The Misleading Article in Today's Daily Sun

[Advogado]

The head-line article in today's Daily Sun is the latest impact-fee bull shoveled by the Developer's Minister of Propaganda, David R. Corder. It nowhere mentions the decrease in property taxes that would match the increase in impact fees. Estep, Miller, and Search ran on a platform of reversing the 25% property-tax increase imposed by the Developer's puppet Commissioners to preserve the Developer's sweetheart impact fee.

Mr. Corder constantly describes the proposed impact-fee increase as a "tax increase". It would not be a tax increase. It would be a SHIFTING of taxes to pay for the Developer's county infrastructure (roads, police, fire, etc.) from the present residents to the Developer, who should be bearing such costs. The net result would be a tax decrease for current businesses and residents. New or existing businesses building a new structure would pay the impact fee once and then enjoy lower property taxes, amortizing and deducting the impact fee over the life of the building.

Again, this would be a tax break for existing, COVID-impacted businesses. Furthermore, expanding existing businesses filling up the many existing vacant premises would pay no impact fee and would enjoy the benefit of lower property taxes. Unfortunately, the issue is complicated and, for many residents, the Developer's newspaper is their only source of local news. These folks may well believe Mr. Corder's distortion of the facts.

[Stu from NYC]

It is remarkable how the paper continues to publish a very one sided view of this. Would have thought they would put in at least one person saying why they think the developer should be paying more but not what the paper is told to publish.

I have said it before and will say it again think there is ample room to compromise but since when does responsible journalism allow an editorial to be published as a news article.

[Bill14564]

"The Estep-Miller-Search tax increase" I lost count of how many times this phrase was used. It looks like even the author got tired of using it!

Is this a case of, "if you say it enough it becomes true" or was this supposed to be part of a drinking game?

I'm surprised no one from the paper/developer/business side has attempted to challenge the study that established the levels of the impact fees. Their only argument seems to be that they like their 60% discount and will take their toys and go home if they don't get to keep it.

[LuvtheVillages]

It is remarkable how the paper continues to publish a very one sided view of this. Would have thought they would put in at least one person saying why they think the developer should be paying more but not what the paper is told to publish.

I have said it before and will say it again think there is ample room to compromise but since when does responsible journalism allow an editorial to be published as a news article.

I guess you don't know that the Daily Sun is not a newspaper. It is owned by The Developer and its sole purpose is to sell more homes. It does not pretend to be journalism, much less responsible journalism.

[Stu from NYC]

I guess you don't know that the Daily Sun is not a newspaper. It is owned by The Developer and its sole purpose is to sell more homes. It does not pretend to be journalism, much less responsible journalism.

Actually I do know this but silly me thinks that something that represents itself as a newspaper should have at least a little bit of a journalistic standard.

Have never seen a paper before that does not have an editorial page or a regular page of letters to the editor (but than again the paper does not appear to have a living breathing editor) or news article that are totally written from the authors opinion of what the facts should be not what they are.

[Jayhawk]

It is remarkable how the paper continues to publish a very one sided view of this. Would have thought they would put in at least one person saying why they think the developer should be paying more but not what the paper is told to publish.

I have said it before and will say it again think there is ample room to compromise but since when does responsible journalism allow an editorial to be published as a news article.

Maybe you've heard about the document called the US Constitution and the Supreme Court who opines on its meanings, including the right to a free press-

Can a newspaper refuse to run a letter or advertisement? | Freedom Forum Institute (https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/about/faq/can-a-newspaper-refuse-to-run-a-letter-or-advertisement/)

The Court wrote:

“A newspaper is more than a passive receptacle or conduit for news, comment, and advertising. The choice of material to go into a newspaper, and the decisions made as to limitations on the size and content of the paper, and treatment of public issues and public officials — whether fair or unfair — constitute the exercise of editorial control and judgment. It has yet to be demonstrated how governmental regulation of this crucial process can be exercised consistent with First Amendment guarantees of a free press as they have evolved to this time.”

[LeeM]

The Daily Sun is not a newspaper. It's propaganda for the developer. And the descriptions they use of Miller, Search and Estep are disgraceful. It's pretty obvious our new elected officials have gotten under the developer's skin. I'm very pleased the attempts to rig the election by making it so Democrats couldn't vote, shoveling money at the old candidates, hiring a consultant, propaganda in the paper, etc. didn't work! So pleased that our new commissioners are working for US and not the developer. And that's as it should be!

[JohnN]

responsible journalism

well Stu, responsible journalism has gone the way of honest government and jumbo shrimp

[golfing eagles]

The head-line article in today's Daily Sun is the latest impact-fee bull shoveled by the Developer's Minister of Propaganda, David R. Corder. It nowhere mentions the decrease in property taxes that would match the increase in impact fees. Estep, Miller, and Search ran on a platform of reversing the 25% property-tax increase imposed by the Developer's puppet Commissioners to preserve the Developer's sweetheart impact fee.

Mr. Corder constantly describes the proposed impact-fee increase as a "tax increase". It would not be a tax increase. It would be a SHIFTING of taxes to pay for the Developer's county infrastructure (roads, police, fire, etc.) from the present residents to the Developer, who should be bearing such costs. The net result would be a tax decrease for current businesses and residents. New or existing businesses building a new structure would pay the impact fee once and then enjoy lower property taxes, amortizing and deducting the impact fee over the life of the building.

Again, this would be a tax break for existing, COVID-impacted businesses. Furthermore, expanding existing businesses filling up the many existing vacant premises would pay no impact fee and would enjoy the benefit of lower property taxes. Unfortunately, the issue is complicated and, for many residents, the Developer's newspaper is their only source of local news. These folks may well believe Mr. Corder's distortion of the facts.

Should they believe YOUR distortion of the facts instead?????

[Advogado]

Should they believe YOUR distortion of the facts instead?????
I’m always glad to be educated. Please tell me what I have distorted.

[Taltarzac725]

There are a lot of other sources for Villages' news. Try Facebook, for instance. Google "The Villages" with "Facebook".

He that owns the press has the power but then along came the Internet.

[golfing eagles]

I’m always glad to be educated. Please tell me what I have distorted.

You constantly state that the "developer" should pay the impact fees----when in reality the developer will just pass the cost on to the buyer. You have stated that the developer won't be able to do that, but in this market he most certainly can.

If your argument was that the new home buyers should bear the impact fee because they are creating the cost, it would have a bit more merit. But then you'd have to change your tagline to "the new homeowner's sweetheart impact fee deal"

[Stu from NYC]

Maybe you've heard about the document called the US Constitution and the Supreme Court who opines on its meanings, including the right to a free press-

Can a newspaper refuse to run a letter or advertisement? | Freedom Forum Institute (https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/about/faq/can-a-newspaper-refuse-to-run-a-letter-or-advertisement/)

The Court wrote:

“A newspaper is more than a passive receptacle or conduit for news, comment, and advertising. The choice of material to go into a newspaper, and the decisions made as to limitations on the size and content of the paper, and treatment of public issues and public officials — whether fair or unfair — constitute the exercise of editorial control and judgment. It has yet to be demonstrated how governmental regulation of this crucial process can be exercised consistent with First Amendment guarantees of a free press as they have evolved to this time.”

They have the right to pretty much publish whatever they want.

I have the right to my opinion that what they publish is not responsible journalism.

[PennBF]

I have an Uncle who farmed his whole life and was as knowledgeable as anyone I ever knew. One time an Insurance Company tried to get him to make a one time settlement on an Insurance Claim rather than the monthly payments. His response has stayed with me as it represented what I should always remember. His response was, "if it is good for you then it must not be good for me!" Thus the Developer's proposal!!:popcorn:

[Velvet]

It is remarkable how the paper continues to publish a very one sided view of this. Would have thought they would put in at least one person saying why they think the developer should be paying more but not what the paper is told to publish.

I have said it before and will say it again think there is ample room to compromise but since when does responsible journalism allow an editorial to be published as a news article.

I am not surprised. When you are talking to a car salesman do you expect them to list the faults and vulnerabilities of the car they are selling? I don’t. But then I am used to propaganda for manipulation purposes in many areas.

[davem4616]

I read the article and found it to be rather poorly written and confusing...I didn't bother to re-read it and went on to the page with the comics

What I did find interesting is that the article said Sumter County hadn't changed it's tax rate in 14 years

seems to me that there may not have been much serious long term planning being done by the Sumter county officials that should have been doing that, so that additional funds needed for future infrastructure expenses were on the radar and could be collected and put aside... but with the constant increase in the tax base the money has been flowing in by the wheelbarrow for years and apparently nobody noticed.....now the circus has become too big for the tent and there's not enough money to fund the infrastructure spending that is needed

so, yes, let's tax the 'you know what' out of the small businesses, those scoundrels are making money hand over fist on us (NOT)... and let's put future business growth on hold, that'll solve the problem, (NOT)...and so what if another hospital doesn't get built in the southern area of TV, they seem to be younger down there anyway (selfish)

[DeanFL]

The head-line article in today's Daily Sun is the latest impact-fee bull shoveled by the Developer's Minister of Propaganda, David R. Corder. It nowhere mentions the decrease in property taxes that would match the increase in impact fees. Estep, Miller, and Search ran on a platform of reversing the 25% property-tax increase imposed by the Developer's puppet Commissioners to preserve the Developer's sweetheart impact fee.

Mr. Corder constantly describes the proposed impact-fee increase as a "tax increase". It would not be a tax increase. It would be a SHIFTING of taxes to pay for the Developer's county infrastructure (roads, police, fire, etc.) from the present residents to the Developer, who should be bearing such costs. The net result would be a tax decrease for current businesses and residents. New or existing businesses building a new structure would pay the impact fee once and then enjoy lower property taxes, amortizing and deducting the impact fee over the life of the building.

Again, this would be a tax break for existing, COVID-impacted businesses. Furthermore, expanding existing businesses filling up the many existing vacant premises would pay no impact fee and would enjoy the benefit of lower property taxes. Unfortunately, the issue is complicated and, for many residents, the Developer's newspaper is their only source of local news. These folks may well believe Mr. Corder's distortion of the facts.

Thanks for this. I reviewed the loooong Sun article, and honestly was a bit confused as to the specifics and impact. I thought the article seemed to focus on one side (what's new with some Media, including the Sun). This ToTV thread expalins a lot now. And...as usual a topic for vastly different viewpoints.

thanks,
.
.

[Bucco]

It is remarkable how the paper continues to publish a very one sided view of this. Would have thought they would put in at least one person saying why they think the developer should be paying more but not what the paper is told to publish.

I have said it before and will say it again think there is ample room to compromise but since when does responsible journalism allow an editorial to be published as a news article.

I have been here for 22 years now, and love the Daily Sun, BUT allowing it to be compared with any other journalistic endeavor is silly.

It was begun to sell houses and The Villages, and to this day, that is its main purpose.

You will never see certain things in The Daily Sun, no matter the import. It will never ever give you both sides, if their are other sides.


It still is a "house organ" selling this community, and the "Family" values" to all.

This is not negative, just reality

[Velvet]

I have been here for 22 years now, and love the Daily Sun, BUT allowing it to be compared with any other journalistic endeavor is silly.

It was begun to sell houses and The Villages, and to this day, that is its main purpose.

You will never see certain things in The Daily Sun, no matter the import. It will never ever give you both sides, if their are other sides.


It still is a "house organ" selling this community, and the "Family" values" to all.

This is not negative, just reality

This is expressed much better than what I was trying to say.

[birdiebill]

I just googled Sumter County Road Impact fee and was rather surprised at the list of categories of construction and their assigned impact fee. There was about 80 different categories from retail to restaurants to single detached homes to multi-story residential construction to gas stations to grocery stores to various types of medical clinics and hospitals to auto supply stores to industrial buildings to bars to golf courses to bowling lanes and on and on. Some impact fees were per housing unit, some were per 1000 square feet, some were per hole of the golf course, some per lane of the bowling alley, some per screen of the theater, etc. The current rates were set in Oct 2020 at 40% of the maximum allowed. If the rate can not be raised on just one category, but on all categories at the same time, the increased impact fee will negatively impact every category of future construction in the county. Raising the impact fee on retired community single family homes would raise the current impact fee of $972 per house to $2430 per house, but it would also raise the impact fee on every other category.

Also noted in reading the document that impact fee revenue can not be used for maintenance on existing county and state roads. That has to be paid by other sources of money from the county or the state. New county road construction and improvements to existing county roads necessitated by the development can be paid with impact fees. I surmise that raising the impact fee of just the developer, if that can be done without affecting the other categories, would not generate enough revenue to completely reverse the 2020 property tax increase and still cover the county's budget.

[Altavia]

You constantly state that the "developer" should pay the impact fees----when in reality the developer will just pass the cost on to the buyer. You have stated that the developer won't be able to do that, but in this market he most certainly can.

If your argument was that the new home buyers should bear the impact fee because they are creating the cost, it would have a bit more merit. But then you'd have to change your tagline to "the new homeowner's sweetheart impact fee deal"

Exactly, the 401K's of retirees who worked and paid taxes 50+ years to relocate to their dream home will be paying this lumpsum tax increase for development that benefits everyone in the county in the form of a thriving economy.

[mneumann02]

You constantly state that the "developer" should pay the impact fees----when in reality the developer will just pass the cost on to the buyer. You have stated that the developer won't be able to do that, but in this market he most certainly can.

If your argument was that the new home buyers should bear the impact fee because they are creating the cost, it would have a bit more merit. But then you'd have to change your tagline to "the new homeowner's sweetheart impact fee deal"

I can't hardly believe some in this thread actually believe existing homeowners should pay for the cost of new home and other development by The Developer so they can make the price of the home/store lease/etc. appear more reasonable. There is no logic there. The Developer should pay these costs. He will make the costs back and profits when he sells the homes, leases out the shopping center, etc. at the cost they should be- without a subsidy from my pocket.

[Happydaz]

I can't hardly believe some in this thread actually believe existing homeowners should pay for the cost of new home and other development by The Developer so they can make the price of the home/store lease/etc. appear more reasonable. There is no logic there. The Developer should pay these costs. He will make the costs back and profits when he sells the homes, leases out the shopping center, etc. at the cost they should be- without a subsidy from my pocket.

Everything you say makes a lot of sense from a homeowner’s point of view. What others are saying benefits the developer and they know it. There are many people who either work for the developer or favor the developer who post regularly on this site. They are what you could call “professional posters.” Businesses know how important the internet is in shaping public opinion so you can be assured that the developer’s imprint is all over these postings. Obviously from a Sumter County homeowner’s perspective it is better if impact fees represent the full cost of increased development, not a percentage of it. That is why 2/3 of the voters in Sumter County threw out the incumbent commissioners and elected a new slate of officials. No matter how heated things may get it appears that changes to the impact fee structure in Sumter County are on the horizon. That is why the developer and his allies are fighting tooth and nail. Unfortunately for them, it appears that their ship has sailed. Voters of Sumter County, by a landslide election, have made their wishes known.

[Stu from NYC]

Everything you say makes a lot of sense from a homeowner’s point of view. What others are saying benefits the developer and they know it. There are many people who either work for the developer or favor the developer who post regularly on this site. They are what you could call “professional posters.” Businesses know how important the internet is in shaping public opinion so you can be assured that the developer’s imprint is all over these postings. Obviously from a Sumter County homeowner’s perspective it is better if impact fees represent the full cost of increased development, not a percentage of it. That is why 2/3 of the voters in Sumter County threw out the incumbent commissioners and elected a new slate of officials. No matter how heated things may get it appears that changes to the impact fee structure in Sumter County are on the horizon. That is why the developer and his allies are fighting tooth and nail. Unfortunately for them, it appears that their ship has sailed. Voters of Sumter County, by a landslide election, have made their wishes known.

Wondering who these professional posters are?

[Dond1959]

If you notice the new commissioners did not tie the increase in road impact fees with a roll back of the 25% property tax increase from last year. I believe they know they can’t replace the funds from the tax increase by raising road impact fees. Another item these commissioners are looking at is raising your annual villages fire assessment. They just agreed to basically double the cap, guess what comes next.

We will see how this all plays out. My prediction is they will raise the road impact fee to whatever, give a small reduction in the property tax rate, increase the fire assessment, and will fall short on road impact fee revenues in the long term due to slower commercial growth (possibly even losing the proposed UF research hospital and campus). It really depends on how much they raise the fee and if they can limit it to the developer by getting them to agree to an increase in their line item of a very complex road impact fee schedule.

[Topspinmo]

It is remarkable how the paper continues to publish a very one sided view of this. Would have thought they would put in at least one person saying why they think the developer should be paying more but not what the paper is told to publish.

I have said it before and will say it again think there is ample room to compromise but since when does responsible journalism allow an editorial to be published as a news article.


