villages or the District 5 Board demand his resignation? Go!

[graciegirl]

Ah yes. A version of the "Negative Nellie" comment. Don't forget the favorite, "if you don't like it, you can move".



And


that good old comment. "Your mother dresses you funny". I have been dying to say that.

The truth is that people who are anonymous can say anything mean or hateful that they want.

[Callaway Guy]

Looks like a dead horse is going to be beaten on this subject like dog poop, roundabouts and now coyotes. barf

[Warren Kiefer]

The plaintiffs case was dismissed by a court judge with prejudice, the plaintiffs withdrew a subsequent complaint to the original. That speaks volumes.

Your comment is welcome but has nothing to do with my posting. The law suit is what it is ... My posting was to bring forth those who are not being honest in the publications. Who won or lost is another issue.

[Warren Kiefer]

In my memory the OP has always been a supporter of the POA.

Usually true but the point is that you cannot have it both ways. When confronting opposite statements, one must assume one is correct and one is false. If I had wanted to release my bias, I would have included in my posting that Mike Berning serving as Chairman of the SLCDD was elected to that board from the resulting vote of a single landowner, that land owner being the Developer. Mr. Berning refers to some of the Residents as negative folk who over the years have only hurt our community. These negative folk have won a lot of issues regarding the right of residents. But as to me always being a supporter of the POA, mostly true but but as I said "somebody is lying".

[twoplanekid]

Am I correct in stating that the Amenity Authority Committee (AAC) was created by the 2008 class action law suit and that this committee allows elected representative from District 1 through 4 to help make decisions about the expenditure of amenity funds north of 466?

The Sumter Landing CDD, totally controlled by the developer, makes the decisions concerning our paid amenity funds for everything south of 466? How does The Villages of Lake-Sumter/developer, owning 25,918 amenity fees as per Janet Tutt come into play? I don’t see that entity listed on the organization chart for the Villages.

[TVMayor]

Addressing the OP, what if the opposing parties published the audits supporting there position? By the way Janet Tutt will provide any documents you ask for, look for free, buy copies for $.15 a page or CD for $1.00 I think that is the cost.

Something needs to be done with Gerald Ferlisi, plaintiff, District 5 Supervisor and VP of POA. What to do? He needs to resign, be recalled, be impeached or neutered.

[2BNTV]

Like a lawyer would tell you about a divorce.

"There is "his" side", "her side" and then there is the "truth".

Having the lawsuit rejected, speaks volumes to me.

This isn't any new, news here. The POA has always been opposed to the developer.

[Big O]

The plaintiffs case was dismissed by a court judge with prejudice, the plaintiffs withdrew a subsequent complaint to the original. That speaks volumes.

The facts never seem to get in the way of the whiners. I believe that most of this negativity and name calling has a political basis and will only get worse as 2016 approaches.

[outlaw]

Head in sand.

[bagboy]

Your comment is welcome but has nothing to do with my posting. The law suit is what it is ... My posting was to bring forth those who are not being honest in the publications. Who won or lost is another issue.

Using that reasoning, based on the fact the POA lawsuit was dismissed, does that not show that the information and facts supporting the developer and district published in the DS were truthful? And on the short end of the stick, the information and facts presented by the POA in their publication have not been truthful?

[dewilson58]

:popcorn:

[mulligan]

Let's not lose sight of the fact that some resident attorneys were involved in this exercise. Even a pig knows enough not to crap where he eats. If there was some dissatisfaction on the part of a few, why destroy, or at the very least damage financially, that which thousands of others appear to be very happy with ?

[CWGUY]

Head in sand.

:what: What's worse head in sand or head up your ass ets? :shrug:

[livsea2]

I have two points to make first if the O.J. Simpson case taught us anything justice sometimes is in the favor of he whose pockets are deeper.

Second point, in ten or twenty years when the folks south of 466 are floating the second or third CDD bond to pay for ammenity upgrades and or replacements then we will know whose was in the right.

[graciegirl]

I have two points to make first if the O.J. Simpson case taught us anything justice sometimes is in the favor of he whose pockets are deeper.

Second point, in ten or twenty years when the folks south of 466 are floating the second or third CDD bond to pay for ammenity upgrades and or replacements then we will know whose was in the right.


I don't understand the point you are trying to make. Well I understand that you are anti-developer but I don't see your reasoning here.

[Allegiance]

can someone humor me and briefly tell me what this is about?

signed,
ignorant

[Topspinmo]

Like a lawyer would tell you about a divorce.

"There is "his" side", "her side" and then there is the "truth".

Having the lawsuit rejected, speaks volumes to me.

This isn't any new, news here. The POA has always been opposed to the developer.

No there is his side, her side, and I ( the lawyers) making money reguardless of the outcome and the longer we drag it out them more cash we rake in. :eclipsee_gold_cup:

[Bogie Shooter]

can someone humor me and briefly tell me what this is about?

signed,
ignorant

Just keep reading.

[manaboutown]

Using that reasoning, based on the fact the POA lawsuit was dismissed, does that not show that the information and facts supporting the developer and district published in the DS were truthful? And on the short end of the stick, the information and facts presented by the POA in their publication have not been truthful?

Based on the dismissal of the lawsuit I would look into the background of the judge before assuming anything!

[PennBF]

Please help me out. I had heard that the District Manager did not live in The Village's and also some of the Supervisors do not live in The Villages. Could that be true? Could there actually be people outside of The Villages and not residents
making policy and setting up rules that they do not have to abide by. Now how
would that happen. What system would allow non residents to run a Town or City without living in that location? How could they be elected to those posts? Are these really appointments using outside people? Can anyone give me some help on this?:shrug:

[justjim]

I tried to pull up on the net the latest POA Bullentin but no luck. No paper yet---just wanted to see what it had to say regarding the lawsuit.

[twoplanekid]

Please help me out. I had heard that the District Manager did not live in The Village's and also some of the Supervisors do not live in The Villages. Could that be true? Could there actually be people outside of The Villages and not residents
making policy and setting up rules that they do not have to abide by. Now how
would that happen. What system would allow non residents to run a Town or City without living in that location? How could they be elected to those posts? Are these really appointments using outside people? Can anyone give me some help on this?:shrug:

All elected board members (Supervisors) must be qualified electors of the district. What the Developers do is not subject to our direct approval.

[ajbrown]

I tried to pull up on the net the latest POA Bullentin but no luck. No paper yet---just wanted to see what it had to say regarding the lawsuit.

I did not receive a POA in my driveway, yet some of my neighbors did which is unusual as I normally get one, but anyway here is the link to the latest POA, in case it is different than what your tried...

http://www.poa4us.org/bulletins_files/bulletin201509.pdf

[bagboy]

Those who cut down the trees and cost the district $50,000 are public enemy number 1. Those who were elected to protect our money initiated a lawsuit that was dismissed, costing us $350,000 are being hailed as righteous heroes in some circles.
This thread was never about who reports what truthfully....

[PennBF]

Yep, it is true I was informed that the The District Manager for The Villages does NOT live in The Villages. Now lets take that a step further. Who put her there. Did the residents vote her in with a majority vote. NO. She was appointed through a series of steps that avoided residents approval and allegedly allowed the Developer to put her in charge of the Villages.. Now I ask you where will her loyalty allegedly be. With the residents who she does not need or the Developer who she owes her job to? Who do you think is really watching out for YOUR interest an appointment of the Developer or the POA who was established and is dedicated to only representing the residents. I am shocked to find out that the person in charge of all of our policies, rule, funding, and allegedly influence Daily Sun, VHA, etc.etc. does not even live in the community. All POA Board members live and reside in The Villages. As an aside I heard some of the Supervisors who vote for the rules also allegedly do not reside in The Villages.:shrug:

[Challenger]

Please help me out. I had heard that the District Manager did not live in The Village's and also some of the Supervisors do not live in The Villages. Could that be true? Could there actually be people outside of The Villages and not residents
making policy and setting up rules that they do not have to abide by. Now how
would that happen. What system would allow non residents to run a Town or City without living in that location? How could they be elected to those posts? Are these really appointments using outside people? Can anyone give me some help on this?:shrug:

Many towns and counties have Managers who do not live in the political subdivision. They are hired to do a job (manage) not govern. They do not make policy or rules.

[JoMar]

Yep, it is true I was informed that the The District Manager for The Villages does NOT live in The Villages. Now lets take that a step further. Who put her there. Did the residents vote her in with a majority vote. NO. She was appointed through a series of steps that avoided residents approval and allegedly allowed the Developer to put her in charge of the Villages.. Now I ask you where will her loyalty allegedly be. With the residents who she does not need or the Developer who she owes her job to? Who do you think is really watching out for YOUR interest an appointment of the Developer or the POA who was established and is dedicated to only representing the residents. I am shocked to find out that the person in charge of all of our policies, rule, funding, and allegedly influence Daily Sun, VHA, etc.etc. does not even live in the community. All POA Board members live and reside in The Villages. As an aside I heard some of the Supervisors who vote for the rules also allegedly do not reside in The Villages.:shrug:

So you didn't understand the organization of TV before you moved here?

[PennBF]

I think the person(s) who manage some of these communities were appointed by an elected official. That is not the case in The Villages. I understand that the Villages Management including the General Manager was the result of appointments and not related to any election. Take this further at any time a person could be put in charge of all Village business and the residents have no say who that person IS and how they would represent the residents interests.
Thus the need for the POA = "PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION':bowdown:

[CWGUY]

I think the person(s) who manage some of these communities were appointed by an elected official. That is not the case in The Villages. I understand that the Villages Management including the General Manager was the result of appointments and not related to any election. Take this further at any time a person could be put in charge of all Village business and the residents have no say who that person IS and how they would represent the residents interests.
Thus the need for the POA = "PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION':bowdown:


barf

[redwitch]

Sigh. First, a lawsuit being dismissed is absolutely irrelevant. Just because there is no LEGAL cause of action does not mean something unfair did not occur. The court gave plaintiffs three tries to get the complaint worded properly. Their attorney never succeeded. Complaints can be dismissed with or without prejudice for several reasons -- lack of jurisdiction, no cause of action, etc.

General Managers are usually selected by a board or committee, not elected. Their job is to take charge of daily issues, create and maintain a budget. They don't make policy, they enforce policy. So, Janet Tutt not being a TV resident is irrelevant. She does a good job given the constraints on her position. Frankly, I'd be more worried if her loyalties didn't lay with the developer.

As to who told the truth and who lied, I have no idea. I don't even have a real sense what the lawsuit was about and have no intention of reading the pleadings to find out. Normally, the truth lies somewhere between two opposing sides. They're both going to say what it takes to come across looking good.

This is a dead horse beaten up in the courts and behind the scenes long before anything was made public. (And I'm very pro POA.)

[Uptown Girl]

Sigh. First, a lawsuit being dismissed is absolutely irrelevant. Just because there is no LEGAL cause of action does not mean something unfair did not occur. The court gave plaintiffs three tries to get the complaint worded properly. Their attorney never succeeded. Complaints can be dismissed with or without prejudice for several reasons -- lack of jurisdiction, no cause of action, etc.

General Managers are usually selected by a board or committee, not elected. Their job is to take charge of daily issues, create and maintain a budget. They don't make policy, they enforce policy. So, Janet Tutt not being a TV resident is irrelevant. She does a good job given the constraints on her position. Frankly, I'd be more worried if her loyalties didn't lay with the developer.

As to who told the truth and who lied, I have no idea. I don't even have a real sense what the lawsuit was about and have no intention of reading the pleadings to find out. Normally, the truth lies somewhere between two opposing sides. They're both going to say what it takes to come across looking good.

This is a dead horse beaten up in the courts and behind the scenes long before anything was made public. (And I'm very pro POA.)

Thanks, Red. :eclipsee_gold_cup:

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

I'm gong to my club meeting this morning. When I get home, I need to change the strings on my 12 string acoustic. Then, after a short nap, I might go to the pool for an hour or so before practicing some music.

After dinner maybe we'll go to one of the squares and watch a band.

I expect to have a somewhat different but just as nice a day tomorrow.

[asianthree]

I'm gong to my club meeting this morning. When I get home, I need to change the strings on my 12 string acoustic. Then, after a short nap, I might go to the pool for an hour or so before practicing some music.

After dinner maybe we'll go to one of the squares and watch a band.

I expect to have a somewhat different but just as nice a day tomorrow.

That's priceless

[outlaw]

Remember when the officials declared that they would pay for the damage from the tree cutting incident using funds from districts south of 466? Remember when the officials announced that they were going to pay to repair the Morse bridge using district funds? Remember that they are acting in your best interest.

[graciegirl]

Remember when the officials declared that they would pay for the damage from the tree cutting incident using funds from districts south of 466? Remember when the officials announced that they were going to pay to repair the Morse bridge using district funds? Remember that they are acting in your best interest.



Consider the source. Again.


I hate rumors, half truths, lies and pot stirring and it doesn't do anyone living here any good.

[graciegirl]

Yep, it is true I was informed that the The District Manager for The Villages does NOT live in The Villages. Now lets take that a step further. Who put her there. Did the residents vote her in with a majority vote. NO. She was appointed through a series of steps that avoided residents approval and allegedly allowed the Developer to put her in charge of the Villages.. Now I ask you where will her loyalty allegedly be. With the residents who she does not need or the Developer who she owes her job to? Who do you think is really watching out for YOUR interest an appointment of the Developer or the POA who was established and is dedicated to only representing the residents. I am shocked to find out that the person in charge of all of our policies, rule, funding, and allegedly influence Daily Sun, VHA, etc.etc. does not even live in the community. All POA Board members live and reside in The Villages. As an aside I heard some of the Supervisors who vote for the rules also allegedly do not reside in The Villages.:shrug:



What a reach.


One argument has been lost and now attacks on an excellent administrator.

[graciegirl]

barf


I agree. Time to start a new group. I hope it will have a lot of folks from south of 466.

[outlaw]

Consider the source. Again.


I hate rumors, half truths, lies and pot stirring and it doesn't do anyone living here any good.

Well, bless your heart.

[graciegirl]

Well, bless your heart.


Thank you. You Southern?

[outlaw]

I agree. Time to start a new group. I hope it will have a lot of folks from south of 466.

"I cannot change my obsession with this place nor do I want to, but I can remember that I was brought up better than I acted yesterday.

I was rude to a person for no good reason and I apologize to her for how I acted.

I will try to do better." Just sayin'.

[graciegirl]

"I cannot change my obsession with this place nor do I want to, but I can remember that I was brought up better than I acted yesterday.

I was rude to a person for no good reason and I apologize to her for how I acted.

I will try to do better." Just sayin'.



I know you will. I love this place too, outlaw. ;)

[Bogie Shooter]

Remember when the officials declared that they would pay for the damage from the tree cutting incident using funds from districts south of 466? Remember when the officials announced that they were going to pay to repair the Morse bridge using district funds? Remember that they are acting in your best interest.

And the beat goes on.

[Bogie Shooter]

Please help me out. I had heard that the District Manager did not live in The Village's and also some of the Supervisors do not live in The Villages. Could that be true? Could there actually be people outside of The Villages and not residents
making policy and setting up rules that they do not have to abide by. Now how
would that happen. What system would allow non residents to run a Town or City without living in that location? How could they be elected to those posts? Are these really appointments using outside people? Can anyone give me some help on this?:shrug:

Oh my. More than help is needed.

[Vladimir]

I shudder at the thought of having residents run, administer or set policy for this place. One of the selling points for me buying here is that the developer and professional managers manage TV and this place is quite a success story. This business model and system works pretty well, minor flaws and all. Know what you are buying into before buying.

[manaboutown]

In Orange County, CA a former Leisureworld now known as Laguna Woods Village is undergoing serious difficulties with residents running the show, recalls, firing the management company which is very, very well run and more. The situation could really hit property values there as well as quality of life. It seems to me The Villages is exceptionally and economically well run.

[Challenger]

I shudder at the thought of having residents run, administer or set policy for this place. One of the selling points for me buying here is that the developer and professional managers manage TV and this place is quite a success story. This business model and system works pretty well, minor flaws and all. Know what you are buying into before buying.

As an example - see striping issue.

[mickey100]

Ah yes. A version of the "Negative Nellie" comment. Don't forget the favorite, "if you don't like it, you can move".

As predicted, the thread has disintegrated into the negative nellies, with a twist. If you support the POA, you are anti developer, and obviously a Democrat. And if the residents have any say in how their community is run, and how their money is spent, the Villages will fall apart. Sigh. How predictable. The kool aid folks have their own unique take on things. It must give them a feeling of comfort.

[rubicon]

Sigh. First, a lawsuit being dismissed is absolutely irrelevant. Just because there is no LEGAL cause of action does not mean something unfair did not occur. The court gave plaintiffs three tries to get the complaint worded properly. Their attorney never succeeded. Complaints can be dismissed with or without prejudice for several reasons -- lack of jurisdiction, no cause of action, etc.

General Managers are usually selected by a board or committee, not elected. Their job is to take charge of daily issues, create and maintain a budget. They don't make policy, they enforce policy. So, Janet Tutt not being a TV resident is irrelevant. She does a good job given the constraints on her position. Frankly, I'd be more worried if her loyalties didn't lay with the developer.

As to who told the truth and who lied, I have no idea. I don't even have a real sense what the lawsuit was about and have no intention of reading the pleadings to find out. Normally, the truth lies somewhere between two opposing sides. They're both going to say what it takes to come across looking good.

This is a dead horse beaten up in the courts and behind the scenes long before anything was made public. (And I'm very pro POA.)

I copied redwitch's post because redwitch does well in highlighting the important issues much of what I agree.

The differences for me are that: we will never really know if there was something more that created the dismissal of this lawsuit but it clearly doesn't mean that the decision and the truth are one in the same. I do know that in the original amenity lawsuit that the POA filed, created a dilemma for them because they couldn't find an attorney who wanted to go against the Developer. Remember the Developer is the big dog in Sumter County.

Frankly I have always been worried that the District Manager's loyalties favor the Developer. I had come by that concern after reading the Notice of Proposed Issues submitted by the IRS explaining the transactions between the District and the Developer. Its one thing to work harmoniously with the Developer another to defer to their wishes. the District is suppose to protect the residents and hence can't serve both interests without creating a conflict
I certainly can be persuaded to view this concern otherwise as I always remain open.

The lawsuit in essence was about honoring a commitment/promise by the developer to all residents input into the decisions made south of 466 of which 100% of the cost plus profits will eventually inure to the Developer paid by us. In essence they use our money to build south of 466 will sell it back to us for a handsome profit

All of this discussion actually is a waste of time because the usual suspects will accuse those who simply ask the logical questions of why, how etc of being anti developer. We have witnessed how name calling ends discussion in our society so too does being called an anti-developer and we have witnessed repeatedly how any discussion about The Villages ends up about the Developer and not the real issue of the development and it future

I hold no malice toward the Developer (actually The Villages Lake-Sumter, Inc,) and in fact admire the work being done, nor am I pro POA for a number of reasons. However there is not one other entity in Sumter County that will speak up against The Villages of Lake-Sumter, Inc. and while I do view this entity as a monarchy I do not view it as a benevolent one but simply a business one.

Simply stated in nine years I have never witnessed a discussion about The Villages that didn't end up like a scene out of the Hatfield and Mc Coys and that indeed is a sad situation because residents should be united in their concern for preserving our way of life and that can never happen until the name calling stops. The one real asset we have going for us is that the majority of the residents are decent fair minded people that makes all of this palatable. And perhaps the Hatfield McCoy comparison speaks to the issue of who is best to manage this creation?

Personal Best Regards:

[outlaw]

As an example - see striping issue.

While Ms. Tutt and the developer controlled districts work to kill striping against the wishes of many residents; the resident elected CDD4 representatives went "rogue" (translation: took care of business) and got the job done months ago. I've ridden those paths, and I like the striping. No one riding in district 4 has died or been maimed because of this striping. The striped path has not turned into a golf cart "highway" as the engineer predicted. While the south districts with developer appointed representatives continue to hash this out and waste money on useless studies, CDD4 is moving on to other business having EFFICIENTLY, and with common sense, accomplished what a significant number of residents in CDD4 wanted. And btw, you knew when you bought here that eventually the CDDs would be resident run.

[graciegirl]

While Ms. Tutt and the developer controlled districts work to kill striping against the wishes of many residents; the resident elected CDD4 representatives went "rogue" (translation: took care of business) and got the job done months ago. I've ridden those paths, and I like the striping. No one riding in district 4 has died or been maimed because of this striping. The striped path has not turned into a golf cart "highway" as the engineer predicted. While the south districts with developer appointed representatives continue to hash this out and waste money on useless studies, CDD4 is moving on to other business having EFFICIENTLY, and with common sense, accomplished what a significant number of residents in CDD4 wanted. And btw, you knew when you bought here that eventually the CDDs would be resident run.



I did NOT know that. I hope it never happens. Many of us have already seen people try to run things who have no experience in running anything, in other homeowner associations. People who just like to wear the hat of power. Pretty soon it will bite us all in the pocketbook if this one wants this and that one wants that. I think that how it is run by Janet Tutt and the developers is just fine.


There are a few posters whose constant negativity and statement of rumors as fact are not helping anyone's property values. And not doing anything good for my blood pressure either.

[graciegirl]

I shudder at the thought of having residents run, administer or set policy for this place. One of the selling points for me buying here is that the developer and professional managers manage TV and this place is quite a success story. This business model and system works pretty well, minor flaws and all. Know what you are buying into before buying.



Exactly.

[TVMayor]

While Ms. Tutt and the developer controlled districts work to kill striping against the wishes of many residents; the resident elected CDD4 representatives went "rogue" (translation: took care of business) and got the job done months ago. I've ridden those paths, and I like the striping. No one riding in district 4 has died or been maimed because of this striping. The striped path has not turned into a golf cart "highway" as the engineer predicted. While the south districts with developer appointed representatives continue to hash this out and waste money on useless studies, CDD4 is moving on to other business having EFFICIENTLY, and with common sense, accomplished what a significant number of residents in CDD4 wanted. And btw, you knew when you bought here that eventually the CDDs would be resident run.
If Ms. Tutt and the developer controlled districts work to kill striping it would not have taken 17 months to accomplish. They can build a village in 17 months.

[outlaw]

While Ms. Tutt and the developer controlled districts work to kill striping against the wishes of many residents; the resident elected CDD4 representatives went "rogue" (translation: took care of business) and got the job done months ago. I've ridden those paths, and I like the striping. No one riding in district 4 has died or been maimed because of this striping. The striped path has not turned into a golf cart "highway" as the engineer predicted. While the south districts with developer appointed representatives continue to hash this out and waste money on useless studies, CDD4 is moving on to other business having EFFICIENTLY, and with common sense, accomplished what a significant number of residents in CDD4 wanted. And btw, you knew when you bought here that eventually the CDDs would be resident run.



I did NOT know that. I hope it never happens. Many of us have already seen people try to run things who have no experience in running anything, in other homeowner associations. People who just like to wear the hat of power. Pretty soon it will bite us all in the pocketbook if this one wants this and that one wants that. I think that how it is run by Janet Tutt and the developers is just fine.


There are a few posters whose constant negativity and statement of rumors as fact are not helping anyone's property values. And not doing anything good for my blood pressure either.

I think by Florida law, the developer must turn over the control to residents once a certain amount of homes have been sold. I don't know why you would think otherwise. Did the sales person tell you that?

[graciegirl]

[QUOTE=graciegirl;1109162]

I think by Florida law, the developer must turn over the control to residents once a certain amount of homes have been sold. I don't know why you would think otherwise. Did the sales person tell you that?



Oh stop. I cringe when I read "district X goes rogue". I don't like rogue. I like pretty, clean, well maintained and not overspent. I like quiet people pulling quiet strings. I don't want to be a part of running the world anymore. I have served. I like how the developers run things. It is by far the nicest place and well run place that I have seen of it's size.


I also don't like people who don't know what they are talking about to spread half truths and rumors.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

[QUOTE=graciegirl;1109162]

I think by Florida law, the developer must turn over the control to residents once a certain amount of homes have been sold. I don't know why you would think otherwise. Did the sales person tell you that?

Do you have the exact Florida statute that says this? Where did you hear that? How many homes are required to be sold?

I would think otherwise because I've never heard of this law that you cite.

[outlaw]

[QUOTE=outlaw;1109186]

Do you have the exact Florida statute that says this? Where did you hear that? How many homes are required to be sold?

I would think otherwise because I've never heard of this law that you cite.

I'm sorry. You're going to have to do your own research on your questions. Unless you want to pay me by the hour...:smiley:

[rustyp]

Per The Villages VCDD

"Now that you are generally familiar with the District concept, let's describe the election process and the Board of Supervisors who oversee the activities of the District. Initially, the Board of Supervisors, consisting of five, is elected based upon land ownership. The legislature, in creating Chapter 190, recognized that in order to maintain continuity of the facilities provided to the newly developing community, that the developer, who then owns the majority of the land should be granted the right to substantially complete the project as envisioned by the various land use and zoning approvals that were obtained as part of the development review process. The legislature also recognized that at the time prescribed by statute, control should begin a process of transition to the residents. Since 2000, all supervisors in District No. 1 have been elected by 'qualified electors' (registered voters) residing in the District. They are elected on a non-partisan basis on the general election ballot."

The Villages does a good job of explaining this at classes every Thursday morning at 10:00 am. The orientation class is free.

[twoplanekid]

[QUOTE=outlaw;1109186]

Do you have the exact Florida statute that says this? Where did you hear that? How many homes are required to be sold?

I would think otherwise because I've never heard of this law that you cite.


Even I as a newbie know about this so here goes. Look at this ->
Village Community Development Districts (http://www.districtgov.org/yourdistrict/front.aspx?district=10)

Or go here ->
Chapter 190 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS :: 2013 Florida Statutes :: US Codes and Statutes :: US Law :: Justia (http://law.justia.com/codes/florida/2013/title-xiii/chapter-190)

I have talked about this in many of my past posts. Hope everyone now understands what will happen in the Villages.

[TVMayor]

[QUOTE=outlaw;1109186]

Do you have the exact Florida statute that says this? Where did you hear that? How many homes are required to be sold?

I would think otherwise because I've never heard of this law that you cite.
190.006 Board of supervisors; members and meetings.--

(1) The board of the district shall exercise the powers granted to the district pursuant to this act. The board shall consist of five members; except as otherwise provided herein, each member shall hold office for a term of 2 years or 4 years, as provided in this section, and until a successor is chosen and qualifies. The members of the board must be residents of the state and citizens of the United States.

(2)(a) Within 90 days following the effective date of the rule or ordinance establishing the district, there shall be held a meeting of the landowners of the district for the purpose of electing five supervisors for the district. Notice of the landowners' meeting shall be published once a week for 2 consecutive weeks in a newspaper which is in general circulation in the area of the district, the last day of such publication to be not fewer than 14 days or more than 28 days before the date of the election. The landowners, when assembled at such meeting, shall organize by electing a chair who shall conduct the meeting. The chair may be any person present at the meeting. If the chair is a landowner or proxy holder of a landowner, he or she may nominate candidates and make and second motions.

(b) At such meeting, each landowner shall be entitled to cast one vote per acre of land owned by him or her and located within the district for each person to be elected. A landowner may vote in person or by proxy in writing. Each proxy must be signed by one of the legal owners of the property for which the vote is cast and must contain the typed or printed name of the individual who signed the proxy; the street address, legal description of the property, or tax parcel identification number; and the number of authorized votes. If the proxy authorizes more than one vote, each property must be listed and the number of acres of each property must be included. The signature on a proxy need not be notarized. A fraction of an acre shall be treated as 1 acre, entitling the landowner to one vote with respect thereto. The two candidates receiving the highest number of votes shall be elected for a period of 4 years, and the three candidates receiving the next largest number of votes shall be elected for a period of 2 years, with the term of office for each successful candidate commencing upon election. The members of the first board elected by landowners shall serve their respective 4-year or 2-year terms; however, the next election by landowners shall be held on the first Tuesday in November. Thereafter, there shall be an election of supervisors for the district every 2 years in November on a date established by the board and noticed pursuant to paragraph (a). The second and subsequent landowners' election shall be announced at a public meeting of the board at least 90 days prior to the date of the landowners' meeting and shall also be noticed pursuant to paragraph (a). Instructions on how all landowners may participate in the election, along with sample proxies, shall be provided during the board meeting that announces the landowners' meeting. The two candidates receiving the highest number of votes shall be elected to serve for a 4-year period, and the remaining candidate elected shall serve for a 2-year period.
Florida Statutes - Chapter 190 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS (http://www.ccfj.net/FS190CDD.html#190.006)

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

Today I have a band rehearsal until 3:00. After that I'll probably come home and watch some of the golf tournament. I might go out with some friends for a drink or two later on tonight.
Mowed, trimmed, and edged my lawn lat night. Also pressure washed the driveway.
I might take of the lawn at the house I have for sale some time later today.

