[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by npwalters

Now that I would pay to see. But to address your last sentence; recognizing that "prevailing success" is good for some but can harm others is the first step in your Villages Myopia Syndrome (VMS) recovery.

Are the independent and assisted living buildings next to Bob Evans hurting the neighborhoods directly behind them?

[npwalters]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

Are the independent and assisted living buildings next to Bob Evans hurting the neighborhoods directly behind them?

They are on 466 and in an established commercial area. Same for the other sites you have mentioned. I've explained this to you several times but it doesn't seem to register.

The proposed high density apartments at Hacienda Hills are squarely in the middle of single family housing. Do a search for Hacienda Hills CC on Google earth and it is immediately apparent.

[dewilson58]

Originally Posted by npwalters

They are on 466 and in an established commercial area. .

Actually, residential is just across the street.

[npwalters]

Originally Posted by Northwoods

I’m rather shocked by the comments about the developer here. I thought the vast majority of people in TV were conservatives and that most (all?) conservatives were pro business. Here’s a company that has produced this wonderful community and they are constantly being criticized as being greedy. I don’t get it.

Most conservatives are pro business and also recognize that successful businesses usually maintain good relations with the community in which they do business. The developer knows that the residents that live near the (former) Hacienda Hills CC site are overwhelmingly opposed to the proposed multi story apartment complex in the middle of their single family home community.

A business that doesn’t make money dies. It cannot afford to fund an operation that doesn’t return a profit. This country club and Katy Belle’s were here to make money for the developer and were, apparently, failing at that. They were not amenities here just for our enjoyment. The developer is not a government.

The conversation isn’t about Katie Belles. We hate to see it go but the proposed apartments are in a commercial district and don’t compromise the area. We all understand the developer is not a government. Duh.

The “greedy” developer sees that there is a huge demand for living the active lifestyle we have here in TV and they are trying to meet it. The Boomers are retiring in huge numbers. Do you think the “greedy” developers should stop building houses and stop turning unprofitable land into land that can help meet that demand?

Of course not – huge leap of logic on your part. They are proceeding to build , literally thousands of houses in the southern areas right now.


Not everyone can afford to own a large home on a lot. Not everyone wants to maintain a yard. Some of us are getting too old to deal with all the maintenance issues associated with living in a single-family home and would like to sell their houses to a younger family and move into a maintenance-free apartment. Do you want to force them to move out of TV where their friends are? Apartments are a benefit to the community. Yes, building them on top of a single-family neighborhood is unfortunate, but what else do you think they should do with that land that can actually turn a profit.

The obvious answer to this is choose one –or several -vacant areas in the other areas of TV that is predominantly commercial or planned and zoned multi-family and build away.

Instead of whining about this, how about making suggestions of things they can do with that land that is actually profitable.

OK, 1) a new single family neighborhood 2) single story professional offices for TV operations 3) the parking garage the developer threatened the AAC with. Would be preferable to high density apartments, or 4) gain some credibility with The Villages residents and do some repair to their reputation by actually spending some of their profit from other operations and create a green space. I'm sure there must be others that are far less intrusive that what is planned.

[npwalters]

Originally Posted by dewilson58

Actually, residential is just across the street.

If you are talking about "assisted living buildings next to Bob Evans" it is bordered by commercial on 3 sides.

[dewilson58]

Originally Posted by npwalters

If you are talking about "assisted living buildings next to Bob Evans" it is bordered by commercial on 3 sides.

I know.


But the one side is residential and Gracie's comment was regarding residential values next to the AL buildings.


The AL buildings on 466a have residential on three sides.


Duh.

[tophcfa]

Originally Posted by dewilson58

I know.


But the one side is residential and Gracie's comment was regarding residential values next to the AL buildings.


The AL buildings on 466a have residential on three sides.


Duh.

There is a big difference between the two areas. The people who bought the homes in the area surrounded by three sides of commercial space should have known the risk they were taking and did not pay a premium for their homes location. Totally different than the people who are getting screwed in the Hacienda Hills area.

[dewilson58]

Originally Posted by tophcfa

There is a big difference between the two areas. The people who bought the homes in the area surrounded by three sides of commercial space should have known the risk they were taking and did not pay a premium for their homes location. Totally different than the people who are getting screwed in the Hacienda Hills area.

The point of this discussion within this thread is the home values next to the AL buildings. Knowing the risk or not is not relevant. The values of the homes on 466 and 466a have not been negatively impacted by non-single family units.

[tophcfa]

Originally Posted by dewilson58

The point of this discussion within this thread is the home values next to the AL buildings. Knowing the risk or not is not relevant. The values of the homes on 466 and 466a have not been negatively impacted by non-single family units.

Knowing the risk, or not, is very relevant because the price paid for the homes in question had the risk already reflected in the price. Once the risk became reality it was already reflected in the price and therefore did not have a negative impact.

On the other hand, the people who paid a premium for homes at HH had no reasonable expectation of what would eventually happen in their neighborhood. That risk was not priced into their purchase price and will definitely have a negative impact on the value of their homes. I guess it will take time to tell exactly how negative it will be, but it will be negative.

[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by dewilson58

I know.


But the one side is residential and Gracie's comment was regarding residential values next to the AL buildings.


The AL buildings on 466a have residential on three sides.


Duh.

None of those residential areas on the three sides are not premium homes on golf course are they. Duh ! So can’t compare them to total residential area around HH golf course.

[dewilson58]

Originally Posted by Topspinmo

None of those residential areas on the three sides are not premium homes on golf course are they. Duh ! So can’t compare them to total residential area around HH golf course.

Premium homes???? Is that a new classification in TV??


Premier or Designer or Villa............irrelevant to the discussion. The point within the thread was lost value.



Clueless.

[dewilson58]

Originally Posted by tophcfa

On the other hand, the people who paid a premium for homes at HH had no reasonable expectation of what would eventually happen in their neighborhood. .

Thanks for the laugh.


No promises were ever made. Everyone is at risk. Things change. ANYTHING can happen to everyone's neighborhood.



(and how much of a premium did they really pay??....$5k, $10k, $20k??? And what is their value now???)

[npwalters]

Originally Posted by dewilson58

I know.


But the one side is residential and Gracie's comment was regarding residential values next to the AL buildings.


The AL buildings on 466a have residential on three sides.


Duh.

Why the DUH? you actually confirmed exactly what I said. I did not address assisted living on 466A since that is an entirely different discussion.

[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

Are the independent and assisted living buildings next to Bob Evans hurting the neighborhoods directly behind them?

Didn’t know there was Championship golf course around those houses where they overpaid to be on golf course. I see you point totally.

[tophcfa]

Originally Posted by dewilson58

No promises were ever made. Everyone is at risk. Things change. ANYTHING can happen to everyone's neighborhood.

OK, so if that is true, the lesson learned is that anyone who paid a premium for the location of their lot is a sucker and should never have had any reasonable expectation the developer would suddenly eradicate the feature(s) they paid a premium for. Furthermore, anyone in the future who pays a premium for a home location is an idiot because now it has been PROVEN ANYTHING can happen to everyone’s neighborhood.

Here is hoping that every prospective home buyer is paying close attention to this lesson and the developer never again will get away with charging a premium for a home location. That might just be a wake up call!