All newspapers and news outlets push there ceo agenda.
Funny how news outlets can see sun rise differently. Instead of just reporting the facts the sun has risen, they have input their agenda to cloud simple minds with Bs.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Maybe you've heard about the document called the US Constitution and the Supreme Court who opines on its meanings, including the right to a free press-

Can a newspaper refuse to run a letter or advertisement? | Freedom Forum Institute (https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/about/faq/can-a-newspaper-refuse-to-run-a-letter-or-advertisement/)

The Court wrote:

“A newspaper is more than a passive receptacle or conduit for news, comment, and advertising. The choice of material to go into a newspaper, and the decisions made as to limitations on the size and content of the paper, and treatment of public issues and public officials — whether fair or unfair — constitute the exercise of editorial control and judgment. It has yet to be demonstrated how governmental regulation of this crucial process can be exercised consistent with First Amendment guarantees of a free press as they have evolved to this time.”

And that right to a free press, and freedom of speech, includes the right to come to this forum and criticize the publication that CLAIMS to be a newspaper, for its obvious bias and lack of balance.

[G.R.I.T.S.]

There are a lot of other sources for Villages' news. Try Facebook, for instance. Google "The Villages" with "Facebook".

He that owns the press has the power but then along came the Internet.

...whose power is now in the hands of the few.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

You constantly state that the "developer" should pay the impact fees----when in reality the developer will just pass the cost on to the buyer. You have stated that the developer won't be able to do that, but in this market he most certainly can.

If your argument was that the new home buyers should bear the impact fee because they are creating the cost, it would have a bit more merit. But then you'd have to change your tagline to "the new homeowner's sweetheart impact fee deal"

Yes they'll pass that cost on to the buyer. Once. The impact fee is currently $900 per unit. If the impact fee becomes $1500, then the increase will be $600 additional.

So let's just say the impact fee goes up to $1500, and the buyer has to absorb the entire $1500 cost in the purchase price.

The home is still valuated and assessed however it always is, by the county for tax purposes. The homeowner pays the same amount they always pay - which is now less, because the county has reduced their total tax burden from the homeowner.

So let's just pretend - for fun - that the decrease in the tax burden ends up meaning the homeowner pays only $3000 per year in taxes instead of $3500 in taxes per year.

The homeowner, by paying $500/year less in taxes, will save more than what they spent on the impact fee, in their second year.

The longer they own the home, the less significance that extra $600 impact fee increase has.

[tophcfa]

Should they believe YOUR distortion of the facts instead?????

Hmmmm, we are all free to interpret the multiple sources of information thrown our way, and come to our own conclusions. Typically, the real truth comes out somewhere between the B.S. we are force feed, and the real story. In this particular case, I am leaning strongly toward dipping my chips in some guacamole.

[Bucco]

All newspapers and news outlets push there ceo agenda.
Funny how news outlets can see sun rise differently. Instead of just reporting the facts the sun has risen, they have input their agenda to cloud simple minds with Bs.

Interesting, you place the Daily Sun as a “news outlet”.

They are NOT a news outlet, never have been, never will, and most importantly never claimed to be. They find no need to report all the news, and select only positive (in the view of the “family”) items from national wire services.

Comparing them to any “news outlet” is a manifestation of ones own severe limited knowledge.

Again, this is not negative in any way. If you want real news, skip the Daily Sun, because if it does not fit the “motives” of the family. You will. It find it.

Limiting your news to what is reported in the Daily Sun severely limits your knowledge.

I must add, have read it daily for twenty years, but not for news.

[Northwoods]

If you are going to label The Daily Sun as "pro Developer," then you have to label "that other online newspaper" as anti-developer. "That other online newspaper" takes every opportunity to communicate a negative story regarding The Developer and The Villages. So.... you have both sides of the story.

[Bucco]

If you are going to label The Daily Sun as "pro Developer," then you have to label "that other online newspaper" as anti-developer. "That other online newspaper" takes every opportunity to communicate a negative story regarding The Developer and The Villages. So.... you have both sides of the story.

Please do not say you expect NEWS from the site you are refer to.

That is checking police blotter kind of information, at best.

[John41]

You constantly state that the "developer" should pay the impact fees----when in reality the developer will just pass the cost on to the buyer. You have stated that the developer won't be able to do that, but in this market he most certainly can.

If your argument was that the new home buyers should bear the impact fee because they are creating the cost, it would have a bit more merit. But then you'd have to change your tagline to "the new homeowner's sweetheart impact fee deal"

If the developer will just pass on the impact fee in this market then why is he saying construction will slow down. Maybe because demand is not inelastic as you incorrectly assume. BTW your opinion is just one point on a demand curve.

As for the Daily Sun we cancelled it because it gets it national news from a lot of biased sources like the AP and its developer propaganda. Also the many multi page biographies are boring.

[John41]

If you are going to label The Daily Sun as "pro Developer," then you have to label "that other online newspaper" as anti-developer. "That other online newspaper" takes every opportunity to communicate a negative story regarding The Developer and The Villages. So.... you have both sides of the story.

The other paper’s stories regarding The Villages might be anti developer but they are factual not fake news like the Daily Sun.

[Northwoods]

The other paper’s stories regarding The Villages might be anti developer but they are factual not fake news like the Daily Sun.

My opinion is that "the other" news source is as opinionated as The Daily Sun. I find both "factual" based on your views.

[Tom2172]

Developers alway pay the impact fees for new roads & infrastructure!
expect when developers have politicians that are more interested in working for the developers and not the people that elected then!

[Bandb875]

Stu, I can't tell if you are sarcastic or if you didn't read any newspaper the last 4 years. It is all narrative, journalism is a lost art. The Daily Sun is now, and will be forever, a infomercial.

[golfing eagles]

If the developer will just pass on the impact fee in this market then why is he saying construction will slow down. Maybe because demand is not inelastic as you incorrectly assume. BTW your opinion is just one point on a demand curve.


True, you are incorrect in YOUR assumptions. BTW you opinion is just one point on a bizarre curve.

[Sabella]

The head-line article in today's Daily Sun is the latest impact-fee bull shoveled by the Developer's Minister of Propaganda, David R. Corder. It nowhere mentions the decrease in property taxes that would match the increase in impact fees. Estep, Miller, and Search ran on a platform of reversing the 25% property-tax increase imposed by the Developer's puppet Commissioners to preserve the Developer's sweetheart impact fee.

Mr. Corder constantly describes the proposed impact-fee increase as a "tax increase". It would not be a tax increase. It would be a SHIFTING of taxes to pay for the Developer's county infrastructure (roads, police, fire, etc.) from the present residents to the Developer, who should be bearing such costs. The net result would be a tax decrease for current businesses and residents. New or existing businesses building a new structure would pay the impact fee once and then enjoy lower property taxes, amortizing and deducting the impact fee over the life of the building.

Again, this would be a tax break for existing, COVID-impacted businesses. Furthermore, expanding existing businesses filling up the many existing vacant premises would pay no impact fee and would enjoy the benefit of lower property taxes. Unfortunately, the issue is complicated and, for many residents, the Developer's newspaper is their only source of local news. These folks may well believe Mr. Corder's distortion of the facts.

Thank you for your intelligent and true statement

[donfey]

It is remarkable how the paper continues to publish a very one sided view of this. Would have thought they would put in at least one person saying why they think the developer should be paying more but not what the paper is told to publish.

I have said it before and will say it again think there is ample room to compromise but since when does responsible journalism allow an editorial to be published as a news article.

Development costs should be paid by the developer. No-brainer 101.

[dewilson58]

Development costs should be paid by the developer. No-brainer 101.
They never are.
Only a portion.
No-brainer 101

[Stu from NYC]

[QUOTE=Stu from NYC;1903534]It is remarkable how the paper continues to publish a very one sided view of this. Would have thought they would put in at least one person saying why they think the developer should be paying more but not what the paper is told to publish.

I agree with what others have said about advertising.
But you come from NY...haven't you heard of The New York Times? They have perfected one sided views. :blahblahblah:

Once upon a time the NYT was an outstanding newspaper.

So sad what it has become.

[crash]

It is remarkable how the paper continues to publish a very one sided view of this. Would have thought they would put in at least one person saying why they think the developer should be paying more but not what the paper is told to publish.

I have said it before and will say it again think there is ample room to compromise but since when does responsible journalism allow an editorial to be published as a news article.

The paper is owned by the developer so will never publish something that goes against his interests.

[villager4]

Mark Morse is the new poster boy for greed. It is ok according to Mark for the Villages home owners to pay a 25% increase in real estate taxes for the rest of their lives but not ok for the developer to pay higher impact fees once for each new home. Do not forget that the 25% increase in real estate taxes was necessitated because the county agreed to build roads for the Mark's continued home building. The impact fees are specifically intended to off set the counties cost of providing roads and other services. Encase anyone does not know, Mark owns the Daily Sun and the recent articles on impact fees are garbage.

[nick demis]

Wouldn't it be great to get FACTS on an issue and be allowed to form my own opinion instead of always trying to determine the political position of the information that is being reported.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

It would be a SHIFTING of taxes to pay for the Developer's county infrastructure (roads, police, fire, etc.) from the present residents to the Developer, who should be bearing such costs.

I'm trying to understand why the developer "should" be bearing these costs. Aren't the residents the ones that benefit from these services. In every other type of government, the residents pay for these services through taxes.

[Bill14564]

I'm trying to understand why the developer "should" be bearing these costs. Aren't the residents the ones that benefit from these services. In every other type of government, the residents pay for these services through taxes.

Let's define "these costs" as the *additional* costs incurred by development of both residences, businesses, and other facilities. These costs could include new roads but they could also include expansion or improvement of existing roads.

New roads: I *believe* much of this in the Villages is paid for by the bond and in exchange, the impact fee in the Villages is low. Outside the Villages the impact fee is higher because there is no bond to pay for any new roads.

Road improvements: Additional traffic could require additional traffic lights, widening of roads, addition of sidewalks and curbing, etc. Villagers don't add too much to that since we primarily use our new roads and so the impact fee on Villagers homes is low. Homes outside the Villages cause a bit more use of the roads so their fee is higher. New businesses, especially those that draw a lot of customers and cars, have the potential to result in the majority of road improvements so their fee is higher.

If I am correct and the impact fees fund new road construction and existing road improvements made necessary by the construction of new homes and new businesses and directly benefiting new homes and new businesses then why should the developer "not* bear these costs (and, of course, pass them along to the owners of the homes and businesses).

Continual maintenance of the roads is funded through taxes but the initial construction of the roads or necessary improvements of the road should be funded by those that created the need.

(that's not to say that the 2019(?) study was correct or that new businesses can actually afford the fees, there is a place for Govt. to discount the impact fees. But let's be honest, the starting point for any compromises should be from the 100% level and not from the 40% level)

[Jokomo]

It is remarkable how the paper continues to publish a very one sided view of this. Would have thought they would put in at least one person saying why they think the developer should be paying more but not what the paper is told to publish.

I have said it before and will say it again think there is ample room to compromise but since when does responsible journalism allow an editorial to be published as a news article.

I cancelled my subscription to the paper after the first “article” in this series was published. I don’t care if the Developer advertises, but I’m not going to pay him to do it. And it’s professionally dishonest to publish these items as news. I knew this was a Company town when I moved here, but the full realization of what that means is just sinking in.

[Rosebud2020]

It is remarkable how the paper continues to publish a very one sided view of this. Would have thought they would put in at least one person saying why they think the developer should be paying more but not what the paper is told to publish.

I have said it before and will say it again think there is ample room to compromise but since when does responsible journalism allow an editorial to be published as a news article.


Exactly what do you expect from the Daily Sun???

The public-at-large should be aware (if they aren't already aware) that the ownership of the "rag" was taken back by the developer some time ago. This gives them poetic license to do and say whatever they want, whenever they want.

If the developer's base is not thrown out of office and/or replaced, nothing will ever change. We live in an area where "the-good-old boys" voices prevail and they get what they want when they want it.

If we knew to what extent and how much these things have cost us -- the taxpayers -- we would be horrified. :22yikes:

[golfing eagles]

I'm trying to understand why the developer "should" be bearing these costs. Aren't the residents the ones that benefit from these services. In every other type of government, the residents pay for these services through taxes.

In most areas of the country that are not set up as CDDs, the developer pays for the roads, sewer, water, utilities etc. That cost is built into the price of the home so no buyer ever knows about the issue of impact fees. Here, it is different and traditionally in TV, the taxpayer has shouldered much of the burden. Either way the taxpayer/homeowner is paying for it. It is a fallacy to think that the "developer" ever eats those fees.

Is it fair for existing homeowners to pay for new homeowners? Yes and no. Everyone benefits from the increased services a thriving economy has brought to this area due to "the developer" Sumter County 30 years ago was the poorest county in Florida, now it is 11th out of 60+. Everyone benefits from the retail opportunities, the restaurant choices, the grocery stores, the employment opportunities.

To those that think this is "the developer's sweetheart impact fee deal", consider this: Who paid the impact fee when YOUR house was new? Or is it just a case of changing the rules after they got their benefit and denying it to future home buyers?

[kens613]

The head-line article in today's Daily Sun is the latest impact-fee bull shoveled by the Developer's Minister of Propaganda, David R. Corder. It nowhere mentions the decrease in property taxes that would match the increase in impact fees. Estep, Miller, and Search ran on a platform of reversing the 25% property-tax increase imposed by the Developer's puppet Commissioners to preserve the Developer's sweetheart impact fee.

Mr. Corder constantly describes the proposed impact-fee increase as a "tax increase". It would not be a tax increase. It would be a SHIFTING of taxes to pay for the Developer's county infrastructure (roads, police, fire, etc.) from the present residents to the Developer, who should be bearing such costs. The net result would be a tax decrease for current businesses and residents. New or existing businesses building a new structure would pay the impact fee once and then enjoy lower property taxes, amortizing and deducting the impact fee over the life of the building.

Again, this would be a tax break for existing, COVID-impacted businesses. Furthermore, expanding existing businesses filling up the many existing vacant premises would pay no impact fee and would enjoy the benefit of lower property taxes. Unfortunately, the issue is complicated and, for many residents, the Developer's newspaper is their only source of local news. These folks may well believe Mr. Corder's distortion of the facts.
Thay are just trying to camouflage the price of their homes by taking fees such as impact and bond fees separate from the sale price of their new homes.. It makes the sale price of their new homes lower and more salable to compete with resales!! But the true cost is the sale price plus impact and bond fees, which most buyers aren't aware of!! Great sales gimmick but not a honest value..

[JP]

Developers always get some kind of deal. It's just the way it is. When a company wants to build a new building and employ people, the first thing the company does is see what city/county/state is going to give them the best tax reductions and cheapest/free land. What is going on here in TV is no different. Just a little different version. You the taxpayer ALWAYS pay for development in some way or another BUT you also benefit from it by having more employees in the area that will pay taxes, attract more businesses because of the population increase and on and on.

[dewilson58]

Developers always get some kind of deal. It's just the way it is. When a company wants to build a new building and employ people, the first thing the company does is see what city/county/state is going to give them the best tax reductions and cheapest/free land. What is going on here in TV is no different. Just a little different version. You the taxpayer ALWAYS pay for development in some way or another BUT you also benefit from it by having more employees in the area that will pay taxes, attract more businesses because of the population increase and on and on.
Exactly.
City/County/State leaders have long-term responsibilities and #1 is Growth.


If you are not growing, you are dying.

[dewilson58]

But the true cost is the sale price plus impact and bond fees, which most buyers aren't aware of!! Great sales gimmick but not a honest value..
Sorry you did not do your research.
Most buyers in TV are aware................they are very smart.

[GoPacers]

Developers always get some kind of deal. It's just the way it is. When a company wants to build a new building and employ people, the first thing the company does is see what city/county/state is going to give them the best tax reductions and cheapest/free land. What is going on here in TV is no different. Just a little different version. You the taxpayer ALWAYS pay for this in some way or another.

Yep - consumers always pay. It's always been that way and it always will be that way.
Whether it be in the price of the home, the taxes, etc. It boggles the mind why some people think things should be free or that they cannot comprehend that things cost more today than they did 30 years ago.

If you don't like the price of a home then DON'T buy it. If people stop buying new homes then the developer will stop building new homes. Supply and demand - it's a simple concept.

The other concept people seem unable to grasp - as more infrastructure is built there will be MORE maintenance costs on that infrastructure in the future. Maintenance on infrastructure always falls on taxpayers. To pay for these increased costs you either increase the tax rate or you increase the tax base. If you wonder why the large metro areas are generally high-tax areas it's this reason. The tax base is largely fixed so the only way to pay for the increased maintenance is to raise the tax rate.

Should there be higher impact fees - absolutely. The question is really what is the right balance between impact fees and taxes. As some have pointed out, the impact fees are a one-time expense. The longer term maintenance is the bigger expense that absolutely falls on taxpayers. The real fallout of sweetheart impact fees is the significant increase in demand for maintenance going forward. Economic development is a science - and you oftentimes regulate growth with incentives. Increasing the impact fees will likely slow down growth but that is the question for commissioners to address. How much growth can the county (and community) support longer-term with the projected tax base and "resonable" tax rates????

[Bucco]

Wouldn't it be great to get FACTS on an issue and be allowed to form my own opinion instead of always trying to determine the political position of the information that is being reported.

It would also strain current reality.

People who allow lies and liars dictate their life and opinions are something that simply defies everything I was ever taught, but is now acceptable.

I just recently received a PM from someone I dont know except for posting on here and the question posed to me was "why I have "fetish" for truth and facts"

TRUTH is now a fetish to some.....and seems you can lie, paper, individual, whatever and never have to be held accountable

[Bwolf1]

The head-line article in today's Daily Sun is the latest impact-fee bull shoveled by the Developer's Minister of Propaganda, David R. Corder. It nowhere mentions the decrease in property taxes that would match the increase in impact fees. Estep, Miller, and Search ran on a platform of reversing the 25% property-tax increase imposed by the Developer's puppet Commissioners to preserve the Developer's sweetheart impact fee.

Mr. Corder constantly describes the proposed impact-fee increase as a "tax increase". It would not be a tax increase. It would be a SHIFTING of taxes to pay for the Developer's county infrastructure (roads, police, fire, etc.) from the present residents to the Developer, who should be bearing such costs. The net result would be a tax decrease for current businesses and residents. New or existing businesses building a new structure would pay the impact fee once and then enjoy lower property taxes, amortizing and deducting the impact fee over the life of the building.

Again, this would be a tax break for existing, COVID-impacted businesses. Furthermore, expanding existing businesses filling up the many existing vacant premises would pay no impact fee and would enjoy the benefit of lower property taxes. Unfortunately, the issue is complicated and, for many residents, the Developer's newspaper is their only source of local news. These folks may well believe Mr. Corder's distortion of the facts.

Very well put and true!

[Bwolf1]

It is remarkable how the paper continues to publish a very one sided view of this. Would have thought they would put in at least one person saying why they think the developer should be paying more but not what the paper is told to publish.

I have said it before and will say it again think there is ample room to compromise but since when does responsible journalism allow an editorial to be published as a news article.

The very first thing I thought when I saw it. This is an op-ed, not a news story. Journalism is officially dead!

[Jayhawk]

The very first thing I thought when I saw it. This is an op-ed, not a news story. Journalism is officially dead!

An op-ed is the OPPOSITE of an editorial dressed-up as news.

[rockyhyder]

Seems to me this whole blame the “Developer” , be against the “Developer” effort has been misguided from the beginning. The developer is actually a business operation that is one of, if not the largest employer in Sumter County. This organization is NOT the enemy but rather a business whom’s success or failure will directly impact every citizen in this County. If you want to discuss the impact of growth, good and bad, then ask the County Commission for a comprehensive study on the impact of growth for the things we pay taxes for (I.e. roads, public safety, schools, public health,recreation, etc). Then develop a method to fund these programs based on the services existing property owners utilize and assess impact fees for cost associated with new homeowners. The truth of the matter is, Estep, Miller and Search were elected as a knee jerk reaction to a tax increase, they used words that tickled a vast majority of voters ears but had NO PLAN as to how to carry it out. County government is a complex operation and there are no simple answers like “we’ll just cut taxes and increase fees”. I just hope these new inexperienced Commissioners have enough character to admit they had no clue and proceed on a path of logical decision making.

[dewilson58]

The truth of the matter is, Estep, Miller and Search were elected as a knee jerk reaction to a tax increase, they used words that tickled a vast majority of voters ears but had NO PLAN as to how to carry it out.
Bingo!

[Fuzzy]

Numbers don’t lie.

[Fuzzy]

I thought the article was full of facts.

[Fuzzy]

Why do you envy the developers? Why do you care what they have? Are you jealous? This county was the poorest county if Florida before TV. Green with envy. 🤣

[Fuzzy]

And we will pay for this mistake.

[rogerk]

The head-line article in today's Daily Sun is the latest impact-fee bull shoveled by the Developer's Minister of Propaganda, David R. Corder. It nowhere mentions the decrease in property taxes that would match the increase in impact fees. Estep, Miller, and Search ran on a platform of reversing the 25% property-tax increase imposed by the Developer's puppet Commissioners to preserve the Developer's sweetheart impact fee.

Mr. Corder constantly describes the proposed impact-fee increase as a "tax increase". It would not be a tax increase. It would be a SHIFTING of taxes to pay for the Developer's county infrastructure (roads, police, fire, etc.) from the present residents to the Developer, who should be bearing such costs. The net result would be a tax decrease for current businesses and residents. New or existing businesses building a new structure would pay the impact fee once and then enjoy lower property taxes, amortizing and deducting the impact fee over the life of the building.

Again, this would be a tax break for existing, COVID-impacted businesses. Furthermore, expanding existing businesses filling up the many existing vacant premises would pay no impact fee and would enjoy the benefit of lower property taxes. Unfortunately, the issue is complicated and, for many residents, the Developer's newspaper is their only source of local news. These folks may well believe Mr. Corder's distortion of the facts.

The biggest beneficiary of a Property Tax decrease would be the developer. Second a reduction in new business coming into Sumter County would result in a longer-term reduction in the tax base. The county would get less revenue from impact fees and less property tax revenue. I see this as a lose lose proposal.

These new commissioners are only looking short term. The supposed benefits would be minimal but the longer term pact would be significantly greater.

[rogerk]

To fully appreciate the impact of the increase in impact fees, you must look beyond housing development inside The Villages. You need to look at industry moving into the county as well as non Villages, non-age restricted housing.

[Aloha1]

It is remarkable how the paper continues to publish a very one sided view of this. Would have thought they would put in at least one person saying why they think the developer should be paying more but not what the paper is told to publish.

I have said it before and will say it again think there is ample room to compromise but since when does responsible journalism allow an editorial to be published as a news article.

Well, it appears to be the standard of every media outlet both print and television.

[Stu from NYC]

Well, it appears to be the standard of every media outlet both print and television.

Most will have perhaps 10 comments to their point of view and sometimes 1 to the opposing point.

The Sun has no interest in the opposing view.

[Aloha1]

I'm trying to understand why the developer "should" be bearing these costs. Aren't the residents the ones that benefit from these services. In every other type of government, the residents pay for these services through taxes.

The problem is there is a cadre of residents who haven't had a tax increase for several years unlike the other 2 counties wherein TV exists. They "think" the southern expansion has no benefit to them, they don't like the fact that TV is growing beyond what it was when they bought in. They do not want change. They get a $325 tax increase after several years and are incensed because "it has to be the evil developer who's causing this". So their answer is, "to heck with you and yours, we don't want any part of anything different than when we bought in". So sad and so selfish.

[Aloha1]

Most will have perhaps 10 comments to their point of view and sometimes 1 to the opposing point.

The Sun has no interest in the opposing view.
I have rarely seen ANY comments in the Sun whether pro or con, so balanced commentary. I take the paper for what it is and enjoy reading the articles about life in TV. I know what the Sun is about and certainly do not look upon it as an expert in world affairs. Having said that, the articles posted in recent days contain much food for thought as to the impact of this ill thought out vendetta by the new Commissioners. And yes, they were Democrats who registered as Republicans for this election. Wonder why?

[Bill14564]

The biggest beneficiary of a Property Tax decrease would be the developer. Second a reduction in new business coming into Sumter County would result in a longer-term reduction in the tax base. The county would get less revenue from impact fees and less property tax revenue. I see this as a lose lose proposal.

These new commissioners are only looking short term. The supposed benefits would be minimal but the longer term pact would be significantly greater.

Help me understand this. If the biggest beneficiary of a tax decrease would be the developer then wouldn't the one hurt most by a tax increase also be the developer? Yet it was the developer fighting for a tax increase. Did he/they really work against their best interests?

"The county would get less revenue from impact fees." Given that the county only receives 40% of what the impact really costs, wouldn't receiving less revenue from impact fees actually result in a 60% savings? (If you don't think so, then I'll buy $100 bills from you for $40 all day long, just let me know where we can meet)

[wisbad1]

The head-line article in today's Daily Sun is the latest impact-fee bull shoveled by the Developer's Minister of Propaganda, David R. Corder. It nowhere mentions the decrease in property taxes that would match the increase in impact fees. Estep, Miller, and Search ran on a platform of reversing the 25% property-tax increase imposed by the Developer's puppet Commissioners to preserve the Developer's sweetheart impact fee.

Mr. Corder constantly describes the proposed impact-fee increase as a "tax increase". It would not be a tax increase. It would be a SHIFTING of taxes to pay for the Developer's county infrastructure (roads, police, fire, etc.) from the present residents to the Developer, who should be bearing such costs. The net result would be a tax decrease for current businesses and residents. New or existing businesses building a new structure would pay the impact fee once and then enjoy lower property taxes, amortizing and deducting the impact fee over the life of the building.

Again, this would be a tax break for existing, COVID-impacted businesses. Furthermore, expanding existing businesses filling up the many existing vacant premises would pay no impact fee and would enjoy the benefit of lower property taxes. Unfortunately, the issue is complicated and, for many residents, the Developer's newspaper is their only source of local news. These folks may well believe Mr. Corder's distortion of the facts.
Stopped getting papers, still have month left. Same old stuff.

[Klatu]

The new commisioners are doing what liberals always do: claim they want to be fair and equitable while they try to stick it to businesses and developers, always in the name of fairness. If you look at the numbers from businesses impacted by these increases, you can see how crippling this approach is. And one more thing: why do other counties cut impact fees to attract businesses?

The Villages leadership has provided us with a clean, safe and wonderful community to live in. It's a shame when small minded folks try to "stick it to them" out of envy, liberal ideology and shameless extremism.

[dewilson58]

Help me understand this. If the biggest beneficiary of a tax decrease would be the developer then wouldn't the one hurt most by a tax increase also be the developer? Yet it was the developer fighting for a tax increase. )
I missed that one.


:what:

[birdiebill]

Help me understand this. If the biggest beneficiary of a tax decrease would be the developer then wouldn't the one hurt most by a tax increase also be the developer? Yet it was the developer fighting for a tax increase. Did he/they really work against their best interests?

"The county would get less revenue from impact fees." Given that the county only receives 40% of what the impact really costs, wouldn't receiving less revenue from impact fees actually result in a 60% savings? (If you don't think so, then I'll buy $100 bills from you for $40 all day long, just let me know where we can meet)


I suggest you Google "Sumter County Florida road impact fees" and study the current impact fees for every category of construction; there are around 80 categories. All are at 40% of the max allowed. As I understand if you increase the impact fee for one category of construction, the rate of increase has to also be applied to all categories of construction.

The developer was suggesting he would voluntarily pay an extra 40% of his current fee. He was not suggesting the commissioners raise his rate by 40% because the same percent increase would have to be applied to all the other categories also. He was willing to pay a little more than required under the currently established rate as long as the rate did not have to be increased on all categories of construction. I don't know if one can make an accurate claim that 40% of the max rate allowed only covers 40% of the actual impact costs.

[kappy]

The biggest beneficiary of a Property Tax decrease would be the developer. Second a reduction in new business coming into Sumter County would result in a longer-term reduction in the tax base. The county would get less revenue from impact fees and less property tax revenue. I see this as a lose lose proposal.

These new commissioners are only looking short term. The supposed benefits would be minimal but the longer term pact would be significantly greater.
Where are your statistics showing that increasing the impact fees will automatically result in a longer-term reduction in the tax base? Do you believe that the developer is going to stop building homes if the rate were raised? Just drive up and down Meggison Road and you will readily see the huge expansion of The Villages below Rt. 44. And, we know, that where the population growth is, the businesses will follow.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

In most areas of the country that are not set up as CDDs, the developer pays for the roads, sewer, water, utilities etc. That cost is built into the price of the home so no buyer ever knows about the issue of impact fees. Here, it is different and traditionally in TV, the taxpayer has shouldered much of the burden. Either way the taxpayer/homeowner is paying for it. It is a fallacy to think that the "developer" ever eats those fees.

Is it fair for existing homeowners to pay for new homeowners? Yes and no. Everyone benefits from the increased services a thriving economy has brought to this area due to "the developer" Sumter County 30 years ago was the poorest county in Florida, now it is 11th out of 60+. Everyone benefits from the retail opportunities, the restaurant choices, the grocery stores, the employment opportunities.

To those that think this is "the developer's sweetheart impact fee deal", consider this: Who paid the impact fee when YOUR house was new? Or is it just a case of changing the rules after they got their benefit and denying it to future home buyers?
In many development the developer or the resident's own the streets. here, the streets are owned by the towns, counties or state.

But you make an excellent point. All monies come from the end user. It's like people that don't understand that corporations don't actually pay taxes. They simply collect the money from their customers and pass it on to the government.

[John41]

The problem is there is a cadre of residents who haven't had a tax increase for several years unlike the other 2 counties wherein TV exists. They "think" the southern expansion has no benefit to them, they don't like the fact that TV is growing beyond what it was when they bought in. They do not want change. They get a $325 tax increase after several years and are incensed because "it has to be the evil developer who's causing this". So their answer is, "to heck with you and yours, we don't want any part of anything different than when we bought in". So sad and so selfish.

And then there are the puppets.

[John41]

In many development the developer or the resident's own the streets. here, the streets are owned by the towns, counties or state.

But you make an excellent point. All monies come from the end user. It's like people that don't understand that corporations don't actually pay taxes. They simply collect the money from their customers and pass it on to the government.

Do customers pass on those taxes passed on to them back to the corporations in the form of higher wages? If you knew basic macroeconomics you would see the fallacy of your assumptions on how the economy works.

[Bill14564]

I suggest you Google "Sumter County Florida road impact fees" and study the current impact fees for every category of construction; there are around 80 categories. All are at 40% of the max allowed. As I understand if you increase the impact fee for one category of construction, the rate of increase has to also be applied to all categories of construction.

The developer was suggesting he would voluntarily pay an extra 40% of his current fee. He was not suggesting the commissioners raise his rate by 40% because the same percent increase would have to be applied to all the other categories also. He was willing to pay a little more than required under the currently established rate as long as the rate did not have to be increased on all categories of construction. I don't know if one can make an accurate claim that 40% of the max rate allowed only covers 40% of the actual impact costs.

You seem to be trying to correct some misunderstanding on my part but I understand the impact fee issue exactly as you describe it.

As for whether "40% of the max rate allowed only covers 40% of the actual impact costs," I made an assumption that might not be true. I assume the 2019 study gave the estimated impact costs for the different types of structures and that the impact fee schedule was created from that. It isn't like the study generated a number and the Commissioners then added a fudge factor when generating the fee schedule.

So there would be no "max rate allowed," it would instead be the actual impact costs as determined by the study. It would not be 40% of the max rate allowed but instead would be 40% of the actual impact costs.

[Neils]

The Daily Sun is not a newspaper. It's propaganda for the developer. And the descriptions they use of Miller, Search and Estep are disgraceful. It's pretty obvious our new elected officials have gotten under the developer's skin. I'm very pleased the attempts to rig the election by making it so Democrats couldn't vote, shoveling money at the old candidates, hiring a consultant, propaganda in the paper, etc. didn't work! So pleased that our new commissioners are working for US and not the developer. And that's as it should be!
///

[richs631]

The head-line article in today's Daily Sun is the latest impact-fee bull shoveled by the Developer's Minister of Propaganda, David R. Corder. It nowhere mentions the decrease in property taxes that would match the increase in impact fees. Estep, Miller, and Search ran on a platform of reversing the 25% property-tax increase imposed by the Developer's puppet Commissioners to preserve the Developer's sweetheart impact fee.

Mr. Corder constantly describes the proposed impact-fee increase as a "tax increase". It would not be a tax increase. It would be a SHIFTING of taxes to pay for the Developer's county infrastructure (roads, police, fire, etc.) from the present residents to the Developer, who should be bearing such costs. The net result would be a tax decrease for current businesses and residents. New or existing businesses building a new structure would pay the impact fee once and then enjoy lower property taxes, amortizing and deducting the impact fee over the life of the building.

Again, this would be a tax break for existing, COVID-impacted businesses. Furthermore, expanding existing businesses filling up the many existing vacant premises would pay no impact fee and would enjoy the benefit of lower property taxes. Unfortunately, the issue is complicated and, for many residents, the Developer's newspaper is their only source of local news. These folks may well believe Mr. Corder's distortion of the facts.

What exactly do you expect from a newspaper that is owned by the developer. It’s the same as watching CNN.

[gwelmen]

It does seem ODD that the Sun/Developer did not go nuts 2-3 years ago over the increase in RE taxes WE had.

[Stu from NYC]

What exactly do you expect from a newspaper that is owned by the developer. It’s the same as watching CNN.

Actually it is worse, it is masquerading as a newspaper but it is nothing but a propaganda newsletter.

[thesteve685]

The head-line article in today's Daily Sun is the latest impact-fee bull shoveled by the Developer's Minister of Propaganda, David R. Corder. It nowhere mentions the decrease in property taxes that would match the increase in impact fees. Estep, Miller, and Search ran on a platform of reversing the 25% property-tax increase imposed by the Developer's puppet Commissioners to preserve the Developer's sweetheart impact fee.

Mr. Corder constantly describes the proposed impact-fee increase as a "tax increase". It would not be a tax increase. It would be a SHIFTING of taxes to pay for the Developer's county infrastructure (roads, police, fire, etc.) from the present residents to the Developer, who should be bearing such costs. The net result would be a tax decrease for current businesses and residents. New or existing businesses building a new structure would pay the impact fee once and then enjoy lower property taxes, amortizing and deducting the impact fee over the life of the building.

Again, this would be a tax break for existing, COVID-impacted businesses. Furthermore, expanding existing businesses filling up the many existing vacant premises would pay no impact fee and would enjoy the benefit of lower property taxes. Unfortunately, the issue is complicated and, for many residents, the Developer's newspaper is their only source of local news. These folks may well believe Mr. Corder's distortion of the facts.

Here we go again! The Villages Daily Sun Propaganda Machine!

[RMarkland]

I looked out the window during this mornings rainstorm and noticed my neighbors home (approx $350,000.00+) does not have gutters. That cost would have most likely added $1,000 or so to the cost of the home. Then remembered the sales pitch of the subdivisions that surround TV. Their cost is expressed as being 50 to 60% of a similar home in TV. Perhaps the developer has a gold mine and I have no issue with that, however perhaps some of the costs of that home such as infrastructure are being passed along through taxes (which go on forever) to others rather than included in the(one time) cost of the home. If that is correct the developer has a choice, raise the selling price, or reduce their markup. Impact fees should be paid by the developer, and then added to the developers cost of the individual homes.

[jimjamuser]

I guess you don't know that the Daily Sun is not a newspaper. It is owned by The Developer and its sole purpose is to sell more homes. It does not pretend to be journalism, much less responsible journalism.
Same for the radio station.

[jimjamuser]

There are a lot of other sources for Villages' news. Try Facebook, for instance. Google "The Villages" with "Facebook".

He that owns the press has the power but then along came the Internet.
I agree that you would find better information on this subject by going to Facebook. But, Facebook causes polarization of views and I do NOT like Zuckerdingaling! So, I do NOT use Facebook. I may (?) join if and when the Zuck is gone.

[dadoiron]

Maybe you've heard about the document called the US Constitution and the Supreme Court who opines on its meanings, including the right to a free press-

Can a newspaper refuse to run a letter or advertisement? | Freedom Forum Institute (https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/about/faq/can-a-newspaper-refuse-to-run-a-letter-or-advertisement/)

The Court wrote:

“A newspaper is more than a passive receptacle or conduit for news, comment, and advertising. The choice of material to go into a newspaper, and the decisions made as to limitations on the size and content of the paper, and treatment of public issues and public officials — whether fair or unfair — constitute the exercise of editorial control and judgment. It has yet to be demonstrated how governmental regulation of this crucial process can be exercised consistent with First Amendment guarantees of a free press as they have evolved to this time.”

Seems to me no news outlets are unbiased any more. They all edit the real news to make their biased points.

Look at any unedited streaming video compared to the supposedly unbiased news shows and you will clearly see biased reporting.

I can make my own opinions based upon unbiased reporting but really have to research to find it.

Probably because all the news shows are just that a show pandering to a specific audience to boost their ratings.

The death of real news happened years ago.

[jimjamuser]

I read the article and found it to be rather poorly written and confusing...I didn't bother to re-read it and went on to the page with the comics

What I did find interesting is that the article said Sumter County hadn't changed it's tax rate in 14 years

seems to me that there may not have been much serious long term planning being done by the Sumter county officials that should have been doing that, so that additional funds needed for future infrastructure expenses were on the radar and could be collected and put aside... but with the constant increase in the tax base the money has been flowing in by the wheelbarrow for years and apparently nobody noticed.....now the circus has become too big for the tent and there's not enough money to fund the infrastructure spending that is needed

so, yes, let's tax the 'you know what' out of the small businesses, those scoundrels are making money hand over fist on us (NOT)... and let's put future business growth on hold, that'll solve the problem, (NOT)...and so what if another hospital doesn't get built in the southern area of TV, they seem to be younger down there anyway (selfish)
Kudos on the expression," the circus has gotten too big for the tent". And in this circus, the NEWSPAPER can be used to wipe off the elephant's posterior. And on a bigger scale, maybe the US population has gotten too big for its geographic bounds and natural resources?

[jimjamuser]

Interesting, you place the Daily Sun as a “news outlet”.

They are NOT a news outlet, never have been, never will, and most importantly never claimed to be. They find no need to report all the news, and select only positive (in the view of the “family”) items from national wire services.

Comparing them to any “news outlet” is a manifestation of ones own severe limited knowledge.

Again, this is not negative in any way. If you want real news, skip the Daily Sun, because if it does not fit the “motives” of the family. You will. It find it.

Limiting your news to what is reported in the Daily Sun severely limits your knowledge.

I must add, have read it daily for twenty years, but not for news.
I read the comics, but even that is slanted in viewpoint because DOONESBERRY was eliminated about 12 years ago. So sad!

[dewilson58]

I read the comics, but even that is slanted in viewpoint because DOONESBERRY was eliminated about 12 years ago. So sad!
Comics................it's crazy they are infected too.

[jimjamuser]

I cancelled my subscription to the paper after the first “article” in this series was published. I don’t care if the Developer advertises, but I’m not going to pay him to do it. And it’s professionally dishonest to publish these items as news. I knew this was a Company town when I moved here, but the full realization of what that means is just sinking in.
Yes, this IS a "company town". That is a good way to put it. To generalize, I would call it an autocratic Kingdom. TV Land is like the Magic (or tragic) Kingdom of Disney World, just for old adults. WE are the peasants, the peons of this Kingdom. Like all Kingdoms, our Kings protect us, peons, from something - namely reality. WE are made to believe that we are young and powerful. So, we will accept our delusion. The newspaper, radio, and the square entertainment help keep us controlled in this delusion.

It sounds like voting in 3 more democratic, resident-leaning new commissioners has put a burr under the saddles of our Kings. If the residents wanted to send the Kings a more forceful message, they would have to organize and come up with some action like boycotting all restaurants, theaters, squares, and commercial establishments for SAY.....1 week. The Development Kings might take that hint seriously. And maybe some threat of some kind of lawsuit. Unfortunately, those actions are unlikely because the PEONS, like sleeping giants, are too engrossed in enjoying their DELUSION.

[jimjamuser]

Thay are just trying to camouflage the price of their homes by taking fees such as impact and bond fees separate from the sale price of their new homes.. It makes the sale price of their new homes lower and more salable to compete with resales!! But the true cost is the sale price plus impact and bond fees, which most buyers aren't aware of!! Great sales gimmick but not a honest value..
Good post, kudos!

[jimjamuser]

Developers always get some kind of deal. It's just the way it is. When a company wants to build a new building and employ people, the first thing the company does is see what city/county/state is going to give them the best tax reductions and cheapest/free land. What is going on here in TV is no different. Just a little different version. You the taxpayer ALWAYS pay for development in some way or another BUT you also benefit from it by having more employees in the area that will pay taxes, attract more businesses because of the population increase and on and on.
True about the "on and on". But, that ever-increasing population at some (?) point causes "quality of life" to go down. The US is ranked 30th in that quality. Scandinavian countries are in the top ten. Have we passed that point in TV Land?

[jimjamuser]

Exactly.
City/County/State leaders have long-term responsibilities and #1 is Growth.


If you are not growing, you are dying.
How about this analogy - if a person were to physically KEEP growing, eventually they would CRASH their head and shoulders out through their roof - or the circus gets too big for the tent. Pick one.

[jimjamuser]

Sorry you did not do your research.
Most buyers in TV are aware................they are very smart.
I would say that the TV Landers that you know must be way smarter than 70% of the ones that I know.

[Kenswing]

I would say that the TV Landers that you know must be way smarter than 70% of the ones that I know.There's your problem. Maybe you should start hanging out with smarter people. :1rotfl:

[jimjamuser]

Yep - consumers always pay. It's always been that way and it always will be that way.
Whether it be in the price of the home, the taxes, etc. It boggles the mind why some people think things should be free or that they cannot comprehend that things cost more today than they did 30 years ago.

If you don't like the price of a home then DON'T buy it. If people stop buying new homes then the developer will stop building new homes. Supply and demand - it's a simple concept.

The other concept people seem unable to grasp - as more infrastructure is built there will be MORE maintenance costs on that infrastructure in the future. Maintenance on infrastructure always falls on taxpayers. To pay for these increased costs you either increase the tax rate or you increase the tax base. If you wonder why the large metro areas are generally high-tax areas it's this reason. The tax base is largely fixed so the only way to pay for the increased maintenance is to raise the tax rate.

Should there be higher impact fees - absolutely. The question is really what is the right balance between impact fees and taxes. As some have pointed out, the impact fees are a one-time expense. The longer term maintenance is the bigger expense that absolutely falls on taxpayers. The real fallout of sweetheart impact fees is the significant increase in demand for maintenance going forward. Economic development is a science - and you oftentimes regulate growth with incentives. Increasing the impact fees will likely slow down growth but that is the question for commissioners to address. How much growth can the county (and community) support longer-term with the projected tax base and "resonable" tax rates????
I agree, but the ultimate goal or motivating principle should be "quality of life", not always JUST PROFITS. You may say that there is no other way but the Scandinavian countries rank in the top 10. The US used to be there too.......in 1950.....What happened?

[Rosebud2020]

More than one and they come in two sizes male and female.

Look for people who will always defend the developer no matter what the subject is.

the Morse family has done a great job building this place but from what we have seen since we moved here a year ago they seem to be ignoring their old customers needs and desires.

Those who defend the developer (and we all know who they are) are not only guilty of blind faith but I question their intelligence. So many of the things in TV are bare-bones/bare minimum although there certainly are many good things. Do these defenders think they will get special treatment with something because of all the accolades they give them? barf

Yes, they have done a good overall job in the building. If you mean quality as in construction, the quality is average and nothing exceptional. Code requirements are less stringent here than in some other areas of Florida. They have, however, made many homeowners happy with what they have to offer overall but homeowners can be thanked for many of the clubs, activities, etc, and not the developer.

The nitty-gritty is now, with the many more mouths to feed, the Morse family, et al, have become increasingly greedy.
I won't expand upon that statement because it will take too much time to write and too much time to read.

[jimjamuser]

Seems to me this whole blame the “Developer” , be against the “Developer” effort has been misguided from the beginning. The developer is actually a business operation that is one of, if not the largest employer in Sumter County. This organization is NOT the enemy but rather a business whom’s success or failure will directly impact every citizen in this County. If you want to discuss the impact of growth, good and bad, then ask the County Commission for a comprehensive study on the impact of growth for the things we pay taxes for (I.e. roads, public safety, schools, public health,recreation, etc). Then develop a method to fund these programs based on the services existing property owners utilize and assess impact fees for cost associated with new homeowners. The truth of the matter is, Estep, Miller and Search were elected as a knee jerk reaction to a tax increase, they used words that tickled a vast majority of voters ears but had NO PLAN as to how to carry it out. County government is a complex operation and there are no simple answers like “we’ll just cut taxes and increase fees”. I just hope these new inexperienced Commissioners have enough character to admit they had no clue and proceed on a path of logical decision making.
Sounds to me just like a regurgitation of the article in the Daily Sun happy talk, everything-is-wonderful propaganda machine.

[jimjamuser]

Comics................it's crazy they are infected too.
Agreed, crazy.

[jimjamuser]

There's your problem. Maybe you should start hanging out with smarter people. :1rotfl:
Good advice. I will try that and maybe I will get a Doberman puppy.

[birdiebill]

Me thinks the Covid Pandemic has addled a lot of minds and brought a lot of the negativism. We have been living in TV for nearly five years. We did our due diligence before we decided to buy here; we knew we were buying into a lifestyle that fit our desires for the remaining retirement years of our lives. We knew about bonds, infrastructure costs, amenity fees, annual maintenance fees, property taxes, CDD style of government, covenants and restrictions. We knew we could find comparable housing in retirement communities at a lesser cost; but these communities did not offer the plethora of activities that are available here. We knew the role the developer plays in major decision making about how TV is run, and we like it. We liked the availability of churches, social clubs, sports activities, entertainment, restaurants (although we wanted some that were a little more upscale for special occasions). We liked the ability to go most places within TV by golf cart. The only thing that we did not know was that the development was not going to stop at hwy 44; had we known that, we would have still purchased here. We enjoy living here and look forward to resuming the lifestyle we had before Covid.

What has changed that has affected our lifestyle in the five years is not the expansion of TV south. It is the past year dealing with the Covid pandemic and how it has really negatively affected our ability to enjoy all the things that brought us here in the first place. Initially so many things shut down---rec centers, pools, churches, restaurants, theaters, most entertainment, dancing,, social clubs, sports activities, etc.. Then we had to deal with hoarding of toilet paper, disinfectants, paper products, etc. Then masking everywhere along with social distancing and capacity restrictions, carry out rather than eat in, golfing one person per cart, etc. We had two cruises cancelled as a result of the pandemic. As this year has progressed we have noticed more negativism and more complaining about TV and about the developer and about the expansion. We have noticed more people expressing anti-developer views. We have come to believe the POA is more anti-developer that pro residents. Covid pandemic related???????

Someday we will get back to normal. But none of the expansion has negatively affected us; in fact we like what we have seen of the future plans south including the medical complex, new charter school, sports complex, additional 18 and 27 hole champ courses, etc.
The Covid-19 is the cause of our choosing to put our normal lifestyle on hold. We don't complain about it or blame the developer or anyone else. We can still go to our neighborhood pool. We can still get tee times to play golf. We choose not to eat indoors at restaurants, but do a lot of carry-out. We can't go to the Savannah Center or the Sharon or the town squares for entertainment, not because of the expansion, but because we still don't feel safe indoors with crowds which also has caused us to put ballroom dancing on hold. We will receive our second Covid Vaccine in two weeks which will make us feel a little more safe. What we don't understand is all the people who stay here who do not like what the developer has done or is doing; it seems the same ones complain over and over on TOTV. There are plenty of places any of us can live, and I can not imagine continuing to live in a community where I was unhappy.

[DIY&Save]

I’m trying to search the Daily Sun archives. Can someone please direct me to the stories in the Daily Sun reporting on the Butler, Printz, Burgess Tax Increase of 25%? I would like to read all about the Butler, Printz, Burgess Tax Increase of 25%. I’m having difficulty finding stories about the Butler, Printz, Burgess Tax Increase of 25%.

[Advogado]

I’m trying to search the Daily Sun archives. Can someone please direct me to the stories in the Daily Sun reporting on the Butler, Printz, Burgess Tax Increase of 25%? I would like to read all about the Butler, Printz, Burgess Tax Increase of 25%. I’m having difficulty finding stories about the Butler, Printz, Burgess Tax Increase of 25%.
First, it was not the Butler, Burgess, Printz tax increase. It was the Butler, Burgess, Printz, Gilpin, Breeden tax increase, enacted when the Developer had all 5 of his puppets on the County Commission. It was enacted in order to preserve the Developer's sweetheart impact fee while paying for county infrastructure necessitated by the Developer's massive expansion of The Villages.
,
Second, to quote Captain Renault in Casablanca, "I am shocked, shocked" that you might find that the Developer's newspaper buried the true story. If you want the facts, go to the on-line newspaper and use the Search feature. There is also a little video on youtube that explains the essentials: Scott Fenstermaker--How can five guys screw 125000 people? - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQiReUkH_V4)

[mk1126]

Be cautious of any Oped that Corder sponsors - usually just a talking/market point.

[Advogado]

Be cautious of any Oped that Corder sponsors - usually just a talking/market point.

They are never labeled "Oped". They are disguised as news.

[golfing eagles]

First, it was not the Butler, Burgess, Printz tax increase. It was the Butler, Burgess, Printz, Gilpin, Breeden tax increase, enacted when the Developer had all 5 of his puppets on the County Commission. It was enacted in order to preserve the Developer's sweetheart impact fee while paying for county infrastructure necessitated by the Developer's massive expansion of The Villages.
,
Second, to quote Captain Renault in Casablanca, "I am shocked, shocked" that you might find that the Developer's newspaper buried the true story. If you want the facts, go to the on-line newspaper and use the Search feature. There is also a little video on youtube that explains the essentials: Scott Fenstermaker--How can five guys screw 125000 people? - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQiReUkH_V4)

I'll credit you with this: You ARE consistent. Monotonous, but consistent

[Stu from NYC]

First, it was not the Butler, Burgess, Printz tax increase. It was the Butler, Burgess, Printz, Gilpin, Breeden tax increase, enacted when the Developer had all 5 of his puppets on the County Commission. It was enacted in order to preserve the Developer's sweetheart impact fee while paying for county infrastructure necessitated by the Developer's massive expansion of The Villages.
,
Second, to quote Captain Renault in Casablanca, "I am shocked, shocked" that you might find that the Developer's newspaper buried the true story. If you want the facts, go to the on-line newspaper and use the Search feature. There is also a little video on youtube that explains the essentials: Scott Fenstermaker--How can five guys screw 125000 people? - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQiReUkH_V4)

Something I do not understand.

What has been the history of the impact fee over the past 20-25 years?