[PennBF]

You can't make some of this stuff up. I like the one where they believe the "people" can't manage themselves and they would rather have someone else other than the people. I believe that is similar to The King of England and the
Colonies, or how about some countries today. sound familiar. Where are these people coming from? Read the Law governing the Condo's in Florida and the limited if any power the Developer has after a Condo is sold and the requirements of the Condo owner's to manage themselves with relatively strong laws. (You will find it under Fl Law 718). Having outside people, appointed by the Developer to run your community is beyond belief. As owner's you only have the power that is given to you by that persons delegated authority. Is it a great community, of course it is. Are you paying for things that are not intended for your benefit. Of course you are. Remember the famous statement. "FOLLOW THE MONEY". The Villages does not have a soul, it is a profit making business. So many want to pretend it has a soul. Think of General Motors or Apple. They are profit making business's like The Villages. The business product here is building and selling houses, retaining percentages of business rental properties, charging residents for some building costs, having holding on banks, insurance companies, etc.etc. There are many more revenue sources that contribute to it being a well oiled business with the Owner and Officers making large amounts of money/profit. Is that wrong? No it is the America's way of life. It is wrong to have outsiders dictate what your rules and laws will be without any say by the owners. You bet your life it is. Lets just recognize what we have without trying to paint it as something it is not!!:read:

[Mleeja]

It is “funny” how this has turned into another thread about the governance of The Villages. IMO the negative comments are being driven by POA officers, members, or supporters. I have a news flash for the POA…”you lost… bigtime”! However in the midst of the lawsuit, we all lost because The Villages had to expend over $300,000 in legal fees that could have been used for other purposes within The Villages. In this case the POA has done a disservice to the community.

So “who is lying”? Well let’s start with the count ruled against the POA with prejudice. This tells me that the arguments they put forth were not accurate, so that should be the beginning point in answering the question.

I am sure the POA supporters are licking their wounds and feel the need to lash out through this forum because their reputation just took a big hit. How can we trust anything they say in the future?

[mickey100]

You can't make some of this stuff up. I like the one where they believe the "people" can't manage themselves and they would rather have someone else other than the people. I believe that is similar to The King of England and the
Colonies, or how about some countries today. sound familiar. Where are these people coming from?r things that are not intended for your benefit. Of course you are. Remember the famous statement. "FOLLOW THE MONEY". The Villages does not have a soul, it is a profit making business. So many want to pretend it has a soul. Think of General Motors or Apple. They are profit making business's like The Villages. The business product here is building and selling houses...

:BigApplause: My thoughts exactly. Do they think we have a benevolent dictator who operates with the sole purpose of making our lives wonderful?

[Advogado]

I prefer to think POA Repubs VHA Repubs.

I think you are mistaken. The distinction is really: POA: Property owners' association. VHA: Developer front organization. I don't think political parties have anything to do with it.

I will preface my remarks in this regard by making the following disclosures:

a. I am a registered Republican, but knowing what I now know, I view the VHA as a blight upon the Villages landscape. I have to admit that shortly after I moved here, I naively believed that the VHA was a legitimate homeowners' association, and I became a member. Needless to say, as I learned more about it, I allowed my membership to lapse.

b. I will stipulate the Developer, which is the Villages of Lake-Sumter, Inc. (and a maze of trusts, family members, and other corporations), has done a marvelous job of developing, and in almost all aspects, running, The Villages. I love living here and have no intention of moving. However, it is absurd to think that the interests of the Developer, who controls the local media and politics, will always coincide with those of the residents. It is for that reason that we need our own, independent homeowners' organization, i.e., the POA.

Here are the reasons that I view the VHA as a blight:

1. In case of conflict between the interests of homeowners and those of the Developer, the VHA has consistently sided with the Developer. The latest example of this is the absolute nonsense published by the VHA's newsletter, The Villages Voice, about the ongoing IRS investigation of the Developer's actions in selling amenity facilities to the Developer-controlled Center Districts. The reasons why the VHA always supports the Developer follow.

2. The Developer sponsors the VHA. The Villages Voice is printed and delivered by the Developer's newspaper, The Daily Sun.

3. The Developer collaborated in the very establishment of the VHA. The motive of the Developer in doing so was obviously to weaken the POA, which was frustrating his actions when they conflicted with the interests of the residents.

4. The Developer has co-opted as least some of the VHA presidents. One VHA president was, incredibly, actually on the Developer's payroll while holding office. Two other presidents were, upon leaving office, rewarded by the Developer by getting his political and financial backing to successfully run for County Supervisor positions. These are just examples of the corruption of VHA officers that I have been able to glean from public records. Do other members of this forum know of other examples?

I would not have a real problem with the VHA if it would not, hypocritically, hold itself out as a bona fide homeowners' association. After all, the VHA does run a golf-cart safety clinic, a very worthwhile activity. Perhaps a name change to something like "The Villages of Lake-Sumter Landing, Inc. Booster Club"?

[Mleeja]

I have no problem with an organization ran by the residents. I do have a problem with certain members of that organization benefiting personally financially from the organization. For example the six members who received settlements from the original lawsuit or the three that stood to benefit if the latest would have prevailed. I have a problem with a member of the board of the POA being a District 5 Supervisor and a named party in lawsuit against The Villages. This reeks of conflict of interest.

The VHA and the POA serves their purposes. If the VHA has by working with the developer the ear of the developer, then this is organization I want to belong to. It seems the only way the POA can be heard is by shouting, intimation and lawsuits. I’ll save my $10.00.

Someone tried to make a comparison the organizations as Democrats and Republicans. I think the POA is more like a union. Where many members pay dues but only a few leaders benefit. They tell the members what a great job they are doing for them while at the same time picking their pockets.

[Advogado]

I have no problem with an organization ran by the residents. I do have a problem with certain members of that organization benefiting personally financially from the organization. For example the six members who received settlements from the original lawsuit or the three that stood to benefit if the latest would have prevailed. I have a problem with a member of the board of the POA being a District 5 Supervisor and a named party in lawsuit against The Villages. This reeks of conflict of interest.

The VHA and the POA serves their purposes. If the VHA has by working with the developer the ear of the developer, then this is organization I want to belong to. It seems the only way the POA can be heard is by shouting, intimation and lawsuits. I’ll save my $10.00.

Someone tried to make a comparison the organizations as Democrats and Republicans. I think the POA is more like a union. Where many members pay dues but only a few leaders benefit. They tell the members what a great job they are doing for them while at the same time picking their pockets.
You are mistaken when you say that the VHA serves as the "ear" of the Developer. The VHA serves as the Developer's mouth.

You are also flat out wrong with respect to your "picking their pockets" remark. The plaintiffs in the VCCDD class action suit took nothing from POA members or Villages residents. The plaintiffs spent a huge amount of their personal time mounting that successful lawsuit-- which recovered something like $40 million for you, me, and the rest of the residents. If somebody gets me $40 million to which I am entitled, I have no problem with their getting $50,000 for their efforts. That being said, I concede that it would have been great public relations if the Plaintiffs had turned down the $50,000 awarded them, but that would be asking an awful lot of a group of volunteers.

BTW, the outcome of that lawsuit was an admission by the Developer that it had overcharged the Developer-controlled Villages Center District for the amenity facilities-- an essential fact totally ignored by the Daily Sun in the Developer-inspired articles that provoked this thread.

[outlaw]

You are mistaken when you say that the VHA serves as the "ear" of the Developer. The VHA serves as the Developer's mouth.

You are also flat out wrong with respect to your "picking their pockets" remark. The plaintiffs in the VCCDD class action suit took nothing from POA members or Villages residents. The plaintiffs spent a huge amount of their personal time mounting that successful lawsuit-- which recovered something like $40 million for you, me, and the rest of the residents. If somebody gets me $40 million to which I am entitled, I have no problem with their getting $50,000 for their efforts. That being said, I concede that it would have been great public relations if the Plaintiffs had turned down the $50,000 awarded them, but that would be asking an awful lot of a group of volunteers.

BTW, the outcome of that lawsuit was an admission by the Developer that it had overcharged the Developer-controlled Villages Center District for the amenity facilities-- an essential fact totally ignored by the Daily Sun in the Developer-inspired articles that provoked this thread.

My understanding is that they also ponied up money for court costs, legal fees, etc., which would have been their burden if they had not prevailed. They deserved every penny they got, and then some.

[Advogado]

My understanding is that they also ponied up money for court costs, legal fees, etc., which would have been their burden if they had not prevailed. They deserved every penny they got, and then some.
They certainly did deserve it.

The people who criticize the plaintiffs and the POA, yet reap the benefits of the plaintiffs' efforts by enjoying the amenity system that the plaintiffs preserved, strike me as being ungrateful, if not hypocritical. I have suggested, in an earlier thread on the subject, that these critics put their money where their mouth is by refunding their pro rata share of the VCCDD class-action recovery to the Developer, but to my knowledge, none of the critics has done so.

