A youtube video that every Sumter County resident should see

[Advogado]

I don't know Michael Connifey, but he has made a video that every Sumter County resident should see: George Angeliadis Open Records Request - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7N7mNEwvBYk&t=134s)

[Topspinmo]

For once glad I live in Sumter county for now.

[Stu from NYC]

Will be very interesting how this all plays out.

I believe at some point the developer will talk to the commissioners about a much fairer deal for the citizens living in Sumter.

They are trying to win via their paper and do not think that will work.

[JoMar]

The winners and losers will be determined by the marketplace, not the politicians. Politicians can only make the rules. Then if they fail, they stop running and move someplace else and those left behind suffer the consequences. I suspect the Marion County Commissioners feel the same way as the Lake County Commissioners.

[Advogado]

An update:

Developer puppet Commissioners, Breeden and Gilpin, still remain silent regarding their knowledge of Attorney George Angeliadis's fishing expedition. The fishing expedition targets new County Commissioners Estep, Miller, and Search, as well as the Villagers who supported them and advocated for an increase to the Developer's sweetheart impact fee.

Who could Angleliadis's deep-pocketed client possibly be and why is he keeping his identity secret? What exactly is the deep-pocketed client up to? The mystery and suspense continue. Stay tuned.

[Ben Franklin]

When residents are asked to foot the bill for the impact created by the developer and the newbies, there is a word for it. It's called socialism. Those who create the impact should take personal responsibility of having to pay for the impact THEY create.

[Bill14564]

When residents are asked to foot the bill for the impact created by the developer and the newbies, there is a word for it. It's called socialism. Those who create the impact should take personal responsibility of having to pay for the impact THEY create.

Would you also say that those who create revenue (in the form of taxes) should get to keep the taxes? We don't subsidize their roads and the income from the houses and businesses supported by those roads stays south of 44?

[Ben Franklin]

Would you also say that those who create revenue (in the form of taxes) should get to keep the taxes? We don't subsidize their roads and the income from the houses and businesses supported by those roads stays south of 44?
Not sure I follow you. We all create revenue through taxes and our purchases of goods. If I go to Fenny or Marsh Landing, I travel only on the main roads to purchase food at Fenny Grill, or Edna's on the Green. I do not travel on the roads that lead to individual's private property.

[Bill14564]

When residents are asked to foot the bill for the impact created by the developer and the newbies, there is a word for it. It's called socialism. Those who create the impact should take personal responsibility of having to pay for the impact THEY create.

Would you also say that those who create revenue (in the form of taxes) should get to keep the taxes? We don't subsidize their roads and the income from the houses and businesses supported by those roads stays south of 44?

Not sure I follow you. We all create revenue through taxes and our purchases of goods. If I go to Fenny or Marsh Landing, I travel only on the main roads to purchase food at Fenny Grill, or Edna's on the Green. I do not travel on the roads that lead to individual's private property.

When you go to Fenny or Marsh Bend you are part of the impact the fees pay for. You are driving on roads that were created to support the businesses as well as the homes. You are using roundabouts and lights that would not exist if it were not for the development. Those are the impacts created by the businesses and homes that you feel should be borne 100% by the businesses and the homes.

Okay, so the homes and businesses should be charged 100% of the impact. That impact allows the homes to have residents and the businesses to have customers. Those residents pay property taxes and the businesses pay property taxes, sales taxes, and possibly other business taxes. If it is only right that those businesses and homes pay 100% of the costs then why is it not also right that the revenue (taxes) generated by those businesses and homes stay in their area?

If 100% of the impact should be paid by those that create it then why shouldn't those that pay for the impact receive 100% of the benefit?

But we don't designate tax revenue to be spent just south of 44; all the tax money county-wide is put into the county accounts to be spent to benefit the county. The more successful the business the more tax income and the bigger the benefit to the county. It is in the county's best interest that the businesses are successful.

And what makes a business successful - customers. The more customers, the more income, and the more taxes to the county. Also, the more customers in an area the more likely it is for a business to want to come into an area. And again, the more businesses, the more taxes, and the more benefit to the county.

The county, all the county, benefits financially from growth in both businesses and homes. That growth comes with infrastructure costs, very expensive infrastructure costs. If the county attempts to make the homeowners and business owners pay 100% of that cost they risk stopping the growth that will bring in the tax revenue. On the other hand, if they don't raise impact fees high enough then they risk being voted out in the next election. It's a difficult position to be in.

[Ben Franklin]

When you go to Fenny or Marsh Bend you are part of the impact the fees pay for. You are driving on roads that were created to support the businesses as well as the homes. You are using roundabouts and lights that would not exist if it were not for the development. Those are the impacts created by the businesses and homes that you feel should be borne 100% by the businesses and the homes.

Okay, so the homes and businesses should be charged 100% of the impact. That impact allows the homes to have residents and the businesses to have customers. Those residents pay property taxes and the businesses pay property taxes, sales taxes, and possibly other business taxes. If it is only right that those businesses and homes pay 100% of the costs then why is it not also right that the revenue (taxes) generated by those businesses and homes stay in their area?

If 100% of the impact should be paid by those that create it then why shouldn't those that pay for the impact receive 100% of the benefit?

But we don't designate tax revenue to be spent just south of 44; all the tax money county-wide is put into the county accounts to be spent to benefit the county. The more successful the business the more tax income and the bigger the benefit to the county. It is in the county's best interest that the businesses are successful.

And what makes a business successful - customers. The more customers, the more income, and the more taxes to the county. Also, the more customers in an area the more likely it is for a business to want to come into an area. And again, the more businesses, the more taxes, and the more benefit to the county.

The county, all the county, benefits financially from growth in both businesses and homes. That growth comes with infrastructure costs, very expensive infrastructure costs. If the county attempts to make the homeowners and business owners pay 100% of that cost they risk stopping the growth that will bring in the tax revenue. On the other hand, if they don't raise impact fees high enough then they risk being voted out in the next election. It's a difficult position to be in.

I lived in a Florida county for 30+ years. Total population of the country when I purchased my pre-owned house was roughly 125,000. Today, there are 805,000+ people living there, and it continues to grow. I used to say the County Commissioners, whose salaries are tied to the population, recreated what we were trying to escape from. Those county commissioners did the same there, as they did in Sumter over the years, with the impact fees. I moved from there, because it was too crowded, the roads were always jammed, and the quality of environment went from pristine to polluted. In order for the county, or state to build the roads that were truly needed, the existing homeowners would have to pay a hefty tax, so they didn't build the needed infrastructure. Big isn't better, it's more costly.

One other thing to consider is that, if the builder and those who create the impact don't pay for it, it allows them buy their homes cheaper, thus depressing the true resale value of pre-existing homes.

And, finally, those of us who are here year round, support the economy 365 days, not just 3 or 4 months out of the year. What would happen to those businesses, if we were all snowbirds? Why should we also have to pay for the impact?

[Altavia]

When residents are asked to foot the bill for the impact created by the developer and the newbies, there is a word for it. It's called socialism. Those who create the impact should take personal responsibility of having to pay for the impact THEY create.

The incremental tax revenue from new development is what pays for your socialistic Homestead exemption... :ho: