Poa shocker
 

Todays POA Buletin has some shocking revelations. See page 8. AAC Meeting Summary. Article 10. This article should bring about a lot of comments.

What did you think was the shocker?

March Bulletin

http://www.poa4us.org/bulletins_file...etin201403.pdf

I must be looking at the wrong page. You mean the restaurant (or no restaurant) item?

About the El Santiago building being leased as a restaurant or NOT? This has been discussed at length on this forum.


What do you find shocking?

You're kidding...right? Like Gracie said..."old news"

Not only old news, but who is the POA criticizing? The resident AAC were the ones voting to buy the building. And before buying, their lawyers due diligence should have quickly determined that it could not be used as a restaurant. If $2 mil seems a lot for a neighborhood rec center, it seems like it the resident AAC that should be the target of any POA criticism. If it was too expensive, they shouldn't have bought it!

I beleive that is who the poa is critisizing, the lawyers and the members of the aac who voted to do this.

It was fun place hope it returns

OP, I am guessing you mean MS. Tutt statement ( as quoted by the POA Bulletin) that "there were no restrictions regarding the facility being a restaurant.".

Apparently there are.

So, Ms. Tutt made a mistake---Something we have all done at one time or another.

Are you folk reading the article ??? The shock to me is that the AAC board and the spectators were given the absolute wrong information from those providing answers and advising the AAC Board. Some of these advisors are paid a lot of money and of all people, they should know what is in a $350.000 sales contract. It is in the minutes that when asked the question are there any restrictions preventing the building from being used as a restaurant, the response was that there are no restrictions. