Lauren Ritchie's 08/29/10 article regarding the IRS Bond Dispute

[EdV]

The following is my rsponse to Lauren Ritchie's 08/29/10 article in the Orlando Sentinel regarding the outsatnding IRS Bond dispute with TV special CDDs.

Link to article: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/lake/os-lk-lauren-ritchie-bond-dispute-irs20100829,0,5465947.column (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/lake/os-lk-lauren-ritchie-bond-dispute-irs20100829,0,5465947.column)
Ritchie: A year has passed since the Internal Revenue Service suggested that The Villages retirement community redeem more than $344 million in bonds the IRS says were improperly issued as tax-free.

The IRS finding does not involve The Villages retirement community, only the two special Morse owned districts.

Ritchie: The agency wanted $16 million in back taxes and a promise by community development districts never again to masquerade as a legitimate government.

The IRS did not say that. What it said was that although Florida can and did establish those two CDDs as a quasi-government, that fact alone does not determine its eligibility for issuing federal tax free bonds and that it’s the IRS position that it failed to pass the other tests for eligibility and should not issue such bonds in the future.

Ritchie: The Villages thumbed its proverbial nose at such a notion, and then it was on.

This is true, and those two districts and their lawyers appear to be ready to take this all the way to the US Tax Court if necessary.

Ritchie: It's got to be unsettling and frightening to wonder what's in store. Not to mention expensive. The district already has spent more than $209,000 of residents' money so far, nearly all on high-powered lawyers on both coasts.

Only because you and a few other reporter/columnists have misguided them with inaccurate and biased reporting on this matter.

Ritchie: As The Villages was built, its developer Gary Morse created a form of government called community development districts, the same type scrutinized in this column last week.

There are 10 of these ‘numbered’ CDDs that make up the residential homes in The Villages, the first of which was established way back in 1992. And these 10 numbered districts do not have nor do any of the residents have any ownership of any recreational or amenity facilities. There may be a beautiful club house with an olympic sized pool smack dab in the middle of one of these numbered districts, but it is not a part of it.

Ritchie: In the Villages, two main community development districts have sold bonds to buy the infrastructure and recreational facilities — things like lights, roads, sewer and water plants, clubhouses, golf courses, gatehouses and more — from the developer.

The fact is that the developer built all of the executive golf courses, club houses, pools and the myriad recreational facilities with his own money for commercial purposes. And perhaps because it also included facilities for security, emergency, and fire protection, Florida allowed him to place those facilities under the two special CDDs that are the subject here. But you are misguiding your readers by implying that the monies received from these particular bonds were used to pay for the infrastructure of hundreds of miles of roads and sewers that are in the 10 numbered residential CDDs when in fact each of those numbered districts received their own bonds to pay for their infrastructures.

Ritchie: That's the way it worked, too, in the other Florida districts that have issued bonds. However, The Villages bond deals differ in two key ways......

First, the seats on the district governing boards in other developments typically are turned over to the residents as buyers purchase lots and move in. Not so in The Villages, where the districts selling the bonds in question are controlled by the developer and deliberately are set up so he can keep them out of the hands of residents for as long as he wants.

Florida Chapter 190 specifies that voting in a CDD is based on land ownership, not residency[/B. And the residents of The Villages do not own any of the land, property or amenities that make up the two special CDDs. So quite simpy, they didn't, don't, and never will own or control those amenities. And furthermore, every one of the seventy five thousand or so residents of TV signed a contract acknowledging this when they purchased their home. Here is the specific paragraph:

4.1(g) Purchasers of Homesites further agree, by the acceptance of their deeds and the payment of the purchase price therefore, acknowledge that the purchase price was solely for the purchase of their Homesite or Homesites, and that the owners, their heirs, successors and assigns, do not have any right, title or claim or interest in and to the recreational areas, security facilities, dedicated or reserved areas or facilities contained therein or appurtenant thereto, by reason of the purchase of their respective Homesites, it being specifically agreed that, (1) the Developer, its successors and assigns, is the sole and exclusive owner of the areas and facilities, and (2) the Contractual Amenities Fee is a fee for services and is in no way adjusted according to the cost of providing those services.

Ritchie: Second, these districts — remember that they're controlled by the developer — are using part of the bond money to buy "blue sky" from the developer. In this case, it is simply the right to collect assessment fees from residents. The developer gets all the fees in his bank account now instead of having to wait for them to dribble in over 30 years. Lucky residents get to repay the bond through fees — with interest — for 30 years to come.

Here’s where you and your cohorts really try to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes because yo[B]u always neglect to acknowledge that because of the unusual structure and contract on their amenities, the residents of The Villages have what amounts to virtual rent control of all of their wonderful amenities. And here’s the paragraph from the contract that enforces this:

4.1 (b) The monthly Contractual Amenities Fee set forth herein is based on the cost of living for the month of sale as reflected in the Consumer Price Index, U.S. Average of Items and Food, published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor ("Index"). The month of sale shall be the date of the Contract for Purchase of the Homesite. There shall be an annual adjustment in the monthly Contractual Amenities Fee. The adjustment shall be proportional to the percentage increase or decrease in the Index.

Ritchie: What a beautifully magnificent source of unfettered, risk-free cash for the developer. The other districts in Florida buy things they can touch, such as water plants. "Blue-sky" transactions haven't been included in their bond deals.

But as you yourself pointed out, 41% of those ‘other’ communities are in financial trouble. The Villages is not, in spite of what you would like everyone believe.

Ritchie: Community development districts that buy infrastructure from developers are a rip-off to the consumer, never mind The Villages' "blue sky" purchases, which are just a secondary piece of legal thievery.

In subdivisions without districts that issue bonds, buyers pay for the infrastructure in the price of the house. In those with districts, they do, too. But in addition, they pay a second time for that infrastructure — with interest — as they pay off the bonds, which often add an extra $20,000 to the price of a house.

Where is this coming from? I’m afraid you’re losing it dear girl. Sometimes I think ideas drop from your head to your tongue like candy from a gum ball machine.

Ritchie: Oh, my. What a mess.

Now that you are up to speed on the background, we'll take a look Wednesday at the latest moves on both sides and what they might mean for the average homeowner.

I live for the moment.

[graciegirl]

The following is my rsponse to Lauren Ritchie's 08/29/10 article in the Orlando Sentinel regarding the outsatnding IRS Bond dispute with TV special CDDs.

Link to article: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...5465947.column

Ritchie: A year has passed since the Internal Revenue Service suggested that The Villages retirement community redeem more than $344 million in bonds the IRS says were improperly issued as tax-free.

The IRS finding does not involve The Villages retirement community, only the two special Morse owned districts.

Ritchie: The agency wanted $16 million in back taxes and a promise by community development districts never again to masquerade as a legitimate government.

The IRS did not say that. What it said was that although Florida can and did establish those two CDDs as a quasi-government, that fact alone does not determine its eligibility for issuing federal tax free bonds and that it’s the IRS position that it failed to pass the other tests for eligibility and should not issue such bonds in the future.

Ritchie: The Villages thumbed its proverbial nose at such a notion, and then it was on.

This is true, and those two districts and their lawyers appear to be ready to take this all the way to the US Tax Court if necessary.

Ritchie: It's got to be unsettling and frightening to wonder what's in store. Not to mention expensive. The district already has spent more than $209,000 of residents' money so far, nearly all on high-powered lawyers on both coasts.

Only because you and a few other reporter/columnists have misguided them with inaccurate and biased reporting on this matter.

Ritchie: As The Villages was built, its developer Gary Morse created a form of government called community development districts, the same type scrutinized in this column last week.

There are 10 of these ‘numbered’ CDDs that make up the residential homes in The Villages, the first of which was established way back in 1992. And these 10 numbered districts do not have nor do any of the residents have any ownership of any recreational or amenity facilities. There may be a beautiful club house with an olympic sized pool smack dab in the middle of one of these numbered districts, but it is not a part of it.

Ritchie: In the Villages, two main community development districts have sold bonds to buy the infrastructure and recreational facilities — things like lights, roads, sewer and water plants, clubhouses, golf courses, gatehouses and more — from the developer.

The fact is that the developer built all of the executive golf courses, club houses, pools and the myriad recreational facilities with his own money for commercial purposes. And perhaps because it also included facilities for security, emergency, and fire protection, Florida allowed him to place those facilities under the two special CDDs that are the subject here. But you are misguiding your readers by implying that the monies received from these particular bonds were used to pay for the infrastructure of hundreds of miles of roads and sewers that are in the 10 numbered residential CDDs when in fact each of those numbered districts received their own bonds to pay for their infrastructures.

Ritchie: That's the way it worked, too, in the other Florida districts that have issued bonds. However, The Villages bond deals differ in two key ways......

First, the seats on the district governing boards in other developments typically are turned over to the residents as buyers purchase lots and move in. Not so in The Villages, where the districts selling the bonds in question are controlled by the developer and deliberately are set up so he can keep them out of the hands of residents for as long as he wants.

Florida Chapter 190 specifies that voting in a CDD is based on land ownership, not residency[/B. And the residents of The Villages do not own any of the land, property or amenities that make up the two special CDDs. So quite simpy, they didn't, don't, and never will own or control those amenities. And furthermore, every one of the seventy five thousand or so residents of TV signed a contract acknowledging this when they purchased their home. Here is the specific paragraph:

4.1(g) Purchasers of Homesites further agree, by the acceptance of their deeds and the payment of the purchase price therefore, acknowledge that the purchase price was solely for the purchase of their Homesite or Homesites, and that the owners, their heirs, successors and assigns, do not have any right, title or claim or interest in and to the recreational areas, security facilities, dedicated or reserved areas or facilities contained therein or appurtenant thereto, by reason of the purchase of their respective Homesites, it being specifically agreed that, (1) the Developer, its successors and assigns, is the sole and exclusive owner of the areas and facilities, and (2) the Contractual Amenities Fee is a fee for services and is in no way adjusted according to the cost of providing those services.

Ritchie: Second, these districts — remember that they're controlled by the developer — are using part of the bond money to buy "blue sky" from the developer. In this case, it is simply the right to collect assessment fees from residents. The developer gets all the fees in his bank account now instead of having to wait for them to dribble in over 30 years. Lucky residents get to repay the bond through fees — with interest — for 30 years to come.

Here’s where you and your cohorts really try to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes because yo[B]u always neglect to acknowledge that because of the unusual structure and contract on their amenities, the residents of The Villages have what amounts to virtual rent control of all of their wonderful amenities. And here’s the paragraph from the contract that enforces this:

4.1 (b) The monthly Contractual Amenities Fee set forth herein is based on the cost of living for the month of sale as reflected in the Consumer Price Index, U.S. Average of Items and Food, published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor ("Index"). The month of sale shall be the date of the Contract for Purchase of the Homesite. There shall be an annual adjustment in the monthly Contractual Amenities Fee. The adjustment shall be proportional to the percentage increase or decrease in the Index.

Ritchie: What a beautifully magnificent source of unfettered, risk-free cash for the developer. The other districts in Florida buy things they can touch, such as water plants. "Blue-sky" transactions haven't been included in their bond deals.

But as you yourself pointed out, 41% of those ‘other’ communities are in financial trouble. The Villages is not, in spite of what you would like everyone believe.

Ritchie: Community development districts that buy infrastructure from developers are a rip-off to the consumer, never mind The Villages' "blue sky" purchases, which are just a secondary piece of legal thievery.

In subdivisions without districts that issue bonds, buyers pay for the infrastructure in the price of the house. In those with districts, they do, too. But in addition, they pay a second time for that infrastructure — with interest — as they pay off the bonds, which often add an extra $20,000 to the price of a house.

Where is this coming from? I’m afraid you’re losing it dear girl. Sometimes I think ideas drop from your head to your tongue like candy from a gum ball machine.

Ritchie: Oh, my. What a mess.

Now that you are up to speed on the background, we'll take a look Wednesday at the latest moves on both sides and what they might mean for the average homeowner.

I live for the moment.

What in the world keeps you from living on my street???

[logdog]

Thanks for the post. I'm not sure it really cleared anything up in my mind but I appreciate your taking the time to provide a counterpoint so I can go back to enjoying everything TV has to offer. By the way, Richie is getting a lot of her research from the book Leisureville. We all know how unbiased that book was... NOT.

[laryb]

What in the world keeps you from living on my street???

Gracie, I couldn't agree with you more. Even though EdVinMass doesn't live in TV, I really believe that he's on our side, and to me, that's a good thing. His posts are always intelligent, informative and well meaning. I'm not intelligent enough to understand all the details of this IRS issue, so I rely on the expertise of others to help me sort through it. So thanks to EDVinMass, JMitchell, Jimjoe, Bogie Shooter and everybody else, no matter what your view, for keeping me informed and the issue alive.

[Opulence]

Gracie, I couldn't agree with you more. Even though EdVinMass doesn't live in TV, I really believe that he's on our side, and to me, that's a good thing. His posts are always intelligent, informative and well meaning. I'm not intelligent enough to understand all the details of this IRS issue, so I rely on the expertise of others to help me sort through it. So thanks to EDVinMass, JMitchell, Jimjoe, Bogie Shooter and everybody else, no matter what your view, for keeping me informed and the issue alive.



I couldn't agree with you more. . . I can't begin to tell you and the other posters here on TOTV, how embarrased I felt, after I asked Russ my question re the bond issue (similar thread, but not this one). Once I began reading the replies, it was quite apparent that I didn't have a clue. Apparent and quite humbling, I might add. I was so far out in left field, you just couldn't get any farther. I had no understanding at all about the bond/IRS issue. Totally confusing the bond/Irs issue with the bonds on the homes. Hindsight is always better and I wish I had kept quiet. You know the age old addage - "It is better to keep silent and thought a fool" - yada, yada, yada. . . Yep, that's me . . . . .

Thanks to Cunningham1, JMitchell, PTurner, and especially to EdVinmass, I am now much better informed. I don't pretend to have a complete grasp of everything, but I am learning. I can only imagine how frustrating it must be, for those who have a real grip on these matters, to read post from individuals like me, who don't know what they are talking about. Again, I can't thank each of you enough.

Betty

[pooh]

The following is my rsponse to Lauren Ritchie's 08/29/10 article in the Orlando Sentinel regarding the outsatnding IRS Bond dispute with TV special CDDs.

Link to article: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...5465947.column

Ritchie: A year has passed since the Internal Revenue Service suggested that The Villages retirement community redeem more than $344 million in bonds the IRS says were improperly issued as tax-free.

The IRS finding does not involve The Villages retirement community, only the two special Morse owned districts.

Ritchie: The agency wanted $16 million in back taxes and a promise by community development districts never again to masquerade as a legitimate government.

The IRS did not say that. What it said was that although Florida can and did establish those two CDDs as a quasi-government, that fact alone does not determine its eligibility for issuing federal tax free bonds and that it’s the IRS position that it failed to pass the other tests for eligibility and should not issue such bonds in the future.

Ritchie: The Villages thumbed its proverbial nose at such a notion, and then it was on.

This is true, and those two districts and their lawyers appear to be ready to take this all the way to the US Tax Court if necessary.

Ritchie: It's got to be unsettling and frightening to wonder what's in store. Not to mention expensive. The district already has spent more than $209,000 of residents' money so far, nearly all on high-powered lawyers on both coasts.

Only because you and a few other reporter/columnists have misguided them with inaccurate and biased reporting on this matter.

Ritchie: As The Villages was built, its developer Gary Morse created a form of government called community development districts, the same type scrutinized in this column last week.

There are 10 of these ‘numbered’ CDDs that make up the residential homes in The Villages, the first of which was established way back in 1992. And these 10 numbered districts do not have nor do any of the residents have any ownership of any recreational or amenity facilities. There may be a beautiful club house with an olympic sized pool smack dab in the middle of one of these numbered districts, but it is not a part of it.

Ritchie: In the Villages, two main community development districts have sold bonds to buy the infrastructure and recreational facilities — things like lights, roads, sewer and water plants, clubhouses, golf courses, gatehouses and more — from the developer.

The fact is that the developer built all of the executive golf courses, club houses, pools and the myriad recreational facilities with his own money for commercial purposes. And perhaps because it also included facilities for security, emergency, and fire protection, Florida allowed him to place those facilities under the two special CDDs that are the subject here. But you are misguiding your readers by implying that the monies received from these particular bonds were used to pay for the infrastructure of hundreds of miles of roads and sewers that are in the 10 numbered residential CDDs when in fact each of those numbered districts received their own bonds to pay for their infrastructures.

Ritchie: That's the way it worked, too, in the other Florida districts that have issued bonds. However, The Villages bond deals differ in two key ways......

First, the seats on the district governing boards in other developments typically are turned over to the residents as buyers purchase lots and move in. Not so in The Villages, where the districts selling the bonds in question are controlled by the developer and deliberately are set up so he can keep them out of the hands of residents for as long as he wants.

Florida Chapter 190 specifies that voting in a CDD is based on land ownership, not residency[/B. And the residents of The Villages do not own any of the land, property or amenities that make up the two special CDDs. So quite simpy, they didn't, don't, and never will own or control those amenities. And furthermore, every one of the seventy five thousand or so residents of TV signed a contract acknowledging this when they purchased their home. Here is the specific paragraph:

4.1(g) Purchasers of Homesites further agree, by the acceptance of their deeds and the payment of the purchase price therefore, acknowledge that the purchase price was solely for the purchase of their Homesite or Homesites, and that the owners, their heirs, successors and assigns, do not have any right, title or claim or interest in and to the recreational areas, security facilities, dedicated or reserved areas or facilities contained therein or appurtenant thereto, by reason of the purchase of their respective Homesites, it being specifically agreed that, (1) the Developer, its successors and assigns, is the sole and exclusive owner of the areas and facilities, and (2) the Contractual Amenities Fee is a fee for services and is in no way adjusted according to the cost of providing those services.

Ritchie: Second, these districts — remember that they're controlled by the developer — are using part of the bond money to buy "blue sky" from the developer. In this case, it is simply the right to collect assessment fees from residents. The developer gets all the fees in his bank account now instead of having to wait for them to dribble in over 30 years. Lucky residents get to repay the bond through fees — with interest — for 30 years to come.

Here’s where you and your cohorts really try to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes because yo[B]u always neglect to acknowledge that because of the unusual structure and contract on their amenities, the residents of The Villages have what amounts to virtual rent control of all of their wonderful amenities. And here’s the paragraph from the contract that enforces this:

4.1 (b) The monthly Contractual Amenities Fee set forth herein is based on the cost of living for the month of sale as reflected in the Consumer Price Index, U.S. Average of Items and Food, published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor ("Index"). The month of sale shall be the date of the Contract for Purchase of the Homesite. There shall be an annual adjustment in the monthly Contractual Amenities Fee. The adjustment shall be proportional to the percentage increase or decrease in the Index.

Ritchie: What a beautifully magnificent source of unfettered, risk-free cash for the developer. The other districts in Florida buy things they can touch, such as water plants. "Blue-sky" transactions haven't been included in their bond deals.

But as you yourself pointed out, 41% of those ‘other’ communities are in financial trouble. The Villages is not, in spite of what you would like everyone believe.

Ritchie: Community development districts that buy infrastructure from developers are a rip-off to the consumer, never mind The Villages' "blue sky" purchases, which are just a secondary piece of legal thievery.

In subdivisions without districts that issue bonds, buyers pay for the infrastructure in the price of the house. In those with districts, they do, too. But in addition, they pay a second time for that infrastructure — with interest — as they pay off the bonds, which often add an extra $20,000 to the price of a house.

Where is this coming from? I’m afraid you’re losing it dear girl. Sometimes I think ideas drop from your head to your tongue like candy from a gum ball machine.

Ritchie: Oh, my. What a mess.

Now that you are up to speed on the background, we'll take a look Wednesday at the latest moves on both sides and what they might mean for the average homeowner.

I live for the moment.

Thanks, Ed, appreciate the information and the post. I'm printing it out!

[downeaster]

Well done, EdVinMass. It must have involved tons of research to put together your message.

When I see investigative reporters like Ritchie I can't help but wonder how much news the others "manufacture".

Many thanks from an appreciative Villager.

[elevatorman]

Question--- Will the Sentinal fire Ritchie when this is over?

[pooh]

Question--- Will the Sentinal fire Richie when this is over?

One can only hope.....:laugh::laugh::laugh:

[dillywho]

I don't mean for this to sound tacky, so if it does, I apologize in advance.

I don't know of any of us who were/are forced to buy in and live here. For us, it was strictly our choice. We had property in another community, and there is absolutely no camparison; thus, the decision to sell that and be here. Absolutely NO regrets, either.

As for Ms. Ritchie, I would like to know how she is privvy to the developers' finances. Where does she get that the developers have spent "$209,000" already of our money on expensive lawyers? How does she know who's money it is or what they spend for what? I don't know why she has such an ax to grind, anyway. Whose face would have landed flat had this whole concept and place been a total bust? Certainly not hers and certainly not mine. How can she or anyone else explain the phenominal growth and success of this place if everything the developers do is wrong and in the eyes of some, "greedy"? Do they think the Morses should make all the investment, take all the chances of success or failure, and if successful, furnish it all to us for nothing? (Let me know if you find such a place with such developers.)

I, for one, have more immediate things to be concerned over than what may not even come to fruition, much less anytime soon.

Thanks, Ed, for all your good research and information. Ms. Ritchie could take some lessons from you in research.

[2BNTV]

EdVin Mass:

Thank you for bringing clarity to this situation. I'm sure you have eased many minds. I will also printout this message as it helps me to grasp this issue as it has had me perlexed for quite a while as to what it meant.

A big round of applause should be given to you for spending so much time reasearching this issue.

You are the man!!! :BigApplause:

[Pturner]

The following is my rsponse to Lauren Ritchie's 08/29/10 article in the Orlando Sentinel regarding the outsatnding IRS Bond dispute with TV special CDDs.

Link to article: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/lake/os-lk-lauren-ritchie-bond-dispute-irs20100829,0,5465947.column
Ritchie: A year has passed since the Internal Revenue Service suggested that The Villages retirement community redeem more than $344 million in bonds the IRS says were improperly issued as tax-free.

The IRS finding does not involve The Villages retirement community, only the two special Morse owned districts.

Ritchie: The agency wanted $16 million in back taxes and a promise by community development districts never again to masquerade as a legitimate government.

The IRS did not say that. What it said was that although Florida can and did establish those two CDDs as a quasi-government, that fact alone does not determine its eligibility for issuing federal tax free bonds and that it’s the IRS position that it failed to pass the other tests for eligibility and should not issue such bonds in the future.

Ritchie: The Villages thumbed its proverbial nose at such a notion, and then it was on.

This is true, and those two districts and their lawyers appear to be ready to take this all the way to the US Tax Court if necessary.

Ritchie: It's got to be unsettling and frightening to wonder what's in store. Not to mention expensive. The district already has spent more than $209,000 of residents' money so far, nearly all on high-powered lawyers on both coasts.

Only because you and a few other reporter/columnists have misguided them with inaccurate and biased reporting on this matter.

Ritchie: As The Villages was built, its developer Gary Morse created a form of government called community development districts, the same type scrutinized in this column last week.

There are 10 of these ‘numbered’ CDDs that make up the residential homes in The Villages, the first of which was established way back in 1992. And these 10 numbered districts do not have nor do any of the residents have any ownership of any recreational or amenity facilities. There may be a beautiful club house with an olympic sized pool smack dab in the middle of one of these numbered districts, but it is not a part of it.

Ritchie: In the Villages, two main community development districts have sold bonds to buy the infrastructure and recreational facilities — things like lights, roads, sewer and water plants, clubhouses, golf courses, gatehouses and more — from the developer.

The fact is that the developer built all of the executive golf courses, club houses, pools and the myriad recreational facilities with his own money for commercial purposes. And perhaps because it also included facilities for security, emergency, and fire protection, Florida allowed him to place those facilities under the two special CDDs that are the subject here. But you are misguiding your readers by implying that the monies received from these particular bonds were used to pay for the infrastructure of hundreds of miles of roads and sewers that are in the 10 numbered residential CDDs when in fact each of those numbered districts received their own bonds to pay for their infrastructures.

Ritchie: That's the way it worked, too, in the other Florida districts that have issued bonds. However, The Villages bond deals differ in two key ways......

First, the seats on the district governing boards in other developments typically are turned over to the residents as buyers purchase lots and move in. Not so in The Villages, where the districts selling the bonds in question are controlled by the developer and deliberately are set up so he can keep them out of the hands of residents for as long as he wants.

Florida Chapter 190 specifies that voting in a CDD is based on land ownership, not residency[/B. And the residents of The Villages do not own any of the land, property or amenities that make up the two special CDDs. So quite simpy, they didn't, don't, and never will own or control those amenities. And furthermore, every one of the seventy five thousand or so residents of TV signed a contract acknowledging this when they purchased their home. Here is the specific paragraph:
<B>
4.1(g) Purchasers of Homesites further agree, by the acceptance of their deeds and the payment of the purchase price therefore, acknowledge that the purchase price was solely for the purchase of their Homesite or Homesites, and that the owners, their heirs, successors and assigns, do not have any right, title or claim or interest in and to the recreational areas, security facilities, dedicated or reserved areas or facilities contained therein or appurtenant thereto, by reason of the purchase of their respective Homesites, it being specifically agreed that, (1) the Developer, its successors and assigns, is the sole and exclusive owner of the areas and facilities, and (2) the Contractual Amenities Fee is a fee for services and is in no way adjusted according to the cost of providing those services.
</B>
Ritchie: Second, these districts — remember that they're controlled by the developer — are using part of the bond money to buy "blue sky" from the developer. In this case, it is simply the right to collect assessment fees from residents. The developer gets all the fees in his bank account now instead of having to wait for them to dribble in over 30 years. Lucky residents get to repay the bond through fees — with interest — for 30 years to come.

Here’s where you and your cohorts really try to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes because you always neglect to acknowledge that because of the unusual structure and contract on their amenities, the residents of The Villages have what amounts to virtual rent control of all of their wonderful amenities. And here’s the paragraph from the contract that enforces this:
<B>
4.1 (b) The monthly Contractual Amenities Fee set forth herein is based on the cost of living for the month of sale as reflected in the Consumer Price Index, U.S. Average of Items and Food, published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor ("Index"). The month of sale shall be the date of the Contract for Purchase of the Homesite. There shall be an annual adjustment in the monthly Contractual Amenities Fee. The adjustment shall be proportional to the percentage increase or decrease in the Index.
</B>
Ritchie: What a beautifully magnificent source of unfettered, risk-free cash for the developer. The other districts in Florida buy things they can touch, such as water plants. "Blue-sky" transactions haven't been included in their bond deals.

But as you yourself pointed out, 41% of those[B] ‘other’ communities are in financial trouble. The Villages is not, in spite of what you would like everyone believe.

Ritchie: Community development districts that buy infrastructure from developers are a rip-off to the consumer, never mind The Villages' "blue sky" purchases, which are just a secondary piece of legal thievery.

In subdivisions without districts that issue bonds, buyers pay for the infrastructure in the price of the house. In those with districts, they do, too. But in addition, they pay a second time for that infrastructure — with interest — as they pay off the bonds, which often add an extra $20,000 to the price of a house.

Where is this coming from? I’m afraid you’re losing it dear girl. Sometimes I think ideas drop from your head to your tongue like candy from a gum ball machine.

Ritchie: Oh, my. What a mess.

Now that you are up to speed on the background, we'll take a look Wednesday at the latest moves on both sides and what they might mean for the average homeowner.

I live for the moment.

Hi EdVinMass,
Thank you for your research and informative post. Would you consider submitting this to the Orlando Sentinel as an op ed piece?

[Bogie Shooter]

Ed, must ask was your rebuttal sent to Richie? If not it should be.

[mulligan]

Edv for president---2012

[graciegirl]

Edv for president---2012

I agree. I will paint the signs.

WAIT. Tony will be by to beat us. We aren't allowed to change things to Political.

So that some of the posters don't think I have diverted yet another thread.

I think that people do not understand that the Villages form of government is not a democracy. It is run by the developers. Some villagers do set on the CDD board.

AND I see no reason to change it. I do not think that the Morses will let us down. This is their business and they have passed the point of needing to make money. They are incredibly solvent, by all markers that I can see.They continue to run this place hands on every day and they live here.

If some disaster befalls us, and the IRS shuts them down, it isn't because the Morses haven't paid back taxes or that they are smarmy, greedy, crummy people. I believe that this is a matter of internal audit, the money is sent back and forth inside the Morse business, The Villages. The IRS wants a chunk of it. What's new?

Please don't attack me. I love this place and I don't want anything to happen to change it. I want to live here with all of you and I want new people to come and see how wonderful this place is. We all deserve it after a life of hard work.

I trust the Morses.

My husband would say that I have abandoned the scientific method to approach problems.

Oh well.

[mak44070]

Gracie for President in 2012
:BigApplause:

[The Shadow]

I agree. I will paint the signs.

WAIT. Tony will be by to beat us. We aren't allowed to change things to Political.

So that some of the posters don't think I have diverted yet another thread.

I think that people do not understand that the Villages form of government is not a democracy. It is run by the developers. Some villagers do set on the CDD board.

AND I see no reason to change it. I do not think that the Morses will let us down. This is their business and they have passed the point of needing to make money. They are incredibly solvent, by all markers that I can see.They continue to run this place hands on every day and they live here.

If some disaster befalls us, and the IRS shuts them down, it isn't because the Morses haven't paid back taxes or that they are smarmy, greedy, crummy people. I believe that this is a matter of internal audit, the money is sent back and forth inside the Morse business, The Villages. The IRS wants a chunk of it. What's new?

Please don't attack me. I love this place and I don't want anything to happen to change it. I want to live here with all of you and I want new people to come and see how wonderful this place is. We all deserve it after a life of hard work.

I trust the Morses.

My husband would say that I have abandoned the scientific method to approach problems.

Oh well.

The IRS is not after the Morses but if you say it one more time it may then be true. They are coming down on the CDD. That is the government that the Morses have to be arms length from to sell tax free bonds among other stipulations. The Morses money and the CDD money do not mix.

[EdV]

Edv for president---2012

Thank you, Gracie and the others for the encouraging words and positive remarks.

However, if nominated I will not run, if elected I will not serve.

All that ‘rebuttaling’ yesterday tuckered me out. But I’ll post a few more comments and answers to questions shortly.

[zcaveman]

Question--- Will the Sentinal fire Ritchie when this is over?

Why? For doing her job?

I can't wait for all of the responses after her Wednesday article.

[manaboutown]

Is the IRS disallowing tax exempt status for all of the CDD's in Florida, or only the Morse's? Why now after all these years? Politics?

[BogeyBoy]

The IRS is not after the Morses but if you say it one more time it may then be true. They are coming down on the CDD. That is the government that the Morses have to be arms length from to sell tax free bonds among other stipulations. The Morses money and the CDD money do not mix.

People make the association of the Morse family with TV because they are the family that made TV what it is today. Whether it's the CDD's or the design of a new house maybe they aren't directly "mixed" but they are the name behind the game. So whether the Morse family likes it or not their name will be associated with most things that go on in TV big picture.

[EdV]

Let me elaborate on this issue:

Ritchie: ……. The district already has spent more than $209,000 of residents' money so far, nearly all on high-powered lawyers on both coasts.

Here again we have a very misleading statement. The two special CDDs have not spent one dime of the resident’s money. They have in fact spent $209,000 (or whatever) of their own money on legal defense. Yes, yes we all know the source of that money, it’s the amenity fees paid by the residents. But the moment those amenity fees are deposited into the account of those two CDDs it’s no longer the residents’ money. However, the annual maintenance fee paid by residents to their respective numbered residential CDD is their money because they have ownership in that CDD and a vote in how that money is spent.

Still having trouble with this? Here’s a simple example. You decide to order cable service and sign up for a two year contract with a sweet deal monthly price. Part way into the contract, the cable company gets into a legal battle over something and spends a ton of legal fees to straighten it out. Whose money is paying for this? Why the cable companys' of course. Can the cable company raise the fee to cover the legal fees? Yes but only after the contract ends and at the risk of losing you as a customer. But the two CDD’s can’t do that with the amenity fee. It’s fixed at the time of the original sale with annual increases limited to the CP Index and the term of the contract is for the life of the residence. So who cares how that money is spent.

[2BNTV]

EdVinMass:

For someone who deoesn't live in TV, you sure know your stuff.

Thank you for explaining this issue to all wannabe's. Your explanations are easy to understand. I hope you will continue to keep us informed.

:BigApplause:

[dillywho]

Why? For doing her job?

I can't wait for all of the responses after her Wednesday article.

What is her "job"? Stirring up whatever?

I still want to know what ax she has to grind. She doesn't even live here. Why doesn't she write about Orlando doins' or won't they put up with her and her ramblings about matters that don't even remotely concern her?

Thanks again, Ed, and I would vote for you and Gracie, both. Ed, you may not live here, but you certainly don't resent those of us who do.

[JimJoe]

Let me elaborate on this issue:

Ritchie: ……. The district already has spent more than $209,000 of residents' money so far, nearly all on high-powered lawyers on both coasts.

Here again we have a very misleading statement. The two special CDDs have not spent one dime of the resident’s money. They have in fact spent $209,000 (or whatever) of their own money on legal defense. Yes, yes we all know the source of that money, it’s the amenity fees paid by the residents. But the moment those amenity fees are deposited into the account of those two CDDs it’s no longer the residents’ money. However, the annual maintenance fee paid by residents to their respective numbered residential CDD is their money because they have ownership in that CDD and a vote in how that money is spent.

Still having trouble with this? Here’s a simple example. You decide to order cable service and sign up for a two year contract with a sweet deal monthly price. Part way into the contract, the cable company gets into a legal battle over something and spends a ton of legal fees to straighten it out. Whose money is paying for this? Why the cable companys' of course. Can the cable company raise the fee to cover the legal fees? Yes but only after the contract ends and at the risk of losing you as a customer. But the two CDD’s can’t do that with the amenity fee. It’s fixed at the time of the original sale with annual increases limited to the CP Index and the term of the contract is for the life of the residence. So who cares how that money is spent.

I think You are incorrect. The two commercial CDDS receive the amenity fees from the residents because residents expect that money to be used to pay for amenities, NOT attorney fees defending decisions that the residents had no say so in, or to a potential penalty to the IRS.
I think every resident should and do care if their amenity money was used to pay for attorneys and fines on this IRS issue instead of providing amenities. If that money was not paid to attorneys or the IRS, it would go to the resident's amenities where it belongs. Do you not understand that if the attorney fees grow and the IRS wins, and amenity fee money is used to pay for them, the amenities will suffer. This would not only deprive the residents of the amenities they are used to and deserve, but also could affect property values. Do you really think residents don't care? I think they do.
If amenity fees are not going to be used to pay attorney fees and potential penalty, FANTASTIC. Now tell me where will the money come from to pay the attorney fees and a POTENTIAL PENALTY.
If I am wrong, please tell me.
JJ

[pauld315]

I have been reading through this and still don't totally understand the issue. However, I don't live there yet and before buying I will become familiar with it. We were there twice this year and looked at a lot of homes both by ourselves and with a Villages sales person. The sales people never mentioned this to me as a possible future issue but then again, we never sat down with them to actually sign on the dotted line.

I know a lot of new residents visit this website as well as residents who have purchased since this first surfaced. My question is, if you bought after this IRS lawsuit was filed, did the sales people brief you on this before you purchased or did you find out on your own about it ? It would seem to me that this is something they would need to disclose to a buyer but I am neither an attorney or a realtor.

[BobKat1]

You'd have to ask a sales rep for a definitive answer, but I wouldn't think they'd bring up/discuss the issue unless specifically asked about it.

[collie1228]

This is an outstanding thread. I appreciate (and thank) EdVinMass for the work he's done to help us all understand the IRS issue(s), but I also appreciate Ms. Ritchie's column, which keeps the issue in front of us. I guess you could call me a contrarian (you can call me anything you like, just don't call me late for dinner), but I think Ms. Ritchie is doing us a favor by doing her job as an opinion writer. I don't wish any ill will against anyone, unless that person has a hidden agenda. I haven't see evidence of any hidden agendas from either EdVinMass or Ms. Ritchie. I wish I could say the same for the IRS, but I can't. I hope this discussion keeps going, and look forward to Wednesday's column and (hopefully) EdVinMass' analysis and member comments on TOTV. I won't be buying in TV for another year, so I'm really paying attention to this.

[Bob45]

I know a lot of new residents visit this website as well as residents who have purchased since this first surfaced. My question is, if you bought after this IRS lawsuit was filed, did the sales people brief you on this before you purchased or did you find out on your own about it ? It would seem to me that this is something they would need to disclose to a buyer but I am neither an attorney or a realtor.

We closed in April of this year. Nothing about this was mentioned. Our realtor was with TV. I'll have to see what he has to say about it when we come down this fall.

Also, there is some information about this on wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Villages,_Florida

Bob

[zcaveman]

What is her "job"? Stirring up whatever?

I still want to know what ax she has to grind. She doesn't even live here. Why doesn't she write about Orlando doins' or won't they put up with her and her ramblings about matters that don't even remotely concern her?

Thanks again, Ed, and I would vote for you and Gracie, both. Ed, you may not live here, but you certainly don't resent those of us who do.

I have to assume that she has a boss who assigns her a list of articles to write and this is one of them. Articles sell papers. She is doing her job. If you or I worked for the paper and were assigned this subject I bet you and I would do just what she is doing.

I doubt if it is lies or The Villages would have sued her and the Sentinel by now.

[EdV]

///. I wish I could say the same for the IRS, but I can't. I hope this discussion keeps going, and look forward to Wednesday's column and (hopefully) EdVinMass' analysis and member comments on TOTV. I won't be buying in TV for another year, so I'm really paying attention to this.

Not to worry, we'll leave the light on for Ya.

[saratogaman]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the IRS is challenging the tax-exempt status of bonds only in the two commercial CDDs and only those two would be liable if an adverse determination is made. I don't see how the other eight CDDs (the ones where our homes are) would be liable or affected.
What say you?

[missypie]

Julie....you're good, you go girl....

[JimJoe]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the IRS is challenging the tax-exempt status of bonds only in the two commercial CDDs and only those two would be liable if an adverse determination is made. I don't see how the other eight CDDs (the ones where our homes are) would be liable or affected.
What say you?

It is my understanding the two commercial districts receive the amenity fees paid by the residents of the other districts to be used to provide the amenities. It is my concern those amenity fees will be used to pay attorney fees or IRS penalties IF the IRS wins and that will hurt the amenities in the villages. Someone please tell me if not from amenity fees, where will the money come from?
Thanks.
JJ

[Kelsie52]

Great job Julie ! --Thanks so much for posting your discussion with the "reporter"

We have just bought in Buttonwood and will be moving in 10/27 --been following this story for some time now and truthfully while it did concern us before buying it would not have swayed us from our decision .

Your added Bond Buyer article was probably the best explination I have read stating the FACTS of the arguement. :bowdown:

Keep up the great work ..

Rich/Liz:wave:

[`willy]

It is my understanding the two commercial districts receive the amenity fees paid by the residents of the other districts to be used to provide the amenities. It is my concern those amenity fees will be used to pay attorney fees or IRS penalties IF the IRS wins and that will hurt the amenities in the villages. Someone please tell me if not from amenity fees, where will the money come from?
Thanks.
JJ JJ I think the land owners in the special development districts should be responsible for any tax liability (developer) They benifited from the bonds.
They, THE LAND OWNERS could sell off assets to satisfy these tax liabilities,
but I don't think we have any worries with this case because the developer has to preserve his reputation in order to sell off the rest of his homes.

The problem,I see, for us (Villagers) is near the end of build out when the last of the amenities are sold to the special development districts. Will the price be so high that it will use up the amenity fees to pay off the purchase bonds (Taxable or not) and not enough left for proper upkeep of the amenities.

We really have no input in purchases of the amenity facilities and I think
thats what the IRS agent was after. JUST MY THOUGHTS

Willy

[Talk Host]

Am I the only one who doesn't understand any of this?:what:

[villa2]

Am I the only one who doesn't understand any of this?:what:

Thank-you for your candor. There are at least two people in that boat. LOL

[bkcunningham1]

Could someone tell me what Richie's newest discovery is with the IRS issue? What new thing did she reveal in her opinion column?

[Bogie Shooter]

Am I the only one who doesn't understand any of this?:what:
No, include Ms Ritchie.

[BobKat1]

Am I the only one who doesn't understand any of this?:what:

You are not alone TH. This issue makes my (gray) head spin.

Seems like it's best to let the IRS and the other parties involved resolve it, and live with the results.

[The Shadow]

Using some higher mathematical calculation I have come to the conclusions that if the CDDs have $209,000 to spend on lawyers the residents were over charge for amenity fees.

OR

The CDDs knew from the get go their interpretation of the IRS rules would be questioned. Questioned after the developer got his inflated price his amenities and all that was at stake was the existence of the CDDs. The CDDs only needs to stall the IRS to the 2015 build out or as close to it as possible. At that point the IRS can seize the assets of the CDDs, the CDDs would no longer exist the assets would be auctioned off and the builder would start a new project in Arizona.

[zcaveman]

Could someone tell me what Richie's newest discovery is with the IRS issue? What new thing did she reveal in her opinion column?

Sunday was only background. The new info comes out in tomorrow's issue.

[Bogie Shooter]

Using some higher mathematical calculation I have come to the conclusions that if the CDDs have $209,000 to spend on lawyers the residents were over charge for amenity fees.

OR

The CDDs knew from the get go their interpretation of the IRS rules would be questioned. Questioned after the developer got his inflated price his amenities and all that was at stake was the existence of the CDDs. The CDDs only needs to stall the IRS to the 2015 build out or as close to it as possible. At that point the IRS can seize the assets of the CDDs, the CDDs would no longer exist the assets would be auctioned off and the builder would start a new project in Arizona.

Did these monies really come out of amenity fees. Where is it written?

[`willy]

Using some higher mathematical calculation I have come to the conclusions that if the CDDs have $209,000 to spend on lawyers the residents were over charge for amenity fees.

OR

The CDDs knew from the get go their interpretation of the IRS rules would be questioned. Questioned after the developer got his inflated price his amenities and all that was at stake was the existence of the CDDs. The CDDs only needs to stall the IRS to the 2015 build out or as close to it as possible. At that point the IRS can seize the assets of the CDDs, the CDDs would no longer exist the assets would be auctioned off and the builder would start a new project in Arizona.

Excellent Post, never thought of that

willy
ONLY THE SHADOW KNOWS

[graciegirl]

Did these monies really come out of amenity fees. Where is it written?

..

[zcaveman]

You are not alone TH. This issue makes my (gray) head spin.

Seems like it's best to let the IRS and the other parties involved resolve it, and live with the results.

But it is so nice to read the views of the TOTV "lawyers". They seem to have the full understanding of all of this.

I think if the IRS would read this post, they would admit defeat.

I am enjoying it.

[graciegirl]

It is a wonderful place to live. It has everything. It is well run, clean as a whiste, all beautifully maintained, well managed, has wonderful and luxurious things to experience.

It is a new form of government in Florida called a Monarchy.

God save the King.

[villa2]

It is a wonderful place to live. It has everything. It is well run, clean as a whiste, all beautifully maintained, well managed, has wonderful and luxurious things to experience.

It is a new form of government in Florida called a Monarchy.

God save the King.

Amen, Gracie

[JimJoe]

It is a wonderful place to live. It has everything. It is well run, clean as a whiste, all beautifully maintained, well managed, has wonderful and luxurious things to experience.

It is a new form of government in Florida called a Monarchy.

God save the King.

I hope that is a joke.

[graciegirl]

I hope that is a joke.

Relax. It was.

And JimJoe, you aren't the first to say I'm not funny.

Funny haha that is.

[`willy]

willy - are you The Shawdow too? Can someone have two screen names? Does anyone else wonder why the Shadow posts almost entirely on this subject and does so anonymously? I just realized that the last part of the word anonymously is "mously" hummmm... willy -- do you live or want to live in TV?:sigh:

YES I live in the villages
AND YES I like it here
What I don"t like is people that attack people
for having a different opinion
Enough said,

HAVE A NICE DAY
WILLY

[JimJoe]

Relax. It was.

And JimJoe, you aren't the first to say I'm not funny.

Funny haha that is.

Sorry for that last post but I fear there are villagers that actually feel that way, and that does scare me. JJ

[golfnut]

i believe the shadow and lauren richy are the same person...gn

[The Shadow]

i believe the shadow and lauren richy are the same person...gn

I take that as a complement. This is my last post. Till tomorrow. Remember look for part two Wednesday. :wave:

[golfnut]

so is it true????....gn

[Xavier]

From Wikipedia,

A shadow is an area where direct light from a light source cannot reach due to obstruction by an object. It occupies all of the space behind an opaque object with light in front of it.

I think that may say it.

Xavier

[JimJoe]

so is it true????....gn

Mr. Shadow's public profile says he was born on January 1, 2009. From her picture in the OS, Ritchie looks a little older than that.

Hey Gracie, I can be "funny" too!
:)

[EdV]

..... These fees IMO/Best GUESS become part of the Operating Budget of the "Amenity CDDs" of which there currently are two. I would assume we could ask to see these "budgets"???

Julie – Since all of the CDDs (including the two special CDDs) are government entities, the minutes of their meetings and their annual budgets must be made available to the public. And that certainly is a good thing. Here’s a link to all that info: http://www.districtgov.org/

You can see what they’re spending on legal fees as well as where their revenues come from.

As for the reason behind placing all of the amenities into the two special CDDs, I’ve wondered about that many times. But it may turn out to be a big plus in favor of TV residents. You see, each homesite is assessed an annual maintenance fee that is paid to the numbered CDD (1-10) that the home is in. It varies from one CDD to another but is somewhere around $1000 annually whatever. And that fee pays for maintenance of the common grounds within the CDD, such as mowing street belts, planting lots of flowers, etc.

As a homeowner, you elect the trustees for your numbered CDD and they establish the annual budget for that. But, unlike the amenity fee, there is no in built limit as to how much that budget can be increased annually. So, in my mind, if each numbered CDD had its own recreation pool/center and executive golf course, any adverse IRS rulings would result in a big increase in your annual maintenance fee.

[JimJoe]

Julie – Since all of the CDDs (including the two special CDDs) are government entities, the minutes of their meetings and their annual budgets must be made available to the public. And that certainly is a good thing. Here’s a link to all that info: http://www.districtgov.org/

You can see what they’re spending on legal fees as well as where their revenues come from.

As for the reason behind placing all of the amenities into the two special CDDs, I’ve wondered about that many times. But it may turn out to be a big plus in favor of TV residents. You see, each homesite is assessed an annual maintenance fee that is paid to the numbered CDD (1-10) that the home is in. It varies from one CDD to another but is somewhere around $1000 annually whatever. And that fee pays for maintenance of the common grounds within the CDD, such as mowing street belts, planting lots of flowers, etc.

As a homeowner, you elect the trustees for your numbered CDD and they establish the annual budget for that. But, unlike the amenity fee, there is no in built limit as to how much that budget can be increased annually. So, in my mind, if each numbered CDD had its own recreation pool/center and executive golf course, any adverse IRS rulings would result in a big increase in your annual maintenance fee.

Ed: show me where the money comes from to pay the attorney fees and IF there is an IRS penalty. All I can think of is the amenity fees paid to the two commercial cdds, and if that money is used for attorney fees and penalties IF they are imposed, won't that mean less amenities? That is my concern. Please correct me if I am mistaken. thanks. JJ

[Hawkwind]

Today's installment.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/lake/os-lk-lauren-ritchie-villages-bond-di20100901,0,1664810.column

[Xavier]

Today's installment.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/lake/os-lk-lauren-ritchie-villages-bond-di20100901,0,1664810.column

Wow, that little piece of journalism was breath taking! NOT! I can't believe that someone paid her for that. The Shadow ("where the light don't hit" - see definition in previous post) should be thrilled.

Xavier

[graciegirl]

I haven't read it yet. I need a couple cups of coffee first. Waiting to see what The Shadow says.

I read (quickly) all of The Shadows posts. Most seem to be about the IRS issue and I can't seem to find many other subjects except for some about The St. Johns river aquafer. Lauren Ritchie has written some articles on the Florida water issue too.

Shadow, are you a fan of Lauren Ritchie or are you her?

I know Lauren Ritchie reads this forum and she has posted directly here. I will see if I can find some of her old posts.

It really doesn't matter. It probably will make me feel bad and angry no matter who wrote it. This is about our beloved Villages! It is unsettling and disturbing and .... I know most of you feel just as I do.

[collie1228]

There’s not a lot of new information in the second column, but there are a couple of interesting revelations. The fact that the Servadio, the IRS Agent, is out of the picture and another agent has been assigned could be a good thing. I'm a professional negotiator, and know that sometimes you need to change negotiators in order to get a settlement, as people often become entrenched in their positions. Second, it seems that the IRS is continuing to press for a settlement offer that really isn't much of an offer at all. It basically requires the development district to unwind the entire deal by calling the tax free bonds, paying the back taxes in full, and agreeing never to issue tax free bonds again. That's not a settlement offer - that's surrender. I doubt any developer as wealthy and powerful as the Morse family would capitulate - they might settle, but never on the IRS' terms. I'm bothered by Ms. Ritchie's last sentence, "Millions of dollars are still at stake, and the future for homeowners in The Villages is no more clear when this investigation started several years ago." If Ms. Ritchie is concerned about the homeowners in the Villages, she should investigate the possible impacts on Villagers (if any) should the IRS win this argument.

[bkcunningham1]

This isn't a jab at Lauren Ritchie, just a fact. If there was anything news worthy to report; there would be a news story. Not a personal op/ed column.

Ritchie's beat is the area encompassing TV which is a large population area and could mean many subscriptions to a financially suffering newspaper. Any information about TV has to come through TV officials unless she does some hard work to come up with news on her own. I'm sure that is a tough beat to cover and causes many hard feelings on the part of a reporter.

Even after filing a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act, Ritchie had to take her information about TV and the IRS into an editorial budget meeting and her editors asked her what news worthy updates she could supply. She told them what new information she had obtained. Her editors made the dicision to go with a column and not a news story. Big difference between news and personal commentary/opinion columns.

Newspapers are in big trouble these days. Column writers love attention. It justifies their jobs. The Orlando Sentinel is part of the (Chicago) Tribune Company. When their publisher quit in 2005, they didn't hire a new publisher. They combined publishers with another Tribune property in Florida. Times are tough guys.

The Tribune Company is in debt up to their eyeballs. They made a big decision and announcement about two years ago to measure their journalists based on productivity and their interaction with their communities. They slashed the news to advertising ratio. Jobs have to be justified. I'm sure Ritchie loves the attention, good or bad, her columns about TV garner. You decide.

[The Shadow]

Wow, that little piece of journalism was breath taking! NOT! I can't believe that someone paid her for that. The Shadow ("where the light don't hit" - see definition in previous post) should be thrilled.

Xavier

No I am not thrilled. I was hopping for some information that would indicate what the possible resolution to this dispute might be. For someone not up to speed on the issue the two articles were probably helpful, to me it was recycled news.

I will explain the obvious.

Per gg, “Most seem to be about the IRS issue and I can't seem to find many other subjects except for some about The St. Johns river aquafer".

I prefer to deal in fact not opinion, subjects backed by documentation, math, science, history.

When I comes to topics like,
Air Conditioner Breakdowns.
Do you have your names on your golf cart?
Stolen cell phone.
'Ding Dong' ice cream vehicles at TV?
I do not read that stuff, I would rather spend my time at the square watching the ladies line dance.

HomoSexual Males in The Villages??
I must admit you all had me talking to my self on that one. The picture in my mind is two men in the middle of SS Square on a beautiful evening, in each others arms, playing tonsil hockey and me loosing my lunch. I could see no point in getting verbally battered by all you hockey fans.

Totally off subject, Monday night I went to Katie Belle’s to see Donna Moore & Dunning Shaw show, what great singing voices, comedy, and really, really funny audience body contact. I recommend it.

Without light you can not have a Shadow. Turn the light off gracie.

[graciegirl]

This isn't a jab at Lauren Ritchie, just a fact. If there was anything news worthy to report; there would be a news story. Not a personal op/ed column.

Ritchie's beat is the area encompassing TV which is a large population area and could mean many subscriptions to a financially suffering newspaper. Any information about TV has to come through TV officials unless she does some hard work to come up with news on her own. I'm sure that is a tough beat to cover and causes many hard feelings on the part of a reporter.

Even after filing a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act, Ritchie had to take her information about TV and the IRS into an editorial budget meeting and her editors asked her what news worthy updates she could supply. She told them what new information she had obtained. Her editors made the dicision to go with a column and not a news story. Big difference between news and personal commentary/opinion columns.

Newspapers are in big trouble these days. Column writers love attention. It justifies their jobs. The Orlando Sentinel is part of the (Chicago) Tribune Company. When their publisher quit in 2005, they didn't hire a new publisher. They combined publishers with another Tribune property in Florida. Times are tough guys.

The Tribune Company is in debt up to their eyeballs. They made a big decision and announcement about two years ago to measure their journalists based on productivity and their interaction with their communities. They slashed the news to advertising ratio. Jobs have to be justified. I'm sure Ritchie loves the attention, good or bad, her columns about TV garner. You decide.

bump

[cabo35]

Where is the balance? If Lauren Ritchie is not perpetuating a personal agenda or the agenda of anti-Village interests, where is the balance in her column?

Has the columnist reported on the positive developments that have blossomed and benefited the people of Sumter, Lake and Marion counties as a direct result of the growth of the Villages?

The hospital and copious medical services and resources that came with development would not exist for so many area residents that have availed themselves of its services and care.

The tax revenues from new Village property owners that have improved police, fire, emergency medical, public safety resources, roadways and general municipal service would not exist.

Multiple safe, planned, quality entertainment and shopping venues that are enjoyed by thousands of non-Villagers would be on some one's drawing board.

Not once, to the best of my knowledge, has Lauren Ritchie written about the the evil developer's role in bringing the Charter Schools to the region. Thousands of children benefit from first class facilities and quality educational processes now in place. Not once has Ms. Ritchie written about the scores of Villagers, many with professional education backgrounds, who volunteer and work with kids from the area....who generously donate and raise funds for educational programs. That, from my viewpoint would be a benefit to the area's educational services that would not exist without the development of the Villages....and the "evil" developer's vision.

Has anyone seen an article from Ms. Ritchie about the economic and employment opportunities that result directly from the development of The Villages. Now that would be an interesting series of articles comparing the region's economy and job growth before and after development. It would probably sell papers.....ahhhh.....but wait. It might put the evil developer in a positive light and that would be inconsistent with Ms. Ritchie and the agenda of an assortment of Village bashers. Further, it would require a real journalistic effort accompanied by empirical research and Ms. Ritchie has often reminded us that she is a columnist....not a journalist. She is unencumbered by the journalistic concepts of objectivity and balance. From a personal perspective, I am not a shill for the developer. On balance, I believe he has done more good than bad and I believe that is a net positive.

Notwithstanding those that think her "scare" commentary is beneficial in some abstract way, I believe the dearth of real, in depth reporting on this issue speaks louder than her contrived assaults on the developer and the vicarious, intended or unintended distress it may contribute to Villagers of good will. Thanks to EdVinMass, JMitchell, Gracie, BK, Lamont Cranston, et al for adding intelligent perspective to the issue.

For balance, I guess if I was born and raised here, I may have some resentment about what progress has taken away. A quiet, idyllic countryside dotted with watermelon patches, horse farms, cattle grazing peacefully and fishing holes that never heard the whine of an outboard motor. A lifestyle that insulates you from car, truck and traffic noises. A lifestyle that keeps you from the pollution of progress. Damn Walt Disney and Gary Morse.

[JimJoe]

Ritchie's article today added very little if any important information to the issue. I do not understand why these last two articles were even written. I think the best thing Ritchie could do is leave TV alone until there is some news on the issue, unless she is willing to write a column on the MANY positive things about TV. JJ

[zcaveman]

Ritchie's article today added very little if any important information to the issue. I do not understand why these last two articles were even written. I think the best thing Ritchie could do is leave TV alone until there is some news on the issue, unless she is willing to write a column on the MANY positive things about TV. JJ

Possibly her way of doing a "bump". Just to remind us it is still there.

[`willy]

BALANCE

Balance, I would like to see some balance in the way the Village residents have to purchase the recreation facilities from the developer. How
about a independant appraisel of the properties and someone involved in the process that has the interests of the residents in mind before we are strapped with a debt for thirty years. The Sentinal didn't start this mess. It was the I.R.S. Lets keep focused on the real problem. Just my thoughts.

WILLY

[Xavier]

BALANCE

Balance, I would like to see some balance in the way the Village residents have to purchase the recreation facilities from the developer. How
about a independant appraisel of the properties and someone involved in the process that has the interests of the residents in mind before we are strapped with a debt for thirty years. The Sentinal didn't start this mess. It was the I.R.S. Lets keep focused on the real problem. Just my thoughts.

WILLY

I want to keep focused! What is the real problem? Since I'm assuming that you will continue to live here, can we expect to see you running for one of the vacant seats? I just know you wouldn't be the type to just sit back and complain anonymously. Okay, lets all get on the band wagon. I'm ready to pull support your way.

Xavier

[2 Oldcrabs]

The bond issue will not stop me from buying a home when I sell my house. But it is stopping me from buying now! I think I will continue to rent when able and hope it gets resolved soon.

[GMONEY]

Seems like LR is full of opinions. I do believe there is saying about opinions,,, Let me see " they are like ****@#" and everyone has one...

[Mikeod]

Having read on the District website the articles regarding this IRS question, I haven't seen anything that explains what has changed from 2003. The IRS previously inquired about the bonds issued previously and the result was in favor of TV. After that ruling, it appears the district issued new bonds for future use. Now, an IRS agent raises a question similar to the one raised previously and we start the process all over again?

Regarding the angry response of the agent to TV going "behind his back", I am reading an article in "Bottom Line" about what to do when the IRS calls. One piece of advice is to ask to speak to the agent's manager's manager. That is up two levels. It appears that is what TV did, and, if my assumption is correct that this inquiry duplicates the one done earlier, I would agree with the strategy of going higher to find out why this is happening given the previous ruling.

I really think learning what has changed either in the IRS code, or the way the bonds were issued relative to previous bonds may go a long way to explaining the why's and wherefore's and the homeowners' risk level, if any.

[eweissenbach]

I have read every post and every article in this thread, and I still don't understand all the ramifications of the issue. I am a big picture person, not a detail person, so my big picture mentality leads me to believe that this will all get resolved with little collateral damage. There are too many people with too much at stake (the Morse's and the 80k villagers, not to mention the various business owners, and franchisees) for this to destroy the basic concept of TV. I am also one that believes that everyone is entitled to an opinion, and as long as they don't distort facts or get personal in their attacks, I say let them express away.

The Morse's are running a family business, and their intent is to enrich themselves, and their is nothing wrong with that as long as it is done ethically and legally. They also have a family business that has enriched many other peoples lives, and I beleive they are heavily invested in providing a quality product and environment for their customers. That being said I am considering purchasing a home in TV within the next year or two, and this issue would not cause me to hesitate for a second. Thanks to everyone for the insights on this, I shall rest easy.

P.S. The $209,000 spent on legal fees is less than $3.00 per resident - just sayin'.

[cabo35]

BALANCE

Balance, I would like to see some balance in the way the Villages residents have to purchase the recreation facilities from the developer. How
about a independant appraisel of the properties and someone involved in the process that has the interests of the residents in mind before we are strapped with a debt for thirty years. The Sentinal didn't start this mess. It was the I.R.S. Lets keep focused on the real problem. Just my thoughts.

WILLY

We share different perspectives and context on the issue of balance and that is OK. My contention speaks directly to the disservice Lauren Ritchie does to Villages residents and those considering a move to the Villages by the admitted "one sided, anti-developer" ramblings expressed in her column. Many readers do not distinguish between an opinionated columnist who avoids any input that does not support her position and a real reporter who fairly presents both sides so readers can draw their own conclusions.

She lost all credibility with many when in an early article she, with cavalier arrogance and presumptuousness stated, "And it is time for homeowners to worry less about their tee time and marvelous activities and more about their future property values and financial liability."

This from a non-resident, for hire, opinion vendor with an axe to grind. No one, except Lauren Ritchie and the IRS is happy about the controversy. Why does Lauren Ritchie play on the distress and tell us how much to worry about circumstance the outcome of which we have little control over. That is not to say that after the case is decided we collectively may not have legal options or in the alternative survived a tempest in a teapot. What is her purpose in admonishing Villagers to worry about their "property values and financial liability"?

Copyright © 2009, Orlando Sentinel

That calculated statement created angst with many Villagers and potential Villagers. It did what Laura Ritchie wanted. In the August 29 Orlando Sentinel, Ritchie further tweaks Villagers with her recent statement, "Ritchie: It's got to be unsettling and frightening to wonder what's in store. Not to mention expensive. The district already has spent more than $209,000 of residents' money so far, nearly all on high-powered lawyers on both coasts." The most frightening and unsettling circumstance is Lauren Ritchie's selectively alarming language created to further distress those who view them. In my opinion and notwithstanding opinions to the contrary, it is desperate, insidiously sinister and ethically challenged. Ask yourself, do you get the impression Ritchie is rooting for the IRS and would love to be able to say to Villagers....I told you so? .........and that is why balance, or lack thereof is significant.

I stated in a much earlier post on this topic, that I spoke with a knowledgeable attorney on this issue. As an admitted amateur in such matters, I concluded that the whole issue of CDD's and bonding mechanisms is new, dynamic and evolving in the courts and Florida State administrative processes. Related issues are going through a legal metamorphosis that is distinguished by a lack of precedent. The entire fact pattern is complex and cannot be catalogued as legally black or white. The fact is the whole bonding issue is clouded by murky shades of grey subject to the perspective and interpretation of those with a vested interest in outcomes. Should we be paying attention.....absolutely. Should we be distressed by the rantings of a columnist with a self serving agenda and bias....no.

Like others who purchased the Villages lifestyle, I wasn't thrilled with the bonding nuances that came with the purchase of our home, but, I was aware of them.

Willy.....the Sentinel may not have started it as you state, but, once the game was on, they should have given readers objective reporting to balance their anti-Villages crusade.........just my thoughts.

Have another great day in the Villages.

[Bogie Shooter]

We share different perspectives and context on the issue of balance and that is OK. My contention speaks directly to the disservice Lauren Ritchie does to Villages residents and those considering a move to the Villages by the admitted "one sided, anti-developer" ramblings expressed in her column. Many readers do not distinguish between an opinionated columnist who avoids any input that does not support her position and a real reporter who fairly presents both sides so readers can draw their own conclusions.

She lost all credibility with many when in an early article she, with cavalier arrogance and presumptuousness stated, "And it is time for homeowners to worry less about their tee time and marvelous activities and more about their future property values and financial liability."

This from a non-resident, for hire, opinion vendor with an axe to grind. No one, except Lauren Ritchie and the IRS is happy about the controversy. Why does Lauren Ritchie play on the distress and tell us how much to worry about circumstance the outcome of which we have little control over. That is not to say that after the case is decided we collectively may not have legal options or in the alternative survived a tempest in a teapot. What is her purpose in admonishing Villagers to worry about their "property values and financial liability"?

Copyright © 2009, Orlando Sentinel

That calculated statement created angst with many Villagers and potential Villagers. It did what Laura Ritchie wanted. In the August 29 Orlando Sentinel, Ritchie further tweaks Villagers with her recent statement, "Ritchie: It's got to be unsettling and frightening to wonder what's in store. Not to mention expensive. The district already has spent more than $209,000 of residents' money so far, nearly all on high-powered lawyers on both coasts." The most frightening and unsettling circumstance is Lauren Ritchie's selectively alarming language created to further distress those who view them. In my opinion and notwithstanding opinions to the contrary, it is desperate, insidiously sinister and ethically challenged. Ask yourself, do you get the impression Ritchie is rooting for the IRS and would love to be able to say to Villagers....I told you so? .........and that is why balance, or lack thereof is significant.

I stated in a much earlier post on this topic, that I spoke with a knowledgeable attorney on this issue. As an admitted amateur in such matters, I concluded that the whole issue of CDD's and bonding mechanisms is new, dynamic and evolving in the courts and Florida State administrative processes. Related issues are going through a legal metamorphosis that is distinguished by a lack of precedent. The entire fact pattern is complex and cannot be catalogued as legally black or white. The fact is the whole bonding issue is clouded by murky shades of grey subject to the perspective and interpretation of those with a vested interest in outcomes. Should we be paying attention.....absolutely. Should we be distressed by the rantings of a columnist with a self serving agenda and bias....no.

Like others who purchased the Villages lifestyle, I wasn't thrilled with the bonding nuances that came with the purchase of our home, but, I was aware of them.

Willy.....the Sentinel may not have started it as you state, but, once the game was on, they should have given readers objective reporting to balance their anti-Villages crusade.........just my thoughts.

Have another great day in the Villages.
Well said! Thanks

[Lauren Ritchie]

BALANCE

Balance, I would like to see some balance in the way the Village residents have to purchase the recreation facilities from the developer. How
about a independant appraisel of the properties and someone involved in the process that has the interests of the residents in mind before we are strapped with a debt for thirty years. The Sentinal didn't start this mess. It was the I.R.S. Lets keep focused on the real problem. Just my thoughts.

WILLY

hello willy,

the villages did have two appraisals. there is a great deal of discussion in the documents as to the methods used and whether they were accurate or valid. the districts have changed the way they do it. years ago, they used to put very high appraisals on stuff like mailboxes and guardhouses -- hundreds of thousands for each. in the bonds under examination by the IRS, the method switched. they now value the blue sky portion extremely high and the tangible items at believable prices. the IRS contends that the appraisals were done by people with conflicts of interest and as such aren't valid. there's more to it than that, but that's the short version.

[Lauren Ritchie]

I have read every post and every article in this thread, and I still don't understand all the ramifications of the issue. I am a big picture person, not a detail person, so my big picture mentality leads me to believe that this will all get resolved with little collateral damage. There are too many people with too much at stake (the Morse's and the 80k villagers, not to mention the various business owners, and franchisees) for this to destroy the basic concept of TV. I am also one that believes that everyone is entitled to an opinion, and as long as they don't distort facts or get personal in their attacks, I say let them express away.

The Morse's are running a family business, and their intent is to enrich themselves, and their is nothing wrong with that as long as it is done ethically and legally. They also have a family business that has enriched many other peoples lives, and I beleive they are heavily invested in providing a quality product and environment for their customers. That being said I am considering purchasing a home in TV within the next year or two, and this issue would not cause me to hesitate for a second. Thanks to everyone for the insights on this, I shall rest easy.

P.S. The $209,000 spent on legal fees is less than $3.00 per resident - just sayin'.


hey ed,
i'm in agreement with you on most points. but ask yourself this: why do you want $209,000 of money that is supposed to be going to ammenities for YOU to be paid to lawyers to defend a decision that benefited no one but the developer? if the district wasn't spending "ammenity" money on this, it is just another chunk that would be spent on residents. just something to ponder.
lauren

[graciegirl]

hey ed,
i'm in agreement with you on most points. but ask yourself this: why do you want $209,000 of money that is supposed to be going to ammenities for YOU to be paid to lawyers to defend a decision that benefited no one but the developer? if the district wasn't spending "ammenity" money on this, it is just another chunk that would be spent on residents. just something to ponder.
lauren

Lauren.

You can't believe this place. The developers have thought of everything and it is top drawer. You need to come here and see this place for yourself. It FEELS like the developer is in no way greedy, when you see how we have so much for $135 a month.

[Lauren Ritchie]

Having read on the District website the articles regarding this IRS question, I haven't seen anything that explains what has changed from 2003. The IRS previously inquired about the bonds issued previously and the result was in favor of TV. After that ruling, it appears the district issued new bonds for future use. Now, an IRS agent raises a question similar to the one raised previously and we start the process all over again?

Regarding the angry response of the agent to TV going "behind his back", I am reading an article in "Bottom Line" about what to do when the IRS calls. One piece of advice is to ask to speak to the agent's manager's manager. That is up two levels. It appears that is what TV did, and, if my assumption is correct that this inquiry duplicates the one done earlier, I would agree with the strategy of going higher to find out why this is happening given the previous ruling.

I really think learning what has changed either in the IRS code, or the way the bonds were issued relative to previous bonds may go a long way to explaining the why's and wherefore's and the homeowners' risk level, if any.


hey mike, i can offer at least a little bit of infomation on that front. nothing has changed substantially, to my knowledge, between 2003 and now regarding the IRS rules governing these types of bonds. the villages, however, has slightly changed how it values properties.

the villages will tell you (as they've told me) that everything was just fine when the first agent reviewed what i recall was the 2003 bonds. however, that is not entirely true. the letter back to the district stated that the IRS was extremely concerned about the way the district operated and stated the problem areas. the districts ignored that letter, and the agent on the case mentioned that repeatedly in this investigation. i have seen that letter, and i'm sure i have it in a file somewhere, but i know for sure that it can be obtained through janet.tutt@districtgov.org

hope that helps.
lauren

[Lauren Ritchie]

Lauren.

You can't believe this place. The developers have thought of everything and it is top drawer. You need to come here and see this place for yourself. It FEELS like the developer is in no way greedy, when you see how we have so much for $135 a month.

hey gracie,

i've been to the villages many, many times. i know what it's like. it's incredible. you have to realize that i'm not writing about your lifestyle. you will get no argument from me in that quarter. i do not think there is a retirement community on the planet that rivals this one.

what i'm writing about are the financial underpinnings of how this was created. interestingly enough, for those who want to make the comparison, similar districts were used to create walt disney world back in the 1970s. (but NOT the way the developer has misused these.)

hey, enjoy. i wish you the best. i'm 53, and retirement is looming on my horizon, too.

[Lauren Ritchie]

There’s not a lot of new information in the second column, but there are a couple of interesting revelations. The fact that the Servadio, the IRS Agent, is out of the picture and another agent has been assigned could be a good thing. I'm a professional negotiator, and know that sometimes you need to change negotiators in order to get a settlement, as people often become entrenched in their positions. Second, it seems that the IRS is continuing to press for a settlement offer that really isn't much of an offer at all. It basically requires the development district to unwind the entire deal by calling the tax free bonds, paying the back taxes in full, and agreeing never to issue tax free bonds again. That's not a settlement offer - that's surrender. I doubt any developer as wealthy and powerful as the Morse family would capitulate - they might settle, but never on the IRS' terms. I'm bothered by Ms. Ritchie's last sentence, "Millions of dollars are still at stake, and the future for homeowners in The Villages is no more clear when this investigation started several years ago." If Ms. Ritchie is concerned about the homeowners in the Villages, she should investigate the possible impacts on Villagers (if any) should the IRS win this argument.


hey collie,
you are exactly right. what the agent proposed is certainly nothing that the villages ever would agree to. i think that was proposed as a starting point.

in any event, regarding the impacts. i have long wanted to write about the impacts. i have been able to get a few experts to talk with me about other situations and to outline possible ultimate implications for village homeowers -- but never on the record. well, at least the ones with the expertise in this sort of special district issue haven't been willing to discuss it on the record. experts in this field are a very small community, and i'd rather leave it hanging than use folks who aren't qualified. i have heard enough to believe that there could be impacts on the residents but many bond experts believe this is breaking new ground because of the way the developer has used the districts as his own private printing press for cash.

hope that helps. sorry i don't know more.
lauren

[cabo35]

hey collie,

......many bond experts believe this is breaking new ground.......
hope that helps. sorry i don't know more.
lauren

As an admitted amateur in such matters, I concluded that the whole issue of CDD's and bonding mechanisms is new, dynamic and evolving in the courts and Florida State administrative processes. Related issues are going through a legal metamorphosis that is distinguished by a lack of precedent. The entire fact pattern is complex and cannot be catalogued as legally black or white. The fact is the whole bonding issue is clouded by murky shades of grey subject to the perspective and interpretation of those with a vested interest in outcomes. Should we be paying attention.....absolutely. .........."distressed......no".

At last, a rare point of agreement.....I think.

[Taj44]

Lauren, my friends and I want to publicly thank you for bringing these issues to light. We had no idea this type of thing was going on when we purchased, nor did most people I suspect. It remains to be seen how things turn out, but you are doing a great public service with your column. We know you are not slamming the lifestyle or the community - you are just keeping folks up to speed on the slippery slope the developer took when issuing the bonds and creating the CDD's. Thank you!!!

[The Great Fumar]

Where is the agent ????? Someone stated that the agent who started all this mess has been reassigned ,,,,,Never to be heard from again , He must have ticked off someone higher up .......
Sent to Upper Mongolia I think !!!! I wonder why ???
INQUIRING MINDS WANT TO KNOW !!!

FUMAR

[jannd228]

Where is the agent ????? Someone stated that the agent who started all this mess has been reassigned ,,,,,Never to be heard from again , He must have ticked off someone higher up .......
Sent to Upper Mongolia I think !!!! I wonder why ???
INQUIRING MINDS WANT TO KNOW !!!

FUMAR

this is typical IRS format, they do it all the time so disputes do not get resolved, brother is an agent now retired

[`willy]

this is typical IRS format, they do it all the time so disputes do not get resolved, brother is an agent now retired

Whats your brother think of this mess?

Willy

[jannd228]

Whats your brother think of this mess?

Willy

the IRS doesn't back down, he is the one who told me about it, I am now looking in New Smyrna, Bethune Beach, I am still going to come for an LSV but who knows what will happen in the future

someone stated it correctly this cannot be the precedent for other communities the Morses' have their money it is obvious from the posts they are slowly turning over their business concerns (restaurants is the prime example) and have plans to move elsewhere, yes they live in The Villages now but where else do they own property, I am sure other places

IRS usually completes their mission within a 7 year time frame not sure how many years this has been going on :wave:

[jannd228]

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_politics/2009/05/the-villages-gets-slapped-with-355-million-irs-penalty.html

Actually the second part is, I would not panic but like other issues in our lives I would try to be AWARE, the IRS usually wins, not always but almost always, as the ones who it appears have already paid financially a great deal for your lifestyle I would start to question how much of what you originally bought into is now disappearing, your developer created restaurants, your activity centers (free but now MVP is there for a fee, activities and clubs all seem to be created by you not the developer). If you Google or YouTube The Villages a lot of what you had is now no longer there, parades, holiday festivities etc., or at least that is the way it appears to me. As for the charter schools, I have someone researching that, I am NOT sure but according to NCLB (no child left behind), I think the developer had to put those in, it was not out of the goodness of his heart. He, like the folks at Disney, created something ALL can enjoy regardless of income, but like Disney fees escalate as time moves forward and infrastructure has to be replaced and becomes more costly. Paper is paper, subject to amendment.

I am just a former English teacher, but I was trained to read and edit essays (125 a week to be exact), I understand all writers of a newspaper, I don't think Ms Ritchie is trying to discredit any of you or the lifestyle you enjoy, I think she is just trying to get you to realize that because of this issue there could be financial problems down the road for the residents. Yes she is selling newspapers, but at least she made a percentage of you AWARE of the possibilities, and she is making perspective buyers look elsewhere.

The developer uses OPM, other people's money to produce what they do, then they borrow against that money, very little of their personal fortune is ever tied up in a development, everything is on paper, they have the legal means to walk away.

In this case, according to some articles I have read, they created something, legally according to FL law, and sold it to themselves and then sold it back. One article states you are being charged DOUBLE, the bond and your amenity fees. All profit to the Morses' for managing ($696 million is a LOT of money for any company per the article link). The IRS wants its pound of flesh so to speak, they are questioning the methodology used, not the lifestyle created.

I would contact or find a way to contact those in your community who have already brought suit, and WON against the Morse Family. I am sure they are aware of this current situation and perhaps could ease your fears. I wouldn't just hope it goes away or goes YOUR way. As someone pointed out many people, including celebrities, trusted Bernie Madoff. In this economy I would only trust immediate family, just make sure even in that case you have a positive relationship with them.

As the teens I taught would say: just sayin'

[villa2]

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_politics/2009/05/the-villages-gets-slapped-with-355-million-irs-penalty.html

Thank you for posting. One observation: They closed the comments after just a few anti-Morse? Did I read that correctly? Also that column is over one year old.

[spk7951]

the IRS doesn't back down, he is the one who told me about it, I am now looking in New Smyrna, Bethune Beach, I am still going to come for an LSV but who knows what will happen in the future

someone stated it correctly this cannot be the precedent for other communities the Morses' have their money it is obvious from the posts they are slowly turning over their business concerns (restaurants is the prime example) and have plans to move elsewhere, yes they live in The Villages now but where else do they own property, I am sure other places

IRS usually completes their mission within a 7 year time frame not sure how many years this has been going on :wave:


So I guess the public comments from Mark Morse that the family is not going anywhere and they have started involving the next Morse generation in the business means nothing? My take of the selling of certain businesses they own is simply to down size and then concentrate on property leasing once TV is built out, but that is just my guess.

And as far as the IRS is concerned let me share an experience we had with the IRS. Soon after moving here in 2008 we received a letter from the IRS informing us that we owed over $900 in back taxes and penalties from our 2006 tax return. We sent the letter up north to our accountant who disagreed with the agents findings. He sent us back a letter explaining his position, which we forwarded to the IRS agent. Some time later we got a reply from the IRS saying that they had re-calculated our return based upon our accountants information and we now owed less than $600. My first reaction was that the agent did not know what he was doing but after talking to my accountant his advise was to pay and make it go away because it would cost us more to fight it.

[`willy]

the IRS doesn't back down, he is the one who told me about it, I am now looking in New Smyrna, Bethune Beach, I am still going to come for an LSV but who knows what will happen in the future

someone stated it correctly this cannot be the precedent for other communities the Morses' have their money it is obvious from the posts they are slowly turning over their business concerns (restaurants is the prime example) and have plans to move elsewhere, yes they live in The Villages now but where else do they own property, I am sure other places

IRS usually completes their mission within a 7 year time frame not sure how many years this has been going on :wave:

Thank You for the Info, Sorry your looking elsewhere, Its really a great place.
Willy

[jannd228]

So I guess the public comments from Mark Morse that the family is not going anywhere and they have started involving the next Morse generation in the business means nothing? My take of the selling of certain businesses they own is simply to down size and then concentrate on property leasing once TV is built out, but that is just my guess.

And as far as the IRS is concerned let me share an experience we had with the IRS. Soon after moving here in 2008 we received a letter from the IRS informing us that we owed over $900 in back taxes and penalties from our 2006 tax return. We sent the letter up north to our accountant who disagreed with the agents findings. He sent us back a letter explaining his position, which we forwarded to the IRS agent. Some time later we got a reply from the IRS saying that they had re-calculated our return based upon our accountants information and we now owed less than $600. My first reaction was that the agent did not know what he was doing but after talking to my accountant his advise was to pay and make it go away because it would cost us more to fight it.

As far as maintaining the business for future generations, two words Paris Hilton. You are taking THEIR word for it, even Roy Disney ended up on the outside and he WAS family.

With the IRS issue your accountant gave you good advice BUT if you ever do have a problem, get a constituent letter from a senator or congressman, you would be surprised how quickly things get resolved.

again just sayin'

[spk7951]

As far as maintaining the business for future generations, two words Paris Hilton. You are taking THEIR word for it, even Roy Disney ended up on the outside and he WAS family.

With the IRS issue your accountant gave you good advice BUT if you ever do have a problem, get a constituent letter from a senator or congressman, you would be surprised how quickly things get resolved.

again just sayin'

Yep, I am taking their word for it because I prefer to take people at their word until otherwise is known. If you prefer not to believe their word then that is your right.

Too bad I did not know about the constituent letter two years ago.

[jannd228]

Thank you for posting. One observation: They closed the comments after just a few anti-Morse? Did I read that correctly? Also that column is over one year old.

The purpose of research is to find as many articles to support your position (in my case students had to support a thesis statement for a research paper), not just a few. The original article, I suspect, was to make people aware of the issues and FUTURE possibilities. One year later the IRS, according to protocol, has replaced the original agent assigned to the case, so new articles are appearing.

If I were to ask a student why he/she was writing about the issue I would want to see as much evidence to support their position as possible BEFORE I allowed them to continue the research project.

I would tell students to begin their research at least page 10 on a Google search and work forward, that way they would get as much information as possible about their topic not just the most current.

Each online newspaper is different, sometimes comments are closed only to readers and sometimes they have a time frame established.

[graciegirl]

Jannd228.

Have you physically been here in The Villages????

[jannd228]

briefly with friends in May 2010

[Taj44]

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_politics/2009/05/the-villages-gets-slapped-with-355-million-irs-penalty.html

Actually the second part is, I would not panic but like other issues in our lives I would try to be AWARE, the IRS usually wins, not always but almost always, as the ones who it appears have already paid financially a great deal for your lifestyle I would start to question how much of what you originally bought into is now disappearing, your developer created restaurants, your activity centers (free but now MVP is there for a fee, activities and clubs all seem to be created by you not the developer). If you Google or YouTube The Villages a lot of what you had is now no longer there, parades, holiday festivities etc., or at least that is the way it appears to me. As for the charter schools, I have someone researching that, I am NOT sure but according to NCLB (no child left behind), I think the developer had to put those in, it was not out of the goodness of his heart. He, like the folks at Disney, created something ALL can enjoy regardless of income, but like Disney fees escalate as time moves forward and infrastructure has to be replaced and becomes more costly. Paper is paper, subject to amendment.

I am just a former English teacher, but I was trained to read and edit essays (125 a week to be exact), I understand all writers of a newspaper, I don't think Ms Ritchie is trying to discredit any of you or the lifestyle you enjoy, I think she is just trying to get you to realize that because of this issue there could be financial problems down the road for the residents. Yes she is selling newspapers, but at least she made a percentage of you AWARE of the possibilities, and she is making perspective buyers look elsewhere.

The developer uses OPM, other people's money to produce what they do, then they borrow against that money, very little of their personal fortune is ever tied up in a development, everything is on paper, they have the legal means to walk away.

In this case, according to some articles I have read, they created something, legally according to FL law, and sold it to themselves and then sold it back. One article states you are being charged DOUBLE, the bond and your amenity fees. All profit to the Morses' for managing ($696 million is a LOT of money for any company per the article link). The IRS wants its pound of flesh so to speak, they are questioning the methodology used, not the lifestyle created.

I would contact or find a way to contact those in your community who have already brought suit, and WON against the Morse Family. I am sure they are aware of this current situation and perhaps could ease your fears. I wouldn't just hope it goes away or goes YOUR way. As someone pointed out many people, including celebrities, trusted Bernie Madoff. In this economy I would only trust immediate family, just make sure even in that case you have a positive relationship with them.

As the teens I taught would say: just sayin'

Great post Jannd228.