Bond issue today $355m due

[conn8757]

The Orlando Sentinel front page says $355M due per IRS. It also says towards the end, half of the amenity fee is paying off bonds. The amenity fee amounts to $33,000,000 a year. What does this mean for individual villagers???

[Hawkwind]

Here is a link for those that do not get a hard copy.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/orl-villages-tax-problems-053009,0,5054493.story

[JimJoe]

Do buyers have a right to know about this bond issue before they make an offer? Seems like they should. Have any recent buyers been told by the realtor?

Here is a link for those that do not get a hard copy.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/orl-villages-tax-problems-053009,0,5054493.story

[Lauren Ritchie]

folks,
my name is lauren ritchie, and i am the orlando sentinel columnist who has been watching the progress of the IRS examination of the village center district (and now the sumter landing district) bonds.

the news story on the latest developments is posted at the sentinel site at www.orlandosentinel.com/lake (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/lake)

there, you can find links to the news story, my column which tries to look a little ahead in the process (this may answer your question, conn8757) and the actual documents sent to the district by the IRS. they are a fascinating read, and i recommend looking at them.

also, i've posted a blog item that deals with the response of charles smith, a villages resident who is the chairman of the village center district board of supervisors.

that link is http://www.orlandosentinel.com/laurenonlake

i notice that someone asked whether bond buyers are being notified of the problems with the bonds before purchasing them. i do not know the answer, but i can tell you that the village district has done the right thing by notifying the standard reporting agencies of problems with the IRS. whether investment advisors know of/pass along those notices is not something i can answer. perhaps you have some retired investment advisor who can get on the forum and tell you.

if you read the article and column carefully, you will realize that this is but a step in the process. however, it's a step that tells you a lot about where the IRS is headed with this investigation.

i invite your comments on the column and on the blog. i'll also check back here later today and try to respond to anything posted here. at the moment, i have five wide-open acres just screaming to be mowed.

lauren ritchie

[Lauren Ritchie]

jimjoe,
i misunderstood your point. you were asking whether home buyers rather than bond buyers have the right to be notified about the IRS examination before purchase.

i am guessing, but i am pretty sure the answer is no. i would hope that folks who are going to invest such a substantial amount of money would do a little work on their own and make a judgment as to whether they think this is a material problem.

perhaps a real estate agent will correct me if i am wrong.

lauren

[Mallory]

Typical, overblown, anti-Villages story from the Orlando Sentinel. I'm not "outraged" by this single investigators report.

[SteveZ]

folks,
my name is lauren ritchie, and i am the orlando sentinel columnist who has been watching the progress of the IRS examination of the village center district (and now the sumter landing district) bonds.

the news story on the latest developments is posted at the sentinel site at www.orlandosentinel.com/lake (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/lake)

there, you can find links to the news story, my column which tries to look a little ahead in the process (this may answer your question, conn8757) and the actual documents sent to the district by the IRS. they are a fascinating read, and i recommend looking at them.

also, i've posted a blog item that deals with the response of charles smith, a villages resident who is the chairman of the village center district board of supervisors.

that link is http://www.orlandosentinel.com/laurenonlake

i notice that someone asked whether bond buyers are being notified of the problems with the bonds before purchasing them. i do not know the answer, but i can tell you that the village district has done the right thing by notifying the standard reporting agencies of problems with the IRS. whether investment advisors know of/pass along those notices is not something i can answer. perhaps you have some retired investment advisor who can get on the forum and tell you.

if you read the article and column carefully, you will realize that this is but a step in the process. however, it's a step that tells you a lot about where the IRS is headed with this investigation.

i invite your comments on the column and on the blog. i'll also check back here later today and try to respond to anything posted here. at the moment, i have five wide-open acres just screaming to be mowed.

lauren ritchie

Ms. Ritchie is correct in that "this is but a step in the process."

In situations like this, it doesn't matter if you are right or not. It becomes a matter of "is the fight to prove you are right worth the cost of litigation?" Quite often, settlements occur simply to close the matter because being right is less important than being solvent. Insurance companies do this all the time. So don't businesses which get sued all the time (e.g., drug companies) just to keep a lid on overall costs. Dealing with the government is no different, whether it is a tax matter or other matter where there is any possible fiscal penalty.

We've all been there, such as the parking ticket where the meter was broken, but it was cheaper to pay the ticket than fight it, knowing the costs would escalate in court. It's not fair, but it is what happens.

Whatever happens....It's a beautiful day in The VIllage today!

[Number 6]

I do not know Stephen Hudak, but the tone of his article is more "editorial": than "news". The colorful language in the first paragraph makes me belive he is jealous of anyone living in The Villages. Maybe it is just me. Maybe I should be grateful that someone is looking out for me. Oh well, I am going golfing.

[Advogado]

Lauren-- Thanks for reporting on this issue. The Villages Daily Sun has completely abdicated its responsibility as a news organization by not covering what is clearly the most important issue facing Villagers today.

To the contributors who are attacking you as the bearer of bad news, I suggest that they actually read the latest IRS correspondence, think about the magnitude of the potential Central District and Developer liability, and start considering the consequences to Villagers if the IRS prevails.

[SteveZ]

Lauren-- Thanks for reporting on this issue. The Villages Daily Sun has completely abdicated its responsibility as a news organization by not covering what is clearly the most important issue facing Villagers today.

To the contributors who are attacking you as the bearer of bad news, I suggest that they actually read the latest IRS correspondence, think about the magnitude of the potential Central District and Developer liability, and start considering the consequences to Villagers if the IRS prevails.

What consequences are those? I have yet to see anything from anybody that identifies a "consequence." Getting folks worried over speculation does no good except for Valium salesmen.

Until someone can honestly state a specific consequence to a homeowner - and make that statement with authority and knowledge to back it up - then it's just backyard gossip and handwringing for no reason other than being "Chicken Little."

[hdh1470]

the burden lies with the developer and not residents period

[Bogie Shooter]

What consequences are those? I have yet to see anything from anybody that identifies a "consequence." Getting folks worried over speculation does no good except for Valium salesmen.

Until someone can honestly state a specific consequence to a homeowner - and make that statement with authority and knowledge to back it up - then it's just backyard gossip and handwringing for no reason other than being "Chicken Little."

SteveZ...thanks again for your usual common sense response.

[swrinfla]

:agree: :agree:

As usual, SteveZ's cool comments should prevail!

SWR
(also a Steve!)

:bowdown:

[chuckinca]

:agree: :agree:

As usual, SteveZ's cool comments should prevail!

SWR
(also a Steve!)

:bowdown:



Hopefully, SteveZ's cool comments will prevail.

.

[BobKat1]

This issue certainly seems like something the Daily Sun should at least cover, just to give updates to homeowners. Not reporting on it can potentially generate a lot of misinformation.

[billy2fish]

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/laurenonlake

Click on this link in Lauren Ritchie's response you will see an exchange between the IRS and a Mr. Israel who has POA for the vccdd's it's quite long but at the end of the exchange,bottom line is the IRS is willing to settle the whole matter for $ 16,458,454 chump change in my opinion.Please remember I am not a lawyer,so correct me if I am mistaken :shrug:

[Bogie Shooter]

This issue certainly seems like something the Daily Sun should at least cover, just to give updates to homeowners. Not reporting on it can potentially generate a lot of misinformation.

Daily Sun Saturday May 30, 2009. See Section C, Page 1.
The staff report gives the updated facts....no hype, guesses or opinions.

[EdV]

.... What consequences are those?...

Well since you asked the question, let’s take a look at what’s on the table right now.

Based on the IRS letter date 05/18/09, Agent Dominic Servadio has made a specific proposal for The District/Developer to consider to bring the whole matter to an end. But it’s nothing more than a starting point for negotiation between the IRS and the Developer and the two districts that he owns and controls. Additionally it contains a caveat that implies that if the District/Developer chooses to elevate this to Appeals, then the IRS will open up other related bonds to detailed examination, something that the IRS probably knows the Developer would prefer to avoid. A veiled threat indeed.

So if the District/Developer decided to settle on that basis (which is doubtful at this point) the Developer would re-purchase the golf courses and other amenities to the tune of 355 million dollars that he sold to the District, and the District would turn around and payoff the bonds. This would reduce the amenity fees from an average of $130/mo to maybe $95/mo.

On the other hand, if the amenity fee was kept at the current rate, it would provide some $16 million/yr to improve the current amenities. Perhaps reopening the indoor pool or widening and refurbishing the multimodal cart paths north of 466, without regard to the districts that they wind through and other improvements as noted by the IRS agent.

And before everyone assumes that the IRS is out to get you, the TV homeowner, think again. If you actually read all of the points and counterpoints made in the documents that are on-line and available to you (as Ms. Ritchie has suggested) you may in fact come to the same conclusion that I have. And that is the IRS has it’s cross-hairs focused right on the Developer and his family related trust funds that were the direct beneficiaries of these transactions, not on TV homeowners or the thousands of investors in these federally tax free muni-bonds.

[ijusluvit]

Here are some of the reasons why there won't be a "consequence" for TV homeowners:

1) If, worse case scenario, the IRS will finally only settle for some payment, Mr. Morse will likely pay it to resolve the matter completely and prevent other transactions from being subject to review. (so many cans of worms!)

2) If Mr. Morse tries to pass the payment on to residents in any discoverable way, the POA will file suit. (Thank God for the POA!)

3) As in the last suit against the Developer, the POA will have a tremendous case. The IRS findings will be irrefutable arguments: that the districts which issued the bonds are not really governmental and the fact that the homeowners are paying 16m in annual interest payments to repay bonds which allowed the Developer to realize extraordinary profits. (It's a no-brainer Judge!).

4) Number 3 means that Number 1 is what's likely going to happen. (Mr. Morse is smart!)

Hey, what do I know? But I feel pretty comfortable, and I think you should too.
Have a wonderful day!

[chuckinca]

Per EdVinMass: "So if the District/Developer decided to settle on that basis (which is doubtful at this point) the Developer would re-purchase the golf courses and other amenities to the tune of 355 million dollars that he sold to the District, and the District would turn around and payoff the bonds. This would reduce the amenity fees from an average of $130/mo to maybe $95/mo."

I'm guessing that the golf courses are the free for life executive courses, the other amenities are the free rec centers, pools, courts, etc.

If they revert to the developer and the amenity fees are back to $95/Mo, does the $95/Mo cover the use (not purchase) of the free amenities?

.

[SteveZ]

Whatever the outcome, negotiations of merit do not occur in the media.

[Lauren Ritchie]

Folks,

I have been reading the posts that assume the golf courses, ect., will go back to the developer in the event the bonds are recalled. That is completely in error.

The devleoper has zero liability in this transaction. He is simply a seller to the governmental district. Morse made his money, and on his sub S corporation tax return, he declared $53 million profits and paid taxes on it. That information was contained in previous IRS documents, noting that what he did was proper.

The developer is not in any way legally considered as the district. Even the IRS has not attempted to prove that. What the agency has tried to show is that the developer has enough influence over the district that the transactions were not "arm's length" and therefore do not qualify to be paid for with tax-exempt bonds.

This was a business deal between a legally constituted government and a legally constituted business in the state of Florida. When you try to run the scenarios that may be possible, this is a vital thing to consider. I can understand how people get confused -- The Villages has fostered the father-developer notion for years. But it's not legally accurate.

Realize that Morse did not issue these tax-exempt bonds. The board of supervisors of your district government did. Whatever consequences there are will be borne by the district government -- unless Morse choses to get involved. The question really is whether he will find it enough to his advantage to do so or whether he will decide it is in his best interest to walk away.

Lauren

[chuckinca]

If the developer had influence over the districts and the districts were incorrect to issue tax exempt bonds, how does the developer have zero liability?

.

[JimJoe]

If the developer had influence over the districts and the districts were incorrect to issue tax exempt bonds, how does the developer have zero liability?

.

A good question but the answer may be unfortunately .. because the IRS goes after the seller of the alleged improper bonds, which is apparently the villages government who get its money from the amenities fees or from taxation of villagers,,,, not the person who was paid with the money raised by the bonds. IT may be an important question for the POA to consider if the residents suffer any adverse consequences from this unfortunate situation... but if this type of arrangement is authorized by Florida law it may be there was no wrongdoing.. and the villagers could end up paying the bill... Job security for lawyers.

[l2ridehd]

I read a lot of this information. Seems the risk is if these bonds are not tax exempt, but the interest is subject to IRS tax, then the rate which the CDD is able to sell these bonds goes up. Instead of a 4 to 5 % interest rate it goes up to 6 to 8% rate. That would increase your annual bond payment because your paying a higher interest rate. As to what happens to the past interest collected as tax exempt someone will pay higher taxes then they thought for a lower rate of return received. I am sure lawyers will be very involved with that decision and would somehow try to make that come back to the CDD which sold it as supposedly tax free interest which now is not. Then the question becomes would that get passed back to the homeowner. If it does your payment goes up for the bond portion of your annual payment. Probably not a huge amount to all of us, but an amount to pay the 2% delta that usually becomes a premium for tax free vs taxable. How much gets charged retro active is up to the lawyers and the IRS.

So is there homeowner risk? I think the answer is yes. Is it substantial? I don't think so. Probably worst case would be $700 to $800 per homeowner paid over time by the time you include lawyers, IRS penalties and interest.

[SteveZ]

And we are still back at "what consequences?"

People can "what if" the situation to death, and still be wrong. If the IRS and TV negotiate an arrangement, that's business. It happens whenever a business wants to cut its costs in defending an action, and the IRS knows it. If there was true "bad faith" here, the matter would be in the hands of the U.S. Attorney's Office, not the money-collectors.

So, the matter will continue until it ends. If the TV "government" made a mistake, why is that a surprise? Has anyone ever lived anywhere where the local government didn't make mistakes which either raised taxes, impacted services, or caused layoffs? Why is there an expectation that the TV government would be "perfect" in every way?

The lawyers for TV and the IRS will resolve the matter, because neither side wants to look stupid in public, and whatever the arrangement is (from dropping the matter to settlement at $___) , both sides will issue statements to their advantage - - and t matter will be "old news" in a day.

Maybe I'm living in a fog, but I just don't see anything happening which will cause me to change my style of living here. Let the games continue...

[OpusX1]

I have been reading about this for several months now. I am in agreement with Steve.
Here is one point that I have not seen addressed. When a entity sells tax free bonds they hire Bond Consul to make sure things are on the up and up. If the sold bonds were declared taxable I would think that the Bond Consul firm would be on the hook so to speak as would the insurance firm that insures the Bond Consul firm against errors and omissions. All so the IRS ruling will have statewide impact over all the other CDD. The point is that there are many deep pockets ahead of Village residents. There is enough here to keep several Law firms busy for years.

[nitehawk]

Thank you Lauren for you information - I for one like to hear what is going on and with the bond issue. I not like some people do not chose to bury my head in the sand

[EdV]

Folks,
I have been reading the posts that assume the golf courses, ect., will go back to the developer in the event the bonds are recalled. That is completely in error.


No one is assuming anything here. Just speculating on possible ways in which this could be resolved. It's not as much about what he can or cannot be compelled to do but more about what he probably should do to clear up the mess that he created.

.....The developer is not in any way legally considered as the district. Even the IRS has not attempted to prove that.

If you feel strongly about this, then why at the same time that you posted this here did you post the following statement in your column today:

"What is conspicuously absent from the revenue agent's scenarios is what role Morse might have in this, if any. The agent spent considerable time and energy building a case that the developer is the district, and the district is the developer. If so, shouldn't the developer — the biggest beneficiary in this arrangement by far — bear some responsibility? Or is he absolved by declaring his profits from the bonds as taxable?"


Realize that Morse did not issue these tax-exempt bonds. The board of supervisors of your district government did.
Lauren

No, it's Morse's government not the homeowners government(s) that issued these tax-exempt bonds. The two CDD's under scrutiny here were established under chapter 190 by virtue of the landowners of Real Property physically located within the boundaries of those two CDDs. And absolute control of it remains with the owners of record which, under Chapter 190 can (and does) include private corporations and trusts. And that clearly is the Morse family aka The Developer and can be identified by the land owners of record in the Registry of Deed of the counties in which they reside. The homeowners in The Villages and the numbered CDD that their property is a part of, do not own so much as one square inch of the real property inside the boundaries of the VCCDD or SLCDD.

But ironically, due to the nature of this unusual governmental structure, those two special CDDs cannot foist their tax woes immediately onto the homeowners in The Villages. Those two special CDDs have no taxing powers over the numbered CDDs and only real source of income is the amenity fee whose annual increase is capped at the inflation rate.

[MelZ]

EdvinMass

Thanks for the post I apprecaite you insight. My attitude to this is similar to any IRS issue, they make claims (usually very large), you refute with documentation, they negoitiate or go away.

Kind of reminds me of the schoolyard bully.

[Stantheman]

Lauren,

Since you appear to be the most knowledgeable on the subject at this time who is supplying us information, using your non-legal best guess is there any conflict between Florida law that established the VCDD (S) throughout Florida, and the preliminery IRS determination that the closeness between the Developer appointed supervisors and the "government-like" VCDD is what is putting the tax-fee status in jeopardy?

My understanding is that through the years the Florida Courts have sided with the Developers ability to choose the supervisors despite the obvious conflict of interest. If I read this correctly then is there a possibility of a state vs. federal conflict and a supreme court challenge? or am i reading a heck of alot more then is necessary in this issue?

If so, can the Developer retroactively allow residents to choose the supervisors today and thus make the past bonds "tax-free"?

your thoughts please

[Lauren Ritchie]

edvinmass,
to clear up the questions of the developer being the district and vice versa.

the IRS has been trying to prove the developer IS the district in the sense that he exerts considerable control over it, not that he is [I]legally[I] one and the same entity. the IRS' attempt to prove that is in the context of whether these are 'arm's length' transactions, not whether the district and the developer are legally the same critter.

legally, they are separate entities, and i don't there anyone has raised a question otherwise. hope that helps on that issue.

ed, you are totally correct that the two powerful CDDs do not have ad valorum taxing power outside their geographic boundaries and that their only real source of income is the amenity fees, which they receive because they've bought the rights to receive them. the amounts of amenity fees, i believe, are tied to the consumer price index by a covenant in your deeds.

one last thot -- i don't disagree with your common sense conclusion that the district and the developer are one, even tho i know that legally they aren't. however, don't let janet tutt hear you say that the district is morse's government. she will chop your tongue off. the district very carefully preserves the distinction that the developer and the district are totally separte -- which, of course, is totally what the developer wants. the last thing he needs right now is for someone to prove that they are one and the same.

opus - regarding the bond counsel that gave the opinion that the bonds are A-OK. you are right on. that is one of the things that bond experts i've been talking to all week are buzzing about. of course, it's not automatic...someone has to take them to court. the one thing you have to realize is that this proably will not affect other CDDs. i don't know of any others in florida that have "perverted" the law (to us the IRS agent's phrase) in the way that these have to enrich the developer. the irregularities are what attracted the IRS to these bonds, along with the blue sky purchases.

12rideHD -- you have hit the main issue on the head. what the IRS is trying to force is for the CDD to issue taxable bonds. however, your spread may be a little off. the bonds experts i've been on the phone all week with are saying that the district may end up paying a pretty serious premium for past transgressions -- IF they can get money in the market. however, by the time this shakes out, the market could be in better condition. let's hope.

chuckinca -- you ask if the developer had influence over the district and the district issued the bonds, why isn't the developer liable? jimjoe who responded is correct. what we've been discussing here is tax liability, not general liability. morse bears no TAX liability because he is a separate legal entity. he paid his taxes on profits he made from the sales. if this were to somehow come back on the homeowners and they sued, the question of whether the developer might be liable in court is a different one.

my guess is that it all boils down to whether morse wants to keep developing here. (he does have another 'downtown' district already approved and ready to go). if he wants to keep going, i suspect he's going to have to step up in some way and help settle this. if not, i think he could walk away without fear of repercussion, at least from the IRS. (remember -- he paid taxes on gains from the sales) what the homeowners might do is another issue. this all comes from that oh-so-convenient (for morse) arrangement where he gets to control a government of his own, including perks that go with it like tax exempt bonds. that's the "perverted" part of this to which the agent referred. others CDDs in florida have migrated the power of the governmental district from the developer to the homeowners.

hope that all helps.

steve, sorry if we're boring you. i realize your interest in this is your pocketbook and lifestyle. other folks, however, have broaders interests in it, including some pretty fascinating public policy questions if you're intrigued by that sort of thing. i'm pretty much of a political science junkie, so i find the whole situation with its tentacles nin private/public partnerships worth consideration. it's certainly unique situation, even though districts such as this one exist elsewhere, such as calfornia. i'm looking at some of those this week and will write something if i find anything that might have a bearing on this particular situation.

[Lauren Ritchie]

Stantheman,

there's no "conflict" between florida law and federal law because they address different things.

florida law creates a community development district and gives it power to issue bonds. i do not believe the law says does not say "tax exempt bonds."

the federal tax codes specify what makes a bond issue meet the test of "tax exempt." the IRS is applying the code to this issue and saying that it doesn't meet the test.

the district's defense is that it is a government under florida law and as such, it should be able to issue tax-exempt bonds.

the IRS says that argument is specious. its response: 'well, you might be a government under florida law, but state law doesn't matter to us when determining whether bonds are tax exempt. the two do NOT necessarily go together.'

that is what the agent meant when when he declared that the district's attorney archie lowry had made an "irrelevant" argument.

the IRS has a set of tests that it applies to any bond issue anywhere in the united states. pass, and it's tax-exempt. fail and it's not.

so, at the end of the day, these bonds could be declared formally as taxable and the district is still just as much a valid government under florida law as it was yesterday.

hope that helps.

--lauren

[villages07]

I've been reading this thread with a lot of interest. Although I don't always agree with Ms Ritchie's editorial slant, it appears she has done a lot of homework on this topic. I agree with SteveZ..only time will tell.

A couple of other points to ponder...

1. The 2003 tax exempt recreation bonds in question were probably issued at 6+%; If they had to be paid off now and re-issued as taxable at today's bond market rates, they might go out at 5%; the net result to a bondholder is probably a wash. 6+% tax exempt interest is probably equivalent to 5% taxable. And, wouldn't the central districts benefit by issuing bonds at lower rates?

2. The bigger issue to me, beyond taxable vs tax exempt, is the nature of the transaction...i.e. the value the central districts and developer put on the amenities being sold to the district. These certainly don't appear to be arms length's transactions and the price paid is so far above the cost to construct that it does smell fishy. And, since the supervisors are the developer's people, the residents get no say so in the transaction.

3. Lastly, and this may be petty.... but Agent Servidio works out of an IRS office in Salisbury, MD a small city on the eastern shore of Maryland about a 100 miles from DC. Not to belittle him or his office, but, I find it hard to believe that he or they will have the final say so in this. The Morse family has a lot of powerful allies in Washington (not as many now as they did a year ago) so I tend to believe someone higher up in the bureaucracy will quash this.

[SteveZ]

....

steve, sorry if we're boring you. i realize your interest in this is your pocketbook and lifestyle. other folks, however, have broaders interests in it, including some pretty fascinating public policy questions if you're intrigued by that sort of thing. i'm pretty much of a political science junkie, so i find the whole situation with its tentacles nin private/public partnerships worth consideration. it's certainly unique situation, even though districts such as this one exist elsewhere, such as calfornia. i'm looking at some of those this week and will write something if i find anything that might have a bearing on this particular situation.

Ms. Ritchie,

On the contrary. This is far from boring, but is still a matter of considerable conjecture.

What is surprising is "why now?" regarding these bonds, which were issued several years ago, in broad daylight, in full public view, and with IRS visibility? What has changed in the last 5-6 years to make this matter, especially well after-the-fact in the bond sale, important now versus then? It's not that IRS is any "smarter"or that the bonds have morphed into something other than what they were advertised to be, or that The Villages' structure is any different now versus then. Is there a political reason why this is now coming forward?

In all of the information on this matter, and I may have missed reading some things along the way, I haven't seen anything regarding the above questions. As a "political science junkie," it would seem the prior questions would be of interest.

And yes, "pocketbook and lifestyle" are important to many retirees. Getting out of the rat race brings with it a lot more focus on those things. In fact, both are so important that if you and yours desire to roam north a few miles to Lake Sumter Landing some evening, the first of the $1.75 Margaritas are on LindaZ and me.

[djl8412]

Panic over the on-going Villages CDD vs. IRS issue is certainly not adviseable, but neither is an attitude of becoming totally disconnected with events that could potentially impact your life.

It just amazes me how some look at hundreds of millions of dollars in possible CDD liability to satisfy the IRS as if it's a mere check for dinner at a local restaurant.

Again, we see examples of the automatic, knee-jerk "disgruntled reporter" response to information being provided by the fourth estate, as is their responsibility. Do these reporters have axes to grind with all of the subjects and/or individuals they write about. I don't think it's possible to manufacture that many axes.

IMHO, being informed and making rational decisions is a great balance. Making off-the-cuff, unsubstantiated insults because the news may not suit you is not a rational exchange.:cus:

[SteveZ]

Panic over the on-going Villages CDD vs. IRS issue is certainly not adviseable, but neither is an attitude of becoming totally disconnected with events that could potentially impact your life.

It just amazes me how some look at hundreds of millions of dollars in possible CDD liability to satisfy the IRS as if it's a mere check for dinner at a local restaurant.

Again, we see examples of the automatic, knee-jerk "disgruntled reporter" response to information being provided by the fourth estate, as is their responsibility. Do these reporters have axes to grind with all of the subjects and/or individuals they write about. I don't think it's possible to manufacture that many axes.

IMHO, being informed and making rational decisions is a great balance. Making off-the-cuff, unsubstantiated insults because the news may not suit you is not a rational exchange.:cus:

First of all, there is no "hundreds of millions of dollars in possible CDD liability" here. At the greatest possible extent, there is tax on bond interest, and that is truly negotiable as IRS' hands are not squeaky clean here. Call of the bonds, and reissue as taxable has a cost, but in today's market, bonds are popular.

What has been at the crux is the presentation of the information in a manner which inflames and creates (albeit unintentional ) a measure of panic among a target demographic. There is a distinct difference between "fact presentation" and a columnist's license to interject opinion within a writing. While the columnist has been professionally correct in her actions, that does not discount the fact that people have been frightened at a time they hoped to have achieved their greatest security. Again, there's a significant difference between "news" and "commentary."

Is there anything to be frightened of? I guess that depends on the person, and the facts, and the real consequences ( not the insinuated ones). To each their own, and to me (and speaking only for me) there is nothing that has occurred which has shaken my decision to move to TV or to continue living in TV. As nothing has appeared to have been done with "bad faith" or "criminal intent," - and if there was, the warrants (search and arrest) would have already been served - then its one of those "stuff happens" despite the best advice from competent counsel. What is lousy (and mighty peculiar) is that, for whatever reasons, this becomes an IRS matter so many years after the bonds were issued and sold.

[ricthemic]

I think if they ever allow Villages voting for district (what ever they call themselves) reps, Steve Z should be elected.

[SteveZ]

I think if they ever allow Villages voting for district (what ever they call themselves) reps, Steve Z should be elected.

I'm too politically incorrect for almost everyone (but my dog likes me)......

[djl8412]

At the greatest possible extent, there is tax on bond interest, and that is truly negotiable as IRS' hands are not squeaky clean here.

What is lousy (and mighty peculiar) is that, for whatever reasons, this becomes an IRS matter so many years after the bonds were issued and sold.

Can you elaborate on why the IRS' hands are not squeaky clean? Is it possible that the IRS agents back in 2003 could have been pressured to "back off" of this investigation then? If I recall, the IRS, while supposedly not finding direct violations, did hint that they still had concerns about how these bonds were being issued?

I too, have not been concerned to the point where I would leave TV. but I would never assume it's impossible that much more in the way of $ could be at stake in the future, especially if this becomes a "urinating" contest between the two parties.;)

[Advogado]

Panic over the on-going Villages CDD vs. IRS issue is certainly not adviseable, but neither is an attitude of becoming totally disconnected with events that could potentially impact your life.

It just amazes me how some look at hundreds of millions of dollars in possible CDD liability to satisfy the IRS as if it's a mere check for dinner at a local restaurant.

Again, we see examples of the automatic, knee-jerk "disgruntled reporter" response to information being provided by the fourth estate, as is their responsibility. Do these reporters have axes to grind with all of the subjects and/or individuals they write about. I don't think it's possible to manufacture that many axes.

IMHO, being informed and making rational decisions is a great balance. Making off-the-cuff, unsubstantiated insults because the news may not suit you is not a rational exchange.:cus:


To djl8412:
You (and Lauren Ritchie) are right about this matter. The implications are POTENTIALLY huge for Villagers, but it is still too early to say how the matter will play out. Unfortunately, the posters who ascribe the IRS's position to a low-level agent gone wild are overly optimistic about what is going on and misinformed about how the IRS operates. The current investigation is, in fact, part of a well-organized, national IRS crackdown on perceived abuses in the issuance of tax-exempt bonds. One can be fairly certain that a matter of this size is receiving high-level IRS attention.

To try to put this in perspective, set forth below is an attempt to quantify the costs and analyze the consequences of an acceptance of the IRS settlement offer, based on what we know now. Remember, if this settlement offer is turned down, the IRS is threatening to go after even bigger bucks.

According to the IRS, the current TOTAL tax exposure on all Series of bonds is $16,458,484. The first condition in the IRS settlement offer is that the IRS will settle for just "the tax exposure for the Series 2003 bonds", which is ONLY $2,877,366 plus post-2008 taxes that accrue until the bonds are redeemed.

The real cost, however, to the Central Districts (the owners and providers of our amenities) and to the Developer (technically, the Villages of Lake Sumter, Inc.-- a corporation that is owned by the Morse family) lies in conditions #2 and #3 of the IRS settlement offer:

Condition 2. The Center Districts would have to buy back about $360 million of outstanding bonds. How do the Districts raise this money? They would either have to (a) tax properties within their Districts, i.e., the Developer's properties, which the Central Districts obviously won't voluntarily do, since they are controlled by the Developer and, in any event, the Developer does not have $360 million in cash lying around, or (b) sell taxable bonds. Taxable bonds will presumably have to pay a higher interest rate than the Districts are currently paying on the tax-exempt bonds. How much more? I don't know since it would depend on the bond market, and the financial condition of the Central Districts, when the bonds are issued.

In fact, one would think that, with their underlying history, such taxable bonds might be a little tough to sell at all. But let's assume the cost is an extra 3%/year, which seems reasonable, over the interest now paid. That would be an extra ANNUAL cost of about $11 million. Amenity-fee increases are contractually capped at the CPI rate. So, how do the Central Districts cover this additional cost and still provide our amenities???

Condition 3. The Center Districts can no longer issue tax-exempt bonds. The Developer's strategy has been based on the ability of the Center Districts to issue low-cost tax-exempt bonds to pay the Developer for physical-amenity assets and for the assignment of the amenities' contracts, the latter resulting in a huge profit for the Developer. What happens to the future viability of the Developer's business model if that ability is lost???

The answers to the questions arising out of #2 and #3 are unclear at this point. If there is an attempt to offload the additonal costs on the Villagers or if the amenities that we were all promised by the Developer are reduced or destroyed, then another class action against the Developer, as well as against the two Central Districts and the others involved in the bond transactions, may be necessary. In that case, as an earlier Poster said, "Thank God for the Property Owners' Association."

[katezbox]

... but I have to agree with Steve Z and V07.

We could speculate about this endlessly - and generate lots of heat but very little light.

IRS agents are people too - just like folks at Bear Stearns, et al. They can be ambitious and lose perspective in their quest for promotion, or to be kinder, justice.

We can read about this and learn the facts - keeping in mind that Ms, Ritchie is ONE viewpoint. Or, we can gnash our teeth and worry ourselves into a frenzy, while in reality we are some of the luckiest people in the world to live in this place.

In the meantime, offers will be made, negotiated, refuted or accepted. We have little (if any) influence in this. We do have influence over ourselves, and I don't plan to ruin a single day of my life worrying over this.

Kate

PS - and lest I be accused of burying my head in the sand... I am a CPA who has actually been involved in the issue of tax free bonds.. so have personally dotted the i's and crossed the t's etc.

[SUNNYMARYANN]

I hate to admit my ignorance but this is all way over my head. I have never been intereted in bonds or political issues and that is to my disadvantage. I am waiting to sell my house in La and a devout Wannabee to TV. My concern is whether this issue is going to someday affect the homeowners in TV in their pocketbooks? I was already surprised to learn about the 'bond' involved in buying into TV and had never heard of it anywhere else. This latest dialogue involving the IRS and taxable non-taxable bonds is making me think perhaps TV in not the right place for me on a retirees income. I dont want anymore $$$ surprises than life already throws my way.

[katezbox]

I hate to admit my ignorance but this is all way over my head. I have never been intereted in bonds or political issues and that is to my disadvantage. I am waiting to sell my house in La and a devout Wannabee to TV. My concern is whether this issue is going to someday affect the homeowners in TV in their pocketbooks? I was already surprised to learn about the 'bond' involved in buying into TV and had never heard of it anywhere else. This latest dialogue involving the IRS and taxable non-taxable bonds is making me think perhaps TV in not the right place for me on a retirees income. I dont want anymore $$$ surprises than life already throws my way.

Mary Ann,

The bond associated with your home in TV is a common practice in many areas.

Again, we can speculate until the Buffalo "come home" but it is just speculation.

There are a couple of threads on this topic that may be worth a search for your own piece of mind. I went through some basics of how bonds work a couple of times.

[graciegirl]

... but I have to agree with Steve Z and V07.

We could speculate about this endlessly - and generate lots of heat but very little light.

IRS agents are people too - just like folks at Bear Stearns, et al. They can be ambitious and lose perspective in their quest for promotion, or to be kinder, justice.

We can read about this and learn the facts - keeping in mind that Ms, Ritchie is ONE viewpoint. Or, we can gnash our teeth and worry ourselves into a frenzy, while in reality we are some of the luckiest people in the world to live in this place.

In the meantime, offers will be made, negotiated, refuted or accepted. We have little (if any) influence in this. We do have influence over ourselves, and I don't plan to ruin a single day of my life worrying over this.

Kate

PS - and lest I be accused of burying my head in the sand... I am a CPA who has actually been involved in the issue of tax free bonds.. so have personally dotted the i's and crossed the t's etc.

Kate. Very good advice indeed.
I used to think that I was in charge of the universe. When I quit believing that, it continued on. We can't ruin our lives over this.

Kate. You are my kinda gal!

[English Ivy]

Kate I was hoping you'd post on this matter again. Your previous posts on this topic were very informative.

I'm wondering if you've had the opportunity to read the IRS documentation regarding this matter which has now been published, and if in your professional opinion they have grounds to pursue this? The reporters put their slant and opinion on their columns, but what does the actual IRS correspondence to the VCCDD tell you?

I know you have better things to do living in The Villages than read this stuff, but next time we have a rainy day maybe you could take a look.

Hope you're enjoying your new home in the beautiful village of Bonita!

Here's the link to the IRS documents in case anyone didn't see it.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/media/acrobat/2009-05/47202149.pdf

[SNOK]

While it is way too early to draw any conclusions or get anxious about the potential IRS ruling, if the ruling finally made is to deem the bonds to be taxable instead of tax free, and the CDC has to either find a way to fund the increase in the interest rate or repurchase the bonds, there would then be another lengthy negotiation or litigation (depending on the position of the developer), because the implication would be that the developer was paid too much for the properties sold to the districts. The liability would most likely revert to the developer who profited from the sale of the amenities to the district at "fair values" that would be quite different were tax-free financing not available at the time of the sale to the district. I suspect the developer will take more of a hit from an adverse ruling than will the home owners.

[Lauren Ritchie]

snok,

the developer and the district are legally separate entities. the developer will not take a hit on this, unless he decides for reasons of his own that he wishes to become involved. he was simply the seller in a series of transactions, and he has two appraisals showing that the price is reasonable. (the IRS disagrees with the appraisal methods, but that only goes to the issue of whether this was an 'arm's length' transaction. the IRS doesn't care whether the district overpaid.)

the IRS is NOT investigating gary morse. as i've said in other posts, he paid taxes on his gains. he is not liable for any taxes on the bonds because he didn't issue the bonds -- your district did.

think of it as selling a car....if you sell a car to someone who gets a loan, you get paid, right? if later, the bank realizes that the person paid too much for the car and maybe didn't fill out the loan forms right, the car doesn't come back to you, does it? well, it's the same here.

these sales were structured so that morse is simply a willing seller and the district a willing buyer.

any "liability" that morse might have would have to come from a judgment in court...if someone takes him there. but it won't be the IRS.

hope that helps.
lauren

[Advogado]

Lauen,

If the costs resulting from resolution of the IRS investigation prevent the Center Districts from delivering the amenities that the residents were promised by the Developer, the residents will presumably take the necessary legal action to hold the Developer accountable. When amenities previously declined, the residents initiated a class action and won a settlement, as I recall, of about $43 million--now being paid by the Developer in annual installments.

The posters in this thread who are taking an "It's-not-my-worry approach" to the present situation are the benefiting today from the efforts of their neighbors who did worry, got involved, and spearheaded that class action. The rest of us owe those neighbors a vote of thanks for our ability to continue to enjoy our amenities and the lifestyle we were promised when we bought our homes.

If the IRS prevails here, it may well be class-action time all over again because it would appear that the continuation of our amenities system will, at the very least, be threatened. (In that situation, the IRS documents will provide the basis for a particularly good case against the Developer.) If events do reach that point, the residents will be very fortunate to have the Property Owners' Association to help represent their interests-- because there is no other organized group of residents that will do so.

[EdV]

....as i've said in other posts, he paid taxes on his gains. he is not liable for any taxes on the bonds because he didn't issue the bonds -- your district did.


Lauren,

Please stop referring to it as Your district. As I've said in my previous posts, it's His district!

What is it about this that you don't seem to get? Read what I said before and if there's anything you don't understand, I'll be happy to explain it to you.

[Advogado]

Lauren,

Please stop referring to it as Your district. As I've said in my previous posts, it's His district!

What is it about this that you don't seem to get? Read what I said before and if there's anything you don't understand, I'll be happy to explain it to you.

EdV, hey, let's be nice to Lauren. Her writing may, from time to time, need to be more precise (this situation is complicated), but she is on your side here, as am I.

Minor point: The Developer is technically an "it" (The Villages of Lake Sumter, Inc.) not a "he". In fact, Gary Morse and the family may attempt to hide behind the veil of that corporation if this IRS problem really goes south, but we all know the reality of the situation. It would certainly be comforting for the Morse family to step up, at this point, and reassure the residents that we have nothing to worry about and that the family will ensure that our amenities are continued, no matter what. Instead, thus far, all we have is silence and non-reporting by the Daily Sun.

[cabo35]

Panic over the on-going Villages CDD vs. IRS issue is certainly not advisable, but neither is an attitude of becoming totally disconnected with events that could potentially impact your life.

It just amazes me how some look at hundreds of millions of dollars in possible CDD liability to satisfy the IRS as if it's a mere check for dinner at a local restaurant.

Again, we see examples of the automatic, knee-jerk "disgruntled reporter" response to information being provided by the fourth estate, as is their responsibility. Do these reporters have axes to grind with all of the subjects and/or individuals they write about. I don't think it's possible to manufacture that many axes.

IMHO, being informed and making rational decisions is a great balance. Making off-the-cuff, unsubstantiated insults because the news may not suit you is not a rational exchange.:cus:


I take exception with your representation that Lauren Ritchie is a "reporter". She is not. Reporters report news without bias, just facts. It appears to me that Ms. Ritchie contrives and selectively reports components of a story that support and advance her preconceived opinions and prejudices. To her credit, I believe she acknowledged this fact in one of her prior postings. She is a columnist and not required to be objective in her writing. I do not have my head in the sand....I just wish a real reporter would write or post, "Just the facts ma'am, just the facts". Attribution and apologies to Sgt. Joe Friday.

The saddest thing to me is the anxiety among salt of the earth friends, neighbors and retirees, her biased "fishing" and seed planting has created as evidenced by some posters.

Funny thing, no one has ever told be about a Lauren Ritchie column on the economic impact The Villages has had on Sumter, Lake and Marion Counties.Things like jobs, tax revenues increases in per capita income outside TV.

Just my opinions and random thoughts. What do I know.

I have no connection with the developer. IMHO, he's not a candidate for sainthood but he has done a lot more good than bad. Many, including my wife and I have been the beneficiary of the Schwartz/Morse dream and lifestyle.

I believe that SteveZ has articulated the majority viewpoint for Villagers.

[ricthemic]

I have been following this subject for many months on this site and as a potential property buyer in TV I just want to comment on an earlier post from another potential buyer who indicated her investment concerns. I understand all the laissez fare post from TV residents because if I already purchased there I would feel the same way.. guess what it is out of their hands so why worry about it.
But I think there may be others besides the previous concerned buyer and me that are concerned about the outcome and possible negative ramifications for the home owners.

Also, Lauren thank you for doing your job.
You people want to see really one sided, agenda based, bias reporting read the Boston Globe.

[barb1191]

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/lake/orl-villages-tax-problems-053009,0,6055966.story

[JimJoe]

I have been following this subject for many months on this site and as a potential property buyer in TV I just want to comment on an earlier post from another potential buyer who indicated her investment concerns. I understand all the laissez fare post from TV residents because if I already purchased there I would feel the same way.. guess what it is out of their hands so why worry about it.
But I think there may be others besides the previous concerned buyer and me that are concerned about the outcome and possible negative ramifications for the home owners.

Also, Lauren thank you for doing your job.
You people want to see really one sided, agenda based, bias reporting read the Boston Globe.

I also want to thank Lauren and point out that this issue brings back to light a very important question.
What exactly are you entitled to get for your monthly amenity fee? Is that in writing anywhere? If not why not?? Do you really pay and just hope the money goes for what it is intended? Who decides if the money is really being spend on amenities, if the amounts are fair, and which amenities get funded? From what I can tell there needs to be some clarifications. Why are some things funded and some not? Why pools, game courts, and golf courses but not dog parks, gyms and bowling alleys? Many Villagers love their pets as much as others love their activities. Should not the Villagers decide this? Is this the problem that spawned the lawsuit which was settled for money and promises? This lack of involvement by the Villagers in decision making is the problem. Maybe the Villagers would not have bought the right to collect amenities fees and the tax exempt bonds would never have been sold? Maybe the Villagers would have hired a different bonding firm that would have advised that the bonds could not be tax exempt for the same reasons given by the IRS? If Villagers pay the bills, they should decide. The solution to all of this could be for the villagers to self govern, and isn't really that what Florida law contemplates happening at this point in development?
Maybe it is time to vote.

[Quixote]

As a villages wannabee, its funny to see so many different personalties from sensible to self rightous to I told you so to panic.

I wonder if bonds issued in 2003 payed a higher interest then now so if the bonds had to be issued again today with a tanked economy if they would pay a lower interest, even taxfree vs taxed? Does anyone know, not just guess but really know?

[Quixote]

Also of course the Daily sun and the Orlando newspaper has their own viewpoints. Every newspaper has their own viewpoint, like someone said about the Boston Globe. And theyre suppose to. They all have different owners with different point of views. Whats the suprise?

[katezbox]

Also of course the Daily sun and the Orlando newspaper has their own viewpoints. Every newspaper has their own viewpoint, like someone said about the Boston Globe. And theyre suppose to. They all have different owners with different point of views. Whats the suprise?

Don,

You are so right. Newspapers have always had an editorial bias. If you read American History, you can see how this shaped our nation.

I think the issue with the Sentinel (and many other media and print outlets today), is that it is hard to determine where opinion ends and news begins. This truly feeds the rumor-mongering as so many people only get their news from one place.

I may not always agree with the fairly liberal Boston Globe, but the quality of their writing is excellent and (IMHO) not anywhere near the level of the Sentinel.

Ivy,

My fellow Bonita-er... I have read the IRS document awhile back - but I will try to get around to re-reading and sharing my thoughts.

The problem with TV is that there is no time.... (especially for those of us who are still working).

Kate

[ejp52]

I plan on enjoying the Villages everyday and what ever will be will be. Personally to get worked up over something that may or may not be an issue is not how I plan on living.:beer3: :icon_hungry: :pepper2:

[SNOK]

snok,

the developer and the district are legally separate entities. the developer will not take a hit on this, unless he decides for reasons of his own that he wishes to become involved. he was simply the seller in a series of transactions, and he has two appraisals showing that the price is reasonable. (the IRS disagrees with the appraisal methods, but that only goes to the issue of whether this was an 'arm's length' transaction. the IRS doesn't care whether the district overpaid.)

the IRS is NOT investigating gary morse. as i've said in other posts, he paid taxes on his gains. he is not liable for any taxes on the bonds because he didn't issue the bonds -- your district did.

think of it as selling a car....if you sell a car to someone who gets a loan, you get paid, right? if later, the bank realizes that the person paid too much for the car and maybe didn't fill out the loan forms right, the car doesn't come back to you, does it? well, it's the same here.

these sales were structured so that morse is simply a willing seller and the district a willing buyer.

any "liability" that morse might have would have to come from a judgment in court...if someone takes him there. but it won't be the IRS.

hope that helps.
lauren

I understand that the IRS is not investigating the developer. I am not referring to his taxes on his gain, but to the amount of the gain itself, and wether it was properly calculated, if the cost of financing is changed. While the district is a separate entity, the sale to the district was not an arms length transaction due to the effective control of the district by the developer. The developer was in control of the valuation of the assets and, even if not the entity arranging the financing, certainly very influential in the financing. I think the asset value paid by the district was, at least to some extent, dependent on the lower cost of the tax-free financing to the purchaser. Therefore, the developer profited to some extent from the financing method used. While the developer is not subject to the IRS ruling, I still think the district will have a legitimate claim against the developer for unjust profits based on over valuation of the assets, if the district loses the benefit of low cost tax-free financing. I'm sure there are lawyers that could make a good case if it comes to it. I also suspect that, before the cost is ultimately born by the residents, it will be an issue that must be investigated by the district.

[Muncle]

I read (and reread) this tiresome thread and see that as far as the IRS situation is concerned, there's nothing factual and meaningful new. In fact, there's been nothing new of any import since Ms Ritchie wrote her first opinion piece. Even the Sentinel's attempt at straight reporting last Saturday was light on facts and long on innuendo. But that is to be understood. At this time, there are no facts of consequence.

Our Chicken Littles want to know how much the IRS decision finding someone in TV at fault is going to cost homeowners. First, there is no such decision. Second, "someone" seems to float between the central districts, the numbered districts, the developer as a corporate entity, and the Morse family as a group and individuals. Third, absolutely no one can even provide a ballpark figure for the most pessimistic of outcomes, much less which of our "someones" might be liable and for what. Some of these CLs claim that this dreaded Sword Of Damocles hanging over TV will keep them from moving here. Sorry about that. There's a lot of nice places out there. Hope you find one.

I was a bit harsh there, but there are so many people who claim, even brag on ignorance of the CDD concept and the various bonds. Go to http://www.districtgov.org/ and read up on CDDs. Attend the Orientation course and ask about how bonds are used and the different types. Drop an email to Janet Tutt Janet.Tutt@districtgov.org and ask her all your questions. Or easiest of all, use the Search function at the top of this page. These issues have been hashed and rehashed on TOTV several times, and some comments are even factual.

And of course, this topic always brings out more than our share of the "antis" who love TV and wouldn't live anywhere else, but pass up no opportunity to criticize, especially the Morses. A common cry amongst many of these people is that we residents are disenfranchised, that we should control all things in TV. If only that would happen, that we could vote, we could have multiple dog parks in each villages (NIMBY, please). Well, I know the turnip truck just came through town and some may not know this, but we vote now. Depending on the age of your CDD, all or part of the officers in your CDD are elected, either by a landholder or eligible elector vote. Up north, all numbered CDD are elected by resident electors (eligible FL voters). Those CDDs then appoint members to the Amenity Authority Committee http://www.districtgov.org/vccdd/wn-aac.asp For Southerners, not to worry. We'll get the same situation down here as the development matures.

Oh, and for those who salivate at the thought of criticizing the Daily Sun, I though Janet Tutt's explanation of the IRS peccadillo that appeared a couple months ago was far superior to the opinion pieces or the straight news published in Orlando. She couldn't and didn't give a lot of details, since there were not a lot available and as SteveZ and others have said, you don't try a case like this in the media.




`

[djl8412]

It's fine to take "exception" to my generalization to Ms. Ritchie as a "reporter." A mere technicality it a person's title does not preclude the fact that Ms. Ritchie DOES combine fact with an opinionated slant. She has written many articles as a columnist regarding other topics in central Fla. that she feels have potential impacts of people in all walks of life. I believe her goal is to let people know that you need to take a look around once in a while and pay attention to things that may have an effect on your life either now or in the future.

By the way, there was an article by a "reporter" about the bond issue in the Sentinel on the same day as Ms. Ritchie's column.

[katezbox]

I read (and reread) this tiresome thread and see that as far as the IRS situation is concerned, there's nothing factual and meaningful new. In fact, there's been nothing new of any import since Ms Ritchie wrote her first opinion piece. Even the Sentinel's attempt at straight reporting last Saturday was light on facts and long on innuendo. But that is to be understood. At this time, there are no facts of consequence.

Our Chicken Littles want to know how much the IRS decision finding someone in TV at fault is going to cost homeowners. First, there is no such decision. Second, "someone" seems to float between the central districts, the numbered districts, the developer as a corporate entity, and the Morse family as a group and individuals. Third, absolutely no one can even provide a ballpark figure for the most pessimistic of outcomes, much less which of our "someones" might be liable and for what. Some of these CLs claim that this dreaded Sword Of Damocles hanging over TV will keep them from moving here. Sorry about that. There's a lot of nice places out there. Hope you find one.

I was a bit harsh there, but there are so many people who claim, even brag on ignorance of the CDD concept and the various bonds. Go to http://www.districtgov.org/ and read up on CDDs. Attend the Orientation course and ask about how bonds are used and the different types. Drop an email to Janet Tutt Janet.Tutt@districtgov.org and ask her all your questions. Or easiest of all, use the Search function at the top of this page. These issues have been hashed and rehashed on TOTV several times, and some comments are even factual.

And of course, this topic always brings out more than our share of the "antis" who love TV and wouldn't live anywhere else, but pass up no opportunity to criticize, especially the Morses. A common cry amongst many of these people is that we residents are disenfranchised, that we should control all things in TV. If only that would happen, that we could vote, we could have multiple dog parks in each villages (NIMBY, please). Well, I know the turnip truck just came through town and some may not know this, but we vote now. Depending on the age of your CDD, all or part of the officers in your CDD are elected, either by a landholder or eligible elector vote. Up north, all numbered CDD are elected by resident electors (eligible FL voters). Those CDDs then appoint members to the Amenity Authority Committee http://www.districtgov.org/vccdd/wn-aac.asp For Southerners, not to worry. We'll get the same situation down here as the development matures.

Oh, and for those who salivate at the thought of criticizing the Daily Sun, I though Janet Tutt's explanation of the IRS peccadillo that appeared a couple months ago was far superior to the opinion pieces or the straight news published in Orlando. She couldn't and didn't give a lot of details, since there were not a lot available and as SteveZ and others have said, you don't try a case like this in the media.




`

Thank you Muncie - well said.

[rsetterlund]

Here is a link to the Bond Buyer Guide, the article was posted on www.bondbuyer.com/washington today.

http://www.bondbuyer.com/article.html?id=20090601HPCWB64J

[SteveZ]

It's fine to take "exception" to my generalization to Ms. Ritchie as a "reporter." A mere technicality it a person's title does not preclude the fact that Ms. Ritchie DOES combine fact with an opinionated slant. She has written many articles as a columnist regarding other topics in central Fla. that she feels have potential impacts of people in all walks of life. I believe her goal is to let people know that you need to take a look around once in a while and pay attention to things that may have an effect on your life either now or in the future.

By the way, there was an article by a "reporter" about the bond issue in the Sentinel on the same day as Ms. Ritchie's column.

And that's the reporter who referred to The Villages as "the playground for 77,000 retirees"

play·ground (plground) n. ((http://www.thefreedictionary.com/playground))
1. An outdoor area set aside for recreation and play, especially one containing equipment such as seesaws and swings.
2. A field or sphere of unrestricted pleasurable activity

It's interesting to know the Sentinel considers us retirees as being in a "playground" as opposed to having a residential community. Their selection of the term "playground" is highly disrespectful to all of us and gives the image of us retirees as second-childhood types. The negative slant of our community was unquestionably intentional, as words are the Sentinel's tools of the trade, so the selection of the term 'playground" was hardly accidental. Whatever their intent was regarding the bond matter, there was no need to insult TV residents.

[downeaster]

I
Oh, and for those who salivate at the thought of criticizing the Daily Sun, I though Janet Tutt's explanation of the IRS peccadillo that appeared a couple months ago was far superior to the opinion pieces or the straight news published in Orlando. She couldn't and didn't give a lot of details, since there were not a lot available and as SteveZ and others have said, you don't try a case like this in the media.
`

I agree wholeheartedly. Especially your last paragraph quoted above.

I have seen an encouraging change in The Sun and Ms Tutt's comments confirmed this. It is still a cheer leader for the developer but we are getting more hard news.
Newspapers are struggling now and the Sentinel is no exception. They must see The Villages as a potential for increased subscribers and if they stir the pot enough they may win a few. However, if they portray us as a bunch of silly oldsters who don't know which end is up they may lose ground in a hurry. Also, if The Sun continues to publish a more professional paper there will be little need for The Sentinel.
BTW, I cancelled my subscription to The Sentinel months ago.

[JimJoe]

I read (and reread) this tiresome thread and see that as far as the IRS situation is concerned, there's nothing factual and meaningful new. In fact, there's been nothing new of any import since Ms Ritchie wrote her first opinion piece. Even the Sentinel's attempt at straight reporting last Saturday was light on facts and long on innuendo. But that is to be understood. At this time, there are no facts of consequence.

Our Chicken Littles want to know how much the IRS decision finding someone in TV at fault is going to cost homeowners. First, there is no such decision. Second, "someone" seems to float between the central districts, the numbered districts, the developer as a corporate entity, and the Morse family as a group and individuals. Third, absolutely no one can even provide a ballpark figure for the most pessimistic of outcomes, much less which of our "someones" might be liable and for what. Some of these CLs claim that this dreaded Sword Of Damocles hanging over TV will keep them from moving here. Sorry about that. There's a lot of nice places out there. Hope you find one.

I was a bit harsh there, but there are so many people who claim, even brag on ignorance of the CDD concept and the various bonds. Go to http://www.districtgov.org/ and read up on CDDs. Attend the Orientation course and ask about how bonds are used and the different types. Drop an email to Janet Tutt Janet.Tutt@districtgov.org and ask her all your questions. Or easiest of all, use the Search function at the top of this page. These issues have been hashed and rehashed on TOTV several times, and some comments are even factual.

And of course, this topic always brings out more than our share of the "antis" who love TV and wouldn't live anywhere else, but pass up no opportunity to criticize, especially the Morses. A common cry amongst many of these people is that we residents are disenfranchised, that we should control all things in TV. If only that would happen, that we could vote, we could have multiple dog parks in each villages (NIMBY, please). Well, I know the turnip truck just came through town and some may not know this, but we vote now. Depending on the age of your CDD, all or part of the officers in your CDD are elected, either by a landholder or eligible elector vote. Up north, all numbered CDD are elected by resident electors (eligible FL voters). Those CDDs then appoint members to the Amenity Authority Committee http://www.districtgov.org/vccdd/wn-aac.asp For Southerners, not to worry. We'll get the same situation down here as the development matures.

Oh, and for those who salivate at the thought of criticizing the Daily Sun, I though Janet Tutt's explanation of the IRS peccadillo that appeared a couple months ago was far superior to the opinion pieces or the straight news published in Orlando. She couldn't and didn't give a lot of details, since there were not a lot available and as SteveZ and others have said, you don't try a case like this in the media.




`

If you don't want to read about this subject, don't. Please, no name calling or put downs. Remember, this is Florida's friendliest hometown.

[bimmertl]

And that's the reporter who referred to The Villages as "the playground for 77,000 retirees"

play·ground (plground) n. ((http://www.thefreedictionary.com/playground))
1. An outdoor area set aside for recreation and play, especially one containing equipment such as seesaws and swings.
2. A field or sphere of unrestricted pleasurable activity

It's interesting to know the Sentinel considers us retirees as being in a "playground" as opposed to having a residential community. Their selection of the term "playground" is highly disrespectful to all of us and gives the image of us retirees as second-childhood types. The negative slant of our community was unquestionably intentional, as words are the Sentinel's tools of the trade, so the selection of the term 'playground" was hardly accidental. Whatever their intent was regarding the bond matter, there was no need to insult TV residents.

This has to be one of the funniest posts of all times. Stevez, one of the great pontificators and experts on just about everything, is emotionally upset TV was referred to as a "playground" for retirees, and is upset at such at reference. Then to make his point, he finds some simplistic definition which backs up his childish anger.

Amazingly, when I Googled "playground" the first thing that came up as a definition was "resort area: an area where many people go for recreation" (just Google "define playground) I guess Steveo missed that one. Try Googling "playground of the rich and famous" for a list of places like Monaco, French Riviera, Malibu etc.

So the next time Steveo is ranting away and pontificating on a broad range of subjects, remember this post and how he twisted a definition to match his indignation and create a bogus argument how the author of an article he didn't agree with insulted all the folks in TV. What a crock!

By the way, be sure, you never refer to TV as an adult Disneyworld around the Zman, or you will no doubt incur his wrath.

.

[surfangel]

Typical, overblown, anti-Villages story from the Orlando Sentinel. I'm not "outraged" by this single investigators report.

Yes ignorance is bliss. Hear no evil see no evil
Quote from Ms. Ritchie article<<Morse becomes almost unfathomably rich from the bond proceeds. And residents are saddled with 30 years of payments on $709 million worth of loans.....Without bonds, that $16 million annually could be going into building and operating even more fun stuff for Villages residents instead of paying off the loans that made Morse rich.>>

But apparently the little village people are quite happy playing with their golf balls. I for one worked very hard for my money, and don't like the idea of paying more than I should. Mr. Morse could do more for the Villages like include lawn service and bigger swimming pools with covers but he sleeps well at night knowing that nobody cares how rich he gets using our money.
As much as I hate the IRS, the are not going put a dent in Mr. Morse bank account he will simply take out the difference in amenity fees.
Solivata is looking very good right now. It maybe smaller than the Villages but it has better toys.

[SteveZ]

This has to be one of the funniest posts of all times. Stevez, one of the great pontificators and experts on just about everything, is emotionally upset TV was referred to as a "playground" for retirees, and is upset at such at reference. Then to make his point, he finds some simplistic definition which backs up his childish anger.

Amazingly, when I Googled "playground" the first thing that came up as a definition was "resort area: an area where many people go for recreation" (just Google "define playground) I guess Steveo missed that one. Try Googling "playground of the rich and famous" for a list of places like Monaco, French Riviera, Malibu etc.

So the next time Steveo is ranting away and pontificating on a broad range of subjects, remember this post and how he twisted a definition to match his indignation and create a bogus argument how the author of an article he didn't agree with insulted all the folks in TV. What a crock!

By the way, be sure, you never refer to TV as an adult Disneyworld around the Zman, or you will no doubt incur his wrath.

.
Take all the personal potshots you want at me. According to an old popular phrase where I once worked, 'It don't mean nuthin..."

If you google "playground definition," check the first three responses.

This "playground" as the Sentinel calls it provides more volunteer services hours and money to the tri-county than all any other region or population group by magnitudes. It's the major employer and still the economic driver for the area, continuing in spite of problems everywhere else. The retirees here have WORKED their collective butts off for decades to be in the position to have a measure of security for themselves and their families, and still contribute to society in a myriad of ways. Many still are employed, full- and part-time, due to the economy and crumbled retirement account.

Yes, we have a community with many amenities for which we have paid, and still pay, no different than any other city within this state. Then only difference between The Villages and any other city within Florida is the fact that the residents are, for the most part, in the 50-85 year old range. So, what we have here as amenities are what fits the age bracket.

We still are able to provide schooling K-12 for the children of TV employees, and that schooling ranks as within the best in the State. Residents here work darned hard to insure the children receive the best by investing their time in a myriad of support projects, and the scholastic records of those kids demonstrate the effort expended by the kids and the retiree volunteers.

TV residents spend incalculable hours working in regional soup kitchens, free clinics, prison ministries, veterans service facilities, and every church and civic charity imaginable.

The Sentinel's insinuation by the use of the term "playground" was demeaning, as it seems to have been intended to give the impression TV residents simply float from golf course to cabaret, in a constant state of recreational euphoria. If you consider any response to that as humorous or a pontification, that's your choice.

[djl8412]

Steve Z:

It's surprising to see you your skin so thin when the reporter called TV a playground for retirees. With all the advertising TV does nationwide for all the activities and amenities here, it doesn't seem insulting when one uses that summary. I kind of think it's a playground even though I'm not retired yet and I like it here. It sure ain't no nursing home.

[schotzyb]

This has to be one of the funniest posts of all times. Stevez, one of the great pontificators and experts on just about everything, is emotionally upset TV was referred to as a "playground" for retirees, and is upset at such at reference. Then to make his point, he finds some simplistic definition which backs up his childish anger.

Amazingly, when I Googled "playground" the first thing that came up as a definition was "resort area: an area where many people go for recreation" (just Google "define playground) I guess Steveo missed that one. Try Googling "playground of the rich and famous" for a list of places like Monaco, French Riviera, Malibu etc.

So the next time Steveo is ranting away and pontificating on a broad range of subjects, remember this post and how he twisted a definition to match his indignation and create a bogus argument how the author of an article he didn't agree with insulted all the folks in TV. What a crock!

By the way, be sure, you never refer to TV as an adult Disneyworld around the Zman, or you will no doubt incur his wrath.

.

I have never read in any of Steve Z's post where he claims to be an expert on any subject. He states his opinion on a subject and from what I have been told, that is what a forum is for.I for one enjoy SteveZ's opinions on various subject and that is why I choose to read them. Nobody is forcing you to read his entries.

[katezbox]

Yes ignorance is bliss. Hear no evil see no evil
Quote from Ms. Ritchie article<<Morse becomes almost unfathomably rich from the bond proceeds. And residents are saddled with 30 years of payments on $709 million worth of loans.....Without bonds, that $16 million annually could be going into building and operating even more fun stuff for Villages residents instead of paying off the loans that made Morse rich.>>

But apparently the little village people are quite happy playing with their golf balls. I for one worked very hard for my money, and don't like the idea of paying more than I should. Mr. Morse could do more for the Villages like include lawn service and bigger swimming pools with covers but he sleeps well at night knowing that nobody cares how rich he gets using our money.
As much as I hate the IRS, the are not going put a dent in Mr. Morse bank account he will simply take out the difference in amenity fees.
Solivata is looking very good right now. It maybe smaller than the Villages but it has better toys.

1. Do you know what a bond is and is not?

2. The Morse family are developers, not charitable foundations. People know what they were buying and it doesn't include "bigger swimming pools with covers."

3. Do you know who the amenity fees are paid to - hint, it is NOT the developer.

TV is not for everyone - but it is my home. I feel privileged to have earned a place to live here. It is not a resort or a playground - although many of our guests have a wonderful time here. It is a place where many people are happy to say "Life is Good."

[Advogado]

We seem to have strayed here. The subject is not whether or not StevieZ is a pontificator, whether or not The Villages is a playground or merely a great place to live, or whether Lauren Ritchie is a columnist or a reporter or neither. The subject is the very serious question of the impact of an IRS victory on the future of The Villages.

[Stantheman]

Stantheman,

there's no "conflict" between florida law and federal law because they address different things.

florida law creates a community development district and gives it power to issue bonds. i do not believe the law says does not say "tax exempt bonds."

the federal tax codes specify what makes a bond issue meet the test of "tax exempt." the IRS is applying the code to this issue and saying that it doesn't meet the test.

the district's defense is that it is a government under florida law and as such, it should be able to issue tax-exempt bonds.

the IRS says that argument is specious. its response: 'well, you might be a government under florida law, but state law doesn't matter to us when determining whether bonds are tax exempt. the two do NOT necessarily go together.'

that is what the agent meant when when he declared that the district's attorney archie lowry had made an "irrelevant" argument.

the IRS has a set of tests that it applies to any bond issue anywhere in the united states. pass, and it's tax-exempt. fail and it's not.

so, at the end of the day, these bonds could be declared formally as taxable and the district is still just as much a valid government under florida law as it was yesterday.

hope that helps.

--lauren
Lauren,

Thanx for your response - very helpful. Again on a pure speculative point - facilities have not yet been sold for an area that we consider to be from RT 466, south to Route 466A an area larger than what the existing bond offerings had previously covered with alot more facilities (rec centers, golf courses, pools, etc.), and people.

Based upon what we know today would Mr. Morse be able to sell those facilities in the future to the VCDD on the same projected revenue basis as the previously contested facilities and prices?

My guess says Mr. Morse settles the issue, pays the penalty, reimburses the VCDD for the difference in interest rates between tax-free and taxable bonds for the 2003 facilities sales , and establishes a more defendable yet profitable evaluation process going forward for a considerable amount of future facilities sales.

Resulting Outcome:

- cost to settle is minimal compared to revenue that was generated from this 2003 offering and all previous facility sales

- residents are made whole as no increase in costs or increase in amenity fees resultng from change in tax status on new bond issue

-future facility sales are not put in jeopardy since the whole world will be watching closely for any unsubstantiated evaluation as well as requirement for arms length transaction

- future home sales not effected since whole issue has been resolved

your thoughts?

thanx

[SteveZ]

Steve Z:

It's surprising to see you your skin so thin when the reporter called TV a playground for retirees. With all the advertising TV does nationwide for all the activities and amenities here, it doesn't seem insulting when one uses that summary. I kind of think it's a playground even though I'm not retired yet and I like it here. It sure ain't no nursing home.

Of all of my many faults, "thin skin" isn't one of them.

I love it here, too. And I agree that it's no nursing home. But it isn't an amusement park, either.

In Post #62 there was notice that when the Sentinel columnist wrote on the bond topic, it was done with "fact with an opinionated slant." And at the end of the post was the notice that a "reporter" instead of a columnist also wrote an article on the topic, as if the fact that the "reporter's" writing was devoid of opinion.

"Playground" is hardly an objective description of The Villages, anymore than "Orlando Makes Me Smile" (the official slogan of Orlando Tourism) describes the true City of Orlando - which ranked #6 in Forbes' Top 15 most dangerous cities in the USA (April 2009). Which is true (both, either or neither?) Marketing slogans are subjective hype. To insinuate they represent and claim them as an "objective description" of the place is poor reporting and worse editing, unless there is indeed "columnist" intent versus journalistic objectivity.

[SteveZ]

We seem to have strayed here. The subject is not whether or not StevieZ is a pontificator, whether or not The Villages is a playground or merely a great place to live, or whether Lauren Ritchie is a columnist or a reporter or neither. The subject is the very serious question of the impact of an IRS victory on the future of The Villages.
Pontificator that I may be.....

Until the matter is settled between the Government (IRS) and TVCCD, it's all conjecture. "Impact" won't be known until quantification has been settled, and that seems very much a matter of negotiation.

It's rare that any party puts their "best and final" position as their first and public position. It's usually the starting point, and then the negotiators work from each's starting point, rarely meeting in the middle. So, until the negotiations are complete, or, if stale-mated, the matter is litigated through all the appropriate judicial levels, it's a guessing game for the rest of us.

Would I like to see conclusion of the matter? Yep! However, trying to guess the outcome based on the public record is trying to claim that some algorithm can be applied to everything (including unspoken negotiation positions and other factors which can come into play during private talks) which can spit out an answer. That algorithm doesn't exist.

So much for this pontification....

[Muncle]

Yes ignorance is bliss. Hear no evil see no evil
Quote from Ms. Ritchie article<<Morse becomes almost unfathomably rich from the bond proceeds. And residents are saddled with 30 years of payments on $709 million worth of loans.....Without bonds, that $16 million annually could be going into building and operating even more fun stuff for Villages residents instead of paying off the loans that made Morse rich.>>

But apparently the little village people are quite happy playing with their golf balls. I for one worked very hard for my money, and don't like the idea of paying more than I should. Mr. Morse could do more for the Villages like include lawn service and bigger swimming pools with covers but he sleeps well at night knowing that nobody cares how rich he gets using our money.
As much as I hate the IRS, the are not going put a dent in Mr. Morse bank account he will simply take out the difference in amenity fees.
Solivata is looking very good right now. It maybe smaller than the Villages but it has better toys.

Don't let the door hit ya!



`

[Bogie Shooter]

What is a Solivata?
One pool, one golf course, one rec center.
Hope you enjoy!

[Quixote]

Lauren,

My guess says Mr. Morse settles the issue, pays the penalty, reimburses the VCDD for the difference in interest rates between tax-free and taxable bonds for the 2003 facilities sales , and establishes a more defendable yet profitable evaluation process going forward for a considerable amount of future facilities sales.



Me again. This is what I said yesterday. Todays taxed bond rates may be less then the tax-free bond rates from 03. Maybe because of the tanked economy it may be a wash if this is part of the outcome.

But why are people trying to figure an outcome when theres no way to have a clue what the outcome can be. Its almost like there are people like the Orlando paper who are deliberately stirring up things pretending to be reporting, and for some villagers they are suceeding. Maybe they are looking to sell more papers or maybe there own policies are showing in this negative so-called reporting.

I think there are people who resent Mr. Morse's great personal financial success even though he is building a quality product and from what I read there are people, even inside the Villages who enjoy living there, who will knock him down no matter what he does. If hes wrong on this IRS thing, thats between him and the IRS. Why are people getting so upset when theres no facts or outcome yet to be upset about.

Someone said something about a "IRS victory." This is a strange way to put it. This isnt a war, this is a matter of law. And the law will sort it all out, Im sure.

[chuckinca]

Don't let the door hit ya!



`



Not too Friendly Muncle - you'll be in the stocks again!

.

[Muncle]

Me again. This is what I said yesterday. Todays taxed bond rates may be less then the tax-free bond rates from 03. Maybe because of the tanked economy it may be a wash if this is part of the outcome.

But why are people trying to figure an outcome when theres no way to have a clue what the outcome can be. Its almost like there are people like the Orlando paper who are deliberately stirring up things pretending to be reporting, and for some villagers they are succeeding. Maybe they are looking to sell more papers or maybe there own policies are showing in this negative so-called reporting.

I think there are people who resent Mr. Morse's great personal financial success even though he is building a quality product and from what I read there are people, even inside the Villages who enjoy living there, who will knock him down no matter what he does. If hes wrong on this IRS thing, thats between him and the IRS. Why are people getting so upset when theres no facts or outcome yet to be upset about.

Someone said something about a "IRS victory." This is a strange way to put it. This isnt a war, this is a matter of law. And the law will sort it all out, Im sure.

Thank you, Don. You've reiterated a point a couple of us have tried to make earlier in this thread and in previous threads. From the views of several folks, we evidently failed. I hope your logic fares better.

You said it pretty straightforwardly: "why are people trying to figure an outcome when theres no way to have a clue what the outcome can be" There are no facts yet, only opinion.



`

[Lauren Ritchie]

EdVinMass

i understand why you call the district the developer's.

legally, however, it's just not so. i guess you can persist in that line of thought if you like. but you will find that the rest of the legal world, including the IRS, is proceeding as though it is a separate entity, one that theoretically is supposed to act in the best interest of the residents.

advogado,
bingo. perfect. you nailed it.

lauren

[EdV]

Lauren,

Once again you misunderstand me and continue to harp on the distinction between Gary Morse the person, and the legal enterprises that he controls. But I was taking issue with you on the fact that you implied that because of that distinction, it somehow meant that The District (the VCCDD and SLCDD) had somehow become "Your" government as you called it. Here are your statements:

Statement: “Realize that Morse did not issue these tax-exempt bonds. The board of supervisors of your district government did.”

Statement: “….he is not liable for any taxes on the bonds because he didn't issue the bonds -- your district did.”

Would you kindly respond to that issue and explain to the other members of TOTV exactly who you are referring to when you use the word “Your”. Being a Poli-Sci major, I’m sure you’re aware that under Florida Law, Chapter 190, the Board of Supervisors of a CDD are elected by the Landowners in the CDD and not by Landowners in other CDDs.

[ricthemic]

Lauren,

Once again you misunderstand me and continue to harp on the distinction between Gary Morse the person, and the legal enterprises that he controls. But I was taking issue with you on the fact that you implied that because of that distinction, it somehow meant that The District (the VCCDD and SLCDD) had somehow become "Your" government as you called it. Here are your statements:

Statement: “Realize that Morse did not issue these tax-exempt bonds. The board of supervisors of your district government did.”

Statement: “….he is not liable for any taxes on the bonds because he didn't issue the bonds -- your district did.”

Would you kindly respond to that issue and explain to the other members of TOTV exactly who you are referring to when you use the word “Your”. Being a Poli-Sci major, I’m sure you’re aware that under Florida Law, Chapter 190, the Board of Supervisors of a CDD are elected by the Landowners in the CDD and not by Landowners in other CDDs.


EDVIN,
As someone else (like Lauren) who does not live in TV I think it is absolutely normal to refer to any local goverment, school sports team, library where you live as YOURS whether they are elected or appointed.
Or would you like to explain it further, again

[cabo35]

EdVinMass

i understand why you call the district the developer's.

legally, however, it's just not so. i guess you can persist in that line of thought if you like. but you will find that the rest of the legal world, including the IRS, is proceeding as though it is a separate entity, one that theoretically is supposed to act in the best interest of the residents.

advogado,
bingo. perfect. you nailed it.

lauren

Lauren,

I have some sincere questions for you. No sarcasm intended or implied.

Have you ever written a positive column on the developer or The Villages?

For example, have you ever written about the positive and negative aspects connected to the development of The Villages? ie; the impact on the economy, jobs, increased tax revenues, medical facilities, schools, etc. in Sumter, Marion and Lake Counties.

Have you contrasted the area before the development and after? Are county residents better off now or before Mr. Schwartz and Mr. Morse created The Villages?

Have you ever toured the charter school campus built by the developer that educates non-Village residents? What a story there.

If not, wouldn't it give balance to what appears to be to many, a negative campaign against the developer and the Villages

There is certainly room for objective, conflicting and interesting perspectives on the above subject matter.

I am not connected in anyway with the developer and on occasion have been critical of some decision making. It has not diminished our happiness with living the dream in TV.




.

[GMONEY]

Lauren,

I have domr a sincere questions for you. No sarcasm intended or implied.

Have you ever written a positive column on the developer or The Villages?

For example, have you ever written about the positive and negative aspects connected to the development of The Villages? ie; the impact on the economy, jobs, increased tax revenues, medical facilities, schools, etc. in Sumter, Marion and Lake Counties.

Have you contrasted the area before the development and after? Are county residents better off now or before Mr. Schwartz and Mr. Morse created The Villages?

Have you ever toured the charter school campus built by the developer that educates non-Village residents? What a story there.

If not, wouldn't it give balance to what appears to be to many, a negative campaign against the developer and the Villages

There is certainly room for objective, conflicting and interesting perspectives on the above subject matter.

I am not connected in anyway with the developer and on occasion have been critical of some decision making. It has not diminished our happiness with living the dream in TV.




.


You might be asking to much there !!! Not many people would step away from the negative news making info to let people know what good comes from The Villages. That School is really good. That is thanks to fine people of The Villages and the developers. You will only get the dirty smack. Just look at the news on at 5 from any channel. It is all bad for about the first 17 minutes, then the weather comes on. The back to negative or about the Magic and how the players live in 7 million dollar mansions.

Not to often a "reporter" will focus on the great stuff. Dirt is what attracts the big money.....

Just a Thought

[Quixote]

You might be asking to much there !!! Not many people would step away from the negative news making info to let people know what good comes from The Villages. That School is really good. That is thanks to fine people of The Villages and the developers. You will only get the dirty smack. Just look at the news on at 5 from any channel. It is all bad for about the first 17 minutes, then the weather comes on. The back to negative or about the Magic and how the players live in 7 million dollar mansions.

Not to often a "reporter" will focus on the great stuff. Dirt is what attracts the big money.....

Just a Thought

I couldnt agree more. Remember this story like other stories in other newspapers this reporter or columnist or what she calls herself may just be doing her job with a viewpoint she is told to use by her employer the Orlando newspaper.

[DickY]

Read this weeks Recreation News that is an insert in today's Sun that gives the VCCDD viewpoint on this subject. http://www.districtgov.org/images/whatsnew/recnews200906.pdf

[Advogado]

For objective updates on the situation, I would suggest attending the monthly POA meetings. Website: http://www.poa4us.org/

[cabo35]

Re posted in "Orlando Sentinel what if" thread