[graciegirl]

They certainly did deserve it.

The people who criticize the plaintiffs and the POA, yet reap the benefits of the plaintiffs' efforts by enjoying the amenity system that the plaintiffs preserved, strike me as being ungrateful, if not hypocritical. I have suggested, in an earlier thread on the subject, that these critics put their money where their mouth is by refunding their pro rata share of the VCCDD class-action recovery to the Developer, but to my knowledge, none of the critics has done so.



The subject seems to have changed. What happened is that your team lost this lawsuit, counselor. Big time.

[Advogado]

The subject seems to have changed. What happened is that your team lost this lawsuit, counselor. Big time.
First of all, the plaintiffs were not "my" team. I am just discussing the facts of the matter.

Second of all, the net result of both lawsuits (and the two are intertwined) is that, thanks to the POA's efforts, you, I, and the rest of the residents recovered $43 million that the Developer had shorted (by his own admission) the amenity system by overcharging the Center District that the Developer controlled. Not a bad net result if you ask me.

Like I said, people, like yourself, who don't think that this recovery was appropriate should send their checks, for their pro share of the recovery, to The Villages of Lake Sumter, Inc. Alternatively, you could stop using the amenity system.

[Warren Kiefer]

I copied redwitch's post because redwitch does well in highlighting the important issues much of what I agree.

The differences for me are that: we will never really know if there was something more that created the dismissal of this lawsuit but it clearly doesn't mean that the decision and the truth are one in the same. I do know that in the original amenity lawsuit that the POA filed, created a dilemma for them because they couldn't find an attorney who wanted to go against the Developer. Remember the Developer is the big dog in Sumter County.

Frankly I have always been worried that the District Manager's loyalties favor the Developer. I had come by that concern after reading the Notice of Proposed Issues submitted by the IRS explaining the transactions between the District and the Developer. Its one thing to work harmoniously with the Developer another to defer to their wishes. the District is suppose to protect the residents and hence can't serve both interests without creating a conflict
I certainly can be persuaded to view this concern otherwise as I always remain open.

The lawsuit in essence was about honoring a commitment/promise by the developer to all residents input into the decisions made south of 466 of which 100% of the cost plus profits will eventually inure to the Developer paid by us. In essence they use our money to build south of 466 will sell it back to us for a handsome profit

All of this discussion actually is a waste of time because the usual suspects will accuse those who simply ask the logical questions of why, how etc of being anti developer. We have witnessed how name calling ends discussion in our society so too does being called an anti-developer and we have witnessed repeatedly how any discussion about The Villages ends up about the Developer and not the real issue of the development and it future

I hold no malice toward the Developer (actually The Villages Lake-Sumter, Inc,) and in fact admire the work being done, nor am I pro POA for a number of reasons. However there is not one other entity in Sumter County that will speak up against The Villages of Lake-Sumter, Inc. and while I do view this entity as a monarchy I do not view it as a benevolent one but simply a business one.

Simply stated in nine years I have never witnessed a discussion about The Villages that didn't end up like a scene out of the Hatfield and Mc Coys and that indeed is a sad situation because residents should be united in their concern for preserving our way of life and that can never happen until the name calling stops. The one real asset we have going for us is that the majority of the residents are decent fair minded people that makes all of this palatable. And perhaps the Hatfield McCoy comparison speaks to the issue of who is best to manage this creation?

Personal Best Regards:


This is without a doubt one of the best responses I have ever seen published on TOTV. It is accurate, fair, clear and to the point.

[Warren Kiefer]

[QUOTE=graciegirl;1109162]

I think by Florida law, the developer must turn over the control to residents once a certain amount of homes have been sold. I don't know why you would think otherwise. Did the sales person tell you that?

Wrong !!!! The CDD's over a certain period of time become a resident elected board. The District Boards will also be elected by landowner elections. Unfortunately every square foot of land in the Districts is owned by the Developer. Hence, the Developer is the only voter who elects the District Boards.

[PennBF]

1. The attorney's were awarded the $7M in the Paradise Rec Center suit out of the $40M the Developer lost for neglect of the facility. Six residents, some POA members actually put up their own personal funds to help the suit. After the settlement ($40M Developer Loss) the Attorney's decided to donate $300K of
their fees of $7M to the six who took the risk and stood to lose significant personal funds. The six were to split it evenly and they did with each receiving
$50K. How many of you stand ready to sign up to spend your own money to protect your neighbors property. By the way you are all continuing to reap in the benefits of the $40M as it has and is going to your advantage.
2. In the case of the current loss the Developer spent $300K to try to avoid some accountability and lost of control of dollars spent South of 466A. . If you think he won and you lost you may want to reexamine the facts and decide who really lost.
3. The POA has existed for 40 years and the VHA a rather short time. The original developer liked the POA UNTIL it sued to enforce the Developer to take care of the Paradise Rec center that was falling apart, (e.g.mice and rats in the ceiling, etc.). When they lost and had to put aside $40M to ensure
future support for needs of the Village the Developer (as you can guess) became pretty darn angry and created the VHA. It goes on today as the arm of the Developer and as seen in the last Daily Sun, etc. continues to try to
destroy the POA and any independent support for the residents. The POA continues after 40 years to work for the residents and as an independent
support for its neighbors.
Just some history to digest.:read:

[iaudit]

I have no problem with an organization ran by the residents. I do have a problem with certain members of that organization benefiting personally financially from the organization. For example the six members who received settlements from the original lawsuit or the three that stood to benefit if the latest would have prevailed. I have a problem with a member of the board of the POA being a District 5 Supervisor and a named party in lawsuit against The Villages. This reeks of conflict of interest.

........
It is obvious that you do not know what conflict of interest means. How exactly does one position have any influence or financial benefit from the other.

A better example of conflict of interest would be the developer who appoints all the supervisors for the central districts and then the supervisors determine what the developer gets paid when the amenity facilities are bought by the central districts. Most or all of the appointed supervisors are employees or associates of the developer. Now that is a conflict.

[Warren Kiefer]

[QUOTE=Dr Winston O Boogie jr;1109200]

Florida Statutes - Chapter 190 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS (http://www.ccfj.net/FS190CDD.html#190.006)

Surely you realize there are two totally DIFFERENT boards. This statute refers to the CDD boards which are Residents elected by Residents. The VCCDD and SLCDD are also landowner elected boards. BUT at this time the ONLY landowner in the downtown Spanish Springs and Sumter Landing areas is the developer. The developer casts all the possible votes and consequently elects whom he wants. THERE IS NOT A SINGLE VOTING RESIDENT WHO LIVES IN EITHER THE VCCDD or THE SLCDD.

[Advogado]

It is obvious that you do not know what conflict of interest means. How exactly does one position have any influence or financial benefit from the other.

A better example of conflict of interest would be the developer who appoints all the supervisors for the central districts and then the supervisors determine what the developer gets paid when the amenity facilities are bought by the central districts. Most or all of the appointed supervisors are employees or associates of the developer. Now that is a conflict.
Exactly. And that relationship is what the IRS focused on when it banned future issuance of tax-exempt bonds by those center districts.

[JoMar]

[QUOTE=TVMayor;1109228]

Surely you realize there are two totally DIFFERENT boards. This statute refers to the CDD boards which are Residents elected by Residents. The VCCDD and SLCDD are also landowner elected boards. BUT at this time the ONLY landowner in the downtown Spanish Springs and Sumter Landing areas is the developer. The developer casts all the possible votes and consequently elects whom he wants. THERE IS NOT A SINGLE VOTING RESIDENT WHO LIVES IN EITHER THE VCCDD or THE SLCDD.

I agree....and it has been that way since the beginning. The Developer took all the risk and like any other business, he didn't do that to give away control. Why do people that live here believe this place should operate like a government entity, or didn't they know that when they moved in. Good news is the TOTV isn't the majority.....same voices, same threads. In my view the POA and the VHA both provide services to the residents but they don't represent everyone.

[manaboutown]

It is obvious that you do not know what conflict of interest means. How exactly does one position have any influence or financial benefit from the other.

A better example of conflict of interest would be the developer who appoints all the supervisors for the central districts and then the supervisors determine what the developer gets paid when the amenity facilities are bought by the central districts. Most or all of the appointed supervisors are employees or associates of the developer. Now that is a conflict.

The existing situation represents the polar extreme of a conflict of interest unfortunately open to the possibility if not probability of self dealing. It is literally all kept within the family.

[Advogado]

[QUOTE=Warren Kiefer;1109420]

I agree....and it has been that way since the beginning. The Developer took all the risk and like any other business, he didn't do that to give away control. Why do people that live here believe this place should operate like a government entity, or didn't they know that when they moved in. Good news is the TOTV isn't the majority.....same voices, same threads. In my view the POA and the VHA both provide services to the residents but they don't represent everyone.
I'm not sure what you are talking about, but, if I understand you correctly, I am afraid you are flat out wrong. The Villages is, in fact, governed by a conglomerate of community development districts (the 3 commercial districts and the residential numbered districts). These community development districts are all GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES, established under Florida law. That is the system established by the Developer.

[Warren Kiefer]

[QUOTE=JoMar;1109426]
I'm not sure what you are talking about, but, if I understand you correctly, I am afraid you are flat out wrong. The Villages is, in fact, governed by a conglomerate of community development districts (the 3 commercial districts and the residential numbered districts). These community development districts are all GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES, established under Florida law. That is the system established by the Developer.


No not wrong at all. The community is made up of CDD's who actually are under the control of the Developer and after a particular time lapse the developer must give up control of a CDD and allow the Residents to elect the boards. Now you have the SLCDD and the VCCDD. For at least five years the Developer has control over the CDD's and control over the SLCDD and VCCDD for as long as he remains the only landowner in those Districts. For want of a better explanation, the two Districts are the fathers over the CDD children. Therefore, we probably will never have any control who serves on the District Boards. Many of those board members work for the developer. At one time one gentleman serving on the VCCDD was the caretaker of the buffalo. Who do you think he usually agreed with ???

[outlaw]

[QUOTE=outlaw;1109186]

Wrong !!!! The CDD's over a certain period of time become a resident elected board. The District Boards will also be elected by landowner elections. Unfortunately every square foot of land in the Districts is owned by the Developer. Hence, the Developer is the only voter who elects the District Boards.

Now I'm confused. The CDDs ARE districts, are they not? So the district representatives are elected by the residents, who are also the landowners.

[outlaw]

The subject seems to have changed. What happened is that your team lost this lawsuit, counselor. Big time.

Didn't you forget to add na na na na na na?

[Mleeja]

Didn't you forget to add na na na na na na?

1. I would like to see the posters who are so adamantly supporting the POA reveal there conncetion with the POA. Are they members, officers, etc. Are they benefiting financially from the POA?

2. Did the three named plaintiffs in the last lawsuit foot all the bills or did the POA pay the legal fees?

3. Where did the $40,000 paid to The Villages come from? Memebers dues?

The POA lost the lawsuit. However some seem to feel that they must continue to trash the developer and The Villages.

Yes, you lost, na na na na na....

[rubicon]

[QUOTE=graciegirl;1109162]

I think by Florida law, the developer must turn over the control to residents once a certain amount of homes have been sold. I don't know why you would think otherwise. Did the sales person tell you that?

outlaw: what does relinquish control mean? If the past is prologue to the future then The Villages of Lake-Sumter, Inc. will continue to spin off only those facilities they deem unprofitable or unimportant to their business plan. make no mistake The Villages is their fiefdom and they intend to tap into it for many years to come. They own or rent all of the commercial property adjacent to The Villages. They established and fought off repeal of Sumter One for good reason. They own or control all local news media There is no question in my mind that The Villages of Lake-Sumter, Inc will control even if at an arms length distance.

Oddly enough for me I have not satisfied myself as to who would better govern. Like all decisions it is a trade off.

Personal Best Regards:

[rubicon]

It is “funny” how this has turned into another thread about the governance of The Villages. IMO the negative comments are being driven by POA officers, members, or supporters. I have a news flash for the POA…”you lost… bigtime”! However in the midst of the lawsuit, we all lost because The Villages had to expend over $300,000 in legal fees that could have been used for other purposes within The Villages. In this case the POA has done a disservice to the community.

So “who is lying”? Well let’s start with the count ruled against the POA with prejudice. This tells me that the arguments they put forth were not accurate, so that should be the beginning point in answering the question.

I am sure the POA supporters are licking their wounds and feel the need to lash out through this forum because their reputation just took a big hit. How can we trust anything they say in the future?

Hi meeja: i do understand why you feel the way you do and it is impossible for the loser to defend a lawsuit viewed as lost. However one of my duties was to oversee 250 lawsuits at any given time around the country. We settle some lawsuits simply because the cost of defending was going to end up being more than the settlement. In fact that is the primary reason trial lawyes take up lawsuits because they force the defense to expend large sums and they know if they keep it up they will get a payday. Without belaboring it we settled for several reasons including judges who were influenced by anything other than the facts of a case. Because the POA lawsuit was settled with prejudice doesn't mean the truth prevailed. i am not going to retry this case in this post but you may want to reread the facts especially the part were the facts support the promise the Developer made for a southside AAC.

Personal Best Regards:

[rubicon]

I think you are mistaken. The distinction is really: POA: Property owners' association. VHA: Developer front organization. I don't think political parties have anything to do with it.

I will preface my remarks in this regard by making the following disclosures:

a. I am a registered Republican, but knowing what I now know, I view the VHA as a blight upon the Villages landscape. I have to admit that shortly after I moved here, I naively believed that the VHA was a legitimate homeowners' association, and I became a member. Needless to say, as I learned more about it, I allowed my membership to lapse.

b. I will stipulate the Developer, which is the Villages of Lake-Sumter, Inc. (and a maze of trusts, family members, and other corporations), has done a marvelous job of developing, and in almost all aspects, running, The Villages. I love living here and have no intention of moving. However, it is absurd to think that the interests of the Developer, who controls the local media and politics, will always coincide with those of the residents. It is for that reason that we need our own, independent homeowners' organization, i.e., the POA.

Here are the reasons that I view the VHA as a blight:

1. In case of conflict between the interests of homeowners and those of the Developer, the VHA has consistently sided with the Developer. The latest example of this is the absolute nonsense published by the VHA's newsletter, The Villages Voice, about the ongoing IRS investigation of the Developer's actions in selling amenity facilities to the Developer-controlled Center Districts. The reasons why the VHA always supports the Developer follow.

2. The Developer sponsors the VHA. The Villages Voice is printed and delivered by the Developer's newspaper, The Daily Sun.

3. The Developer collaborated in the very establishment of the VHA. The motive of the Developer in doing so was obviously to weaken the POA, which was frustrating his actions when they conflicted with the interests of the residents.

4. The Developer has co-opted as least some of the VHA presidents. One VHA president was, incredibly, actually on the Developer's payroll while holding office. Two other presidents were, upon leaving office, rewarded by the Developer by getting his political and financial backing to successfully run for County Supervisor positions. These are just examples of the corruption of VHA officers that I have been able to glean from public records. Do other members of this forum know of other examples?

I would not have a real problem with the VHA if it would not, hypocritically, hold itself out as a bona fide homeowners' association. After all, the VHA does run a golf-cart safety clinic, a very worthwhile activity. Perhaps a name change to something like "The Villages of Lake-Sumter Landing, Inc. Booster Club"?

Spot on

[rubicon]

1. The attorney's were awarded the $7M in the Paradise Rec Center suit out of the $40M the Developer lost for neglect of the facility. Six residents, some POA members actually put up their own personal funds to help the suit. After the settlement ($40M Developer Loss) the Attorney's decided to donate $300K of
their fees of $7M to the six who took the risk and stood to lose significant personal funds. The six were to split it evenly and they did with each receiving
$50K. How many of you stand ready to sign up to spend your own money to protect your neighbors property. By the way you are all continuing to reap in the benefits of the $40M as it has and is going to your advantage.
2. In the case of the current loss the Developer spent $300K to try to avoid some accountability and lost of control of dollars spent South of 466A. . If you think he won and you lost you may want to reexamine the facts and decide who really lost.
3. The POA has existed for 40 years and the VHA a rather short time. The original developer liked the POA UNTIL it sued to enforce the Developer to take care of the Paradise Rec center that was falling apart, (e.g.mice and rats in the ceiling, etc.). When they lost and had to put aside $40M to ensure
future support for needs of the Village the Developer (as you can guess) became pretty darn angry and created the VHA. It goes on today as the arm of the Developer and as seen in the last Daily Sun, etc. continues to try to
destroy the POA and any independent support for the residents. The POA continues after 40 years to work for the residents and as an independent
support for its neighbors.
Just some history to digest.:read:

PennBF:

an accurate assessment. The only problem I had with the aforementioned was that in my view the POA jumped at the Developer's first offer. They should have recognized that the Developer doesn't yield and that because he did they had him on the ropes. That's my view and it worth what people paid for it.

[rubicon]

It was stated in articles published at the time of the original amenity lawsuit was underway that there are three kinds of people living in The Villages.

Pro developer
Anti developer
Retired don't care

Each of those categories has been represented here. I didn't believe this was an accurate assessment then and I don't now.

One does not have to be pro/anti anything to express concern about the large and perhaps last investment of our lives. I reiterate again that it saddens me that we can't have civil discourse pertaining to this issue and won't until residents abandoned the labels.

Personal Best Regards:

[outlaw]

[QUOTE=outlaw;1109186]

outlaw: what does relinquish control mean? If the past is prologue to the future then The Villages of Lake-Sumter, Inc. will continue to spin off only those facilities they deem unprofitable or unimportant to their business plan. make no mistake The Villages is their fiefdom and they intend to tap into it for many years to come. They own or rent all of the commercial property adjacent to The Villages. They established and fought off repeal of Sumter One for good reason. They own or control all local news media There is no question in my mind that The Villages of Lake-Sumter, Inc will control even if at an arms length distance.

Oddly enough for me I have not satisfied myself as to who would better govern. Like all decisions it is a trade off.

Personal Best Regards:

Maybe your question is rhetorical? The CDDs self govern wrt managing budgets, setting maintenance fees, amenities fees, maintaining executive golf courses and other amenities (MMP, Rec centers) once the developer sells them to the CDDs. I think the CDDs can also change district standards (lawn ornaments, signs, etc). I think an example, although not a major impact, is the MMP striping in CDD4. I believe CDD2 is building a new Santiago Rec center from the ground up. Last year or earlier this year, CDD1 completed a complete remodel of Paradise Rec center. I agree that the developer will always have influence and impact just because of it's control over the town centers and all the commercial property, not to mention the endless "build outs".

[mickey100]

1. I would like to see the posters who are so adamantly supporting the POA reveal there conncetion with the POA. Are they members, officers, etc. Are they benefiting financially from the POA?

2. Did the three named plaintiffs in the last lawsuit foot all the bills or did the POA pay the legal fees?

3. Where did the $40,000 paid to The Villages come from? Memebers dues?

The POA lost the lawsuit. However some seem to feel that they must continue to trash the developer and The Villages.

…...

The lawsuit was a win for the residents of The Villages. Without it there wouldn't have been money in the till for many of the upgrades and maintenance issues that we enjoy now. If those members of the POA had not pursued it, who knows what kind of shape the Villages north of 466 would be in right now. I give them a big "thank you". And I really don't get why people begrudge the money they received for all the work they did. I know at this stage of my life I wouldn't devote years of my time for $50,000 or whatever the amount is they received. They worked hard and they deserve it. The POA did not lose, in any sense of the word. It was a victory - as a result of the lawsuit, the developer agreed to pay about $40 million over the 13 years to replenish maintenance accounts and keep the facilities up to date. Its just too bad the developer had to be prompted to do the right thing by a lawsuit, instead of doing it voluntarily.

[iaudit]

[QUOTE=rubicon;1109543]

Maybe your question is rhetorical? The CDDs self govern wrt managing budgets, setting maintenance fees, amenities fees, maintaining executive golf courses and other amenities (MMP, Rec centers) once the developer sells them to the CDDs. I think the CDDs can also change district standards (lawn ornaments, signs, etc). I think an example, although not a major impact, is the MMP striping in CDD4. I believe CDD2 is building a new Santiago Rec center from the ground up. Last year or earlier this year, CDD1 completed a complete remodel of Paradise Rec center. I agree that the developer will always have influence and impact just because of it's control over the town centers and all the commercial property, not to mention the endless "build outs".

Outlaw, some of the above statements are absolutely wrong. None of the numbered CDD's control any amenity facility(executive golf course, pool, courts, recreation center, etc.). They are controlled by the town center CDD's which in reality are controlled by developer who is the sole landowner there. Because of the settled lawsuit, certain expenditures on facilities north of 466 are controlled by resident elected Amenity Authority Committee representatives. The numbered CDD do not collect amenity fees, either the developer or the town center CDD collect those, depending on whether an amenity facility has been sold to the town center. Only infrastructure, such as cart paths, landscaping, etc. is controlled by numbered CDD's. You really need to go to an orientation class before making comments on CDD structure and responsibility. Your statements perpetuate falsehoods that have been espoused by others in the past.

[rubicon]

The lawsuit was a win for the residents of The Villages. Without it there wouldn't have been money in the till for many of the upgrades and maintenance issues that we enjoy now. If those members of the POA had not pursued it, who knows what kind of shape the Villages north of 466 would be in right now. I give them a big "thank you". And I really don't get why people begrudge the money they received for all the work they did. I know at this stage of my life I wouldn't devote years of my time for $50,000 or whatever the amount is they received. They worked hard and they deserve it. The POA did not lose, in any sense of the word. It was a victory - as a result of the lawsuit, the developer agreed to pay about $40 million over the 13 years to replenish maintenance accounts and keep the facilities up to date. Its just too bad the developer had to be prompted to do the right thing by a lawsuit, instead of doing it voluntarily.

mickey 100: I am not totally enamored with the POA but two facts stand out. They operate in a good faith and positive manner to protect the rights of residents. Secondly there simply is not another entity in and around The Villages that will take issue with The Villages of Lake-Sumter, Inc (TVLSI) because they are owned, controlled or concerned about their viability if they should go against TVLSI. Its simply a political reality.

And for this service the POA is maligned, called whinners, negative, etc. when in reality all they are doing is pointing to issues of legitimate concern and differences . Far too many residents unfairly dismiss the POA out of hand simply because a dispute of any kind disturbs their perception of this Adult Disney World or as many say here: "I'm retired, leave me alone."
Once again this issue will never go forward in a constructive manner if residents continue with the name calling.

As to the rules and policies pertaining to CDD's etc rules and policies were made to be broken but that is another and separate topic of discussion

Personal Best Regards:

[outlaw]

[QUOTE=outlaw;1109630]

Outlaw, some of the above statements are absolutely wrong. None of the numbered CDD's control any amenity facility(executive golf course, pool, courts, recreation center, etc.). They are controlled by the town center CDD's which in reality are controlled by developer who is the sole landowner there. Because of the settled lawsuit, certain expenditures on facilities north of 466 are controlled by resident elected Amenity Authority Committee representatives. The numbered CDD do not collect amenity fees, either the developer or the town center CDD collect those, depending on whether an amenity facility has been sold to the town center. Only infrastructure, such as cart paths, landscaping, etc. is controlled by numbered CDD's. You really need to go to an orientation class before making comments on CDD structure and responsibility. Your statements perpetuate falsehoods that have been espoused by others in the past.

Thank you for the clarification. Are you sure the CDDs north of 466 do not own/control the rec centers?

[Mleeja]

The lawsuit was a win for the residents of The Villages. Without it there wouldn't have been money in the till for many of the upgrades and maintenance issues that we enjoy now. If those members of the POA had not pursued it, who knows what kind of shape the Villages north of 466 would be in right now. I give them a big "thank you". And I really don't get why people begrudge the money they received for all the work they did. I know at this stage of my life I wouldn't devote years of my time for $50,000 or whatever the amount is they received. They worked hard and they deserve it. The POA did not lose, in any sense of the word. It was a victory - as a result of the lawsuit, the developer agreed to pay about $40 million over the 13 years to replenish maintenance accounts and keep the facilities up to date. Its just too bad the developer had to be prompted to do the right thing by a lawsuit, instead of doing it voluntarily.

You have not correctly read my post. My questions are about the lawsuit that was lost by the POA. Who is footing the bill for this one? No one seems to want to answer this question.

[Advogado]

[QUOTE=iaudit;1109641]

Thank you for the clarification. Are you sure the CDDs north of 466 do not own/control the rec centers?

They do not. Iaudit's post is correct in all aspects.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

[QUOTE=TVMayor;1109228]

Surely you realize there are two totally DIFFERENT boards. This statute refers to the CDD boards which are Residents elected by Residents. The VCCDD and SLCDD are also landowner elected boards. BUT at this time the ONLY landowner in the downtown Spanish Springs and Sumter Landing areas is the developer. The developer casts all the possible votes and consequently elects whom he wants. THERE IS NOT A SINGLE VOTING RESIDENT WHO LIVES IN EITHER THE VCCDD or THE SLCDD.

No, I did not no that there are two different boards and I don't care.

I didn't retire to this beautiful place to worry about all of this stuff.

You seem to enjoy getting involved in these kinds of discussions and evidently believe that you have some kind of power to influence the powers that be. I'm glad that you've found something that you enjoy although for the life of me, I can't imagine anyone enjoying getting all worked up.

Today, I'm going to mow, edge and trim the grass at the house I have for sale and then spend a nice afternoon with my wife. Maybe we'll have lunch at the pool.

By the way, I didn't post this link that you've credited to me.

[downeaster]

Hi meeja: i do understand why you feel the way you do and it is impossible for the loser to defend a lawsuit viewed as lost. However one of my duties was to oversee 250 lawsuits at any given time around the country. We settle some lawsuits simply because the cost of defending was going to end up being more than the settlement. In fact that is the primary reason trial lawyes take up lawsuits because they force the defense to expend large sums and they know if they keep it up they will get a payday. Without belaboring it we settled for several reasons including judges who were influenced by anything other than the facts of a case. Because the POA lawsuit was settled with prejudice doesn't mean the truth prevailed. i am not going to retry this case in this post but you may want to reread the facts especially the part were the facts support the promise the Developer made for a southside AAC.

Personal Best Regards:

Very interesting and revealing. Thanks.

[Warren Kiefer]

[QUOTE=Dr Winston O Boogie jr;1109702][QUOTE=Warren Kiefer;1109420]

No, I did not no that there are two different boards and I don't care.

I didn't retire to this beautiful place to worry about all of this stuff.

You seem to enjoy getting involved in these kinds of discussions and evidently believe that you have some kind of power to influence the powers that be. I'm glad that you've found something that you enjoy although for the life of me, I can't imagine anyone enjoying getting all worked up.

Today, I'm going to mow, edge and trim the grass at the house I have for sale and then spend a nice afternoon with my wife. Maybe we'll have lunch at the pool.

By the way, I didn't post this link that you've credited to me.[/QUO

It was not my intention to reply to your post. The post I was responding to was written by TVMayor. Sorry about that.

[Warren Kiefer]

[QUOTE=outlaw;1109630]

Outlaw, some of the above statements are absolutely wrong. None of the numbered CDD's control any amenity facility(executive golf course, pool, courts, recreation center, etc.). They are controlled by the town center CDD's which in reality are controlled by developer who is the sole landowner there. Because of the settled lawsuit, certain expenditures on facilities north of 466 are controlled by resident elected Amenity Authority Committee representatives. The numbered CDD do not collect amenity fees, either the developer or the town center CDD collect those, depending on whether an amenity facility has been sold to the town center. Only infrastructure, such as cart paths, landscaping, etc. is controlled by numbered CDD's. You really need to go to an orientation class before making comments on CDD structure and responsibility. Your statements perpetuate falsehoods that have been espoused by others in the past.

This was a 100% accurate comment by the op.. Our AAC north of 466 has done a wonderful job using the 40 million settlement to refurbish Paradise, build TDS and Santiago Rec centers. CDD'c own nothing and are usually in charge of minor neighborhood issues. The author refers to town center CDD's while some call them District Centers. Anyway, these District Centers are administered by a governing board. I live in the VCCDD, others live in the SLVCDD. Mine is the Spanish Springs area with no residents living inside it's boundaries.. Now for an example; Our VCCDD board members are elected by a single vote from the only landowner in the VCCDD, that landowner being the Developer. The VCCDD board then hires a district manager, which at this time is Janet Tutt. She is paid thru Residents funding and in theory works for the Residents. I can think of no reasonable explanation how we Residents have any control over the District Manager or the VCCDD. Do these facts make it reasonable to assume a District Manager and the Central District board would be supportive of the Developer in any Developer/Resident dispute ??? I simply don't think this is the best system of government for we Residents.

[outlaw]

[QUOTE=iaudit;1109641]

This was a 100% accurate comment by the op.. Our AAC north of 466 has done a wonderful job using the 40 million settlement to refurbish Paradise, build TDS and Santiago Rec centers. CDD'c own nothing and are usually in charge of minor neighborhood issues. The author refers to town center CDD's while some call them District Centers. Anyway, these District Centers are administered by a governing board. I live in the VCCDD, others live in the SLVCDD. Mine is the Spanish Springs area with no residents living inside it's boundaries.. Now for an example; Our VCCDD board members are elected by a single vote from the only landowner in the VCCDD, that landowner being the Developer. The VCCDD board then hires a district manager, which at this time is Janet Tutt. She is paid thru Residents funding and in theory works for the Residents. I can think of no reasonable explanation how we Residents have any control over the District Manager or the VCCDD. Do these facts make it reasonable to assume a District Manager and the Central District board would be supportive of the Developer in any Developer/Resident dispute ??? I simply don't think this is the best system of government for we Residents.

So, if I understand you correctly:
The AAC has no connection to the CDDs. Was it set up for administering the $40M?
The CDD boards are elected by the residents in that particular district.
The VCCDD and SLVCDD boards are "elected" by the only voter, the developer, since there are no other land owners in those unique CDDs.
The VCCDD and SLVCCDD manage the amenities (exec golf courses, rec centers, etc.
So, in essence, the developer controls the amenity fees, budget, etc.
Is that correct?

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

[QUOTE=Dr Winston O Boogie jr;1109702][QUOTE=Warren Kiefer;1109420]

No, I did not no that there are two different boards and I don't care.

I didn't retire to this beautiful place to worry about all of this stuff.

You seem to enjoy getting involved in these kinds of discussions and evidently believe that you have some kind of power to influence the powers that be. I'm glad that you've found something that you enjoy although for the life of me, I can't imagine anyone enjoying getting all worked up.

Today, I'm going to mow, edge and trim the grass at the house I have for sale and then spend a nice afternoon with my wife. Maybe we'll have lunch at the pool.

By the way, I didn't post this link that you've credited to me.[/QUO

It was not my intention to reply to your post. The post I was responding to was written by TVMayor. Sorry about that.

No problem. Have a nice day.

[Warren Kiefer]

[QUOTE=Warren Kiefer;1109937]

So, if I understand you correctly:
The AAC has no connection to the CDDs. Was it set up for administering the $40M?
The CDD boards are elected by the residents in that particular district.
The VCCDD and SLVCDD boards are "elected" by the only voter, the developer, since there are no other land owners in those unique CDDs.
The VCCDD and SLVCCDD manage the amenities (exec golf courses, rec centers, etc.
So, in essence, the developer controls the amenity fees, budget, etc.
Is that correct?

100 % correct !!!! Originally set up to invest the 40 million on the residents behalf.. There is a string of funding that continues to be the responsibility of the Amenities Authority Committee. (AAC)

It is no secret that the Developer has a lot of influence over the town center boards. After all he casts the only vote when the VCCDD or SLVCDD is elected to their positions.

[outlaw]

[QUOTE=outlaw;1110141]

100 % correct !!!! Originally set up to invest the 40 million on the residents behalf.. There is a string of funding that continues to be the responsibility of the Amenities Authority Committee. (AAC)

It is no secret that the Developer has a lot of influence over the town center boards. After all he casts the only vote when the VCCDD or SLVCDD is elected to their positions.

YES! I PASSED.:D
Thanks for the clarification.

[Advogado]

[QUOTE=Warren Kiefer;1109937]

So, if I understand you correctly:
The AAC has no connection to the CDDs. Was it set up for administering the $40M?
The CDD boards are elected by the residents in that particular district.
The VCCDD and SLVCDD boards are "elected" by the only voter, the developer, since there are no other land owners in those unique CDDs.
The VCCDD and SLVCCDD manage the amenities (exec golf courses, rec centers, etc.
So, in essence, the developer controls the amenity fees, budget, etc.
Is that correct?
Warren said that you are 100% correct. I would put your percentage at about 80%, but you do get the gist of the situation.

Let me explain further:

1. Categories of Community Development District There are two categories of CDDs in The Villages: (a) The numbered Districts, which encompass all the residences, and (b) the three commercial Districts, which encompass the three town-square areas. Thus, the three commercial districts are the Village Center Community Development District ("VCCDD"), the Sumter Landing Community Development District ("SLCDD"), and the Brownwood Community Development Disrict.
2. The Amenity Authority Committee.The AAC is affiliated only with the VCCDD. Contrary to your post, the AAC not only administers the $40 million class-action settlement funds, but also all the amenity expenditures by that District.
3. Ownership of the Amenities. The Developer has sold all the amenities north of 466 to the VCCDD and some of the amenities south of 466 to the SLCDD. The Developer stopped the sales as a result of the IRS investigation, and therefore still owns many of the amenity facilities south of 466. Since the commercial districts are now prohibited from issuing any more tax-exempt bonds, it is unclear whether the Developer will continue to sell the amenity facilities south of 466 (and the right to receive the amenity fees) to the relevant commercial district or will simply retain those facilities and the amenity fees.
4. Ownership of property in the commercial districts.The Developer (which is a corporation called "The Villages of Lake-Sumter, Inc.") has sold off some of the properties within the commercial districts but still remains in control of the government of those districts. The developer control of those districts is the basis for the IRS's denying future issuance of tax-exempt bonds.

I hope this helps clarify a very complex situation.

[villagerjack]

Usually true but the point is that you cannot have it both ways. When confronting opposite statements, one must assume one is correct and one is false. If I had wanted to release my bias, I would have included in my posting that Mike Berning serving as Chairman of the SLCDD was elected to that board from the resulting vote of a single landowner, that land owner being the Developer. Mr. Berning refers to some of the Residents as negative folk who over the years have only hurt our community. These negative folk have won a lot of issues regarding the right of residents. But as to me always being a supporter of the POA, mostly true but but as I said "somebody is lying".

Was it the OP who said he was NEUTRAL?

[outlaw]

[QUOTE=outlaw;1110141]
Warren said that you are 100% correct. I would put your percentage at about 80%, but you do get the gist of the situation.

Let me explain further:

1. Categories of Community Development District There are two categories of CDDs in The Villages: (a) The numbered Districts, which encompass all the residences, and (b) the three commercial Districts, which encompass the three town-square areas. Thus, the three commercial districts are the Village Center Community Development District ("VCCDD"), the Sumter Landing Community Development District ("SLCDD"), and the Brownwood Community Development Disrict.
2. The Amenity Authority Committee.The AAC is affiliated only with the VCCDD. Contrary to your post, the AAC not only administers the $40 million class-action settlement funds, but also all the amenity expenditures by that District.
3. Ownership of the Amenities. The Developer has sold all the amenities north of 466 to the VCCDD and some of the amenities south of 466 to the SLCDD. The Developer stopped the sales as a result of the IRS investigation, and therefore still owns many of the amenity facilities south of 466. Since the commercial districts are now prohibited from issuing any more tax-exempt bonds, it is unclear whether the Developer will continue to sell the amenity facilities south of 466 (and the right to receive the amenity fees) to the relevant commercial district or will simply retain those facilities and the amenity fees.
4. Ownership of property in the commercial districts.The Developer (which is a corporation called "The Villages of Lake-Sumter, Inc.") has sold off some of the properties within the commercial districts but still remains in control of the government of those districts. The developer control of those districts is the basis for the IRS's denying future issuance of tax-exempt bonds.

I hope this helps clarify a very complex situation.

Thanks for the further clarification. I'm surprised the developer sold any of the commercial property. Do you know if this action was necessary to attract certain chains that insist on "owning" their business property?

[Advogado]

[QUOTE=Advogado;1110656]

Thanks for the further clarification. I'm surprised the developer sold any of the commercial property. Do you know if this action was necessary to attract certain chains that insist on "owning" their business property?

You are welcome.

I do not know why the Developer sold any of the property, but I also do not know of the relationship (if any) of the new owners to the Developer. It would take some real digging to figure it all out, and, since I don't think it affects us, I am not curious enough to do the digging. (As I recall, one of the IRS documents contains a list of the other owners in the VCCDD, but that document does not explain the reasons for the sale.) But If any of the other posters know the answer to your question, please advise.

[twoplanekid]

FYI
Ownership of the Amenities

According to Janet Tutt, VCCDD owns/controls 22,707 amenity fees, Sumter Landing CDD 6,604 and the Developer/The Villages of Lake-Sumter 25,918 as of July, 2015

[outlaw]

FYI
Ownership of the Amenities

According to Janet Tutt, VCCDD owns/controls 22,707 amenity fees, Sumter Landing CDD 6,604 and the Developer/The Villages of Lake-Sumter 25,918 as of July, 2015

That's only $8.2M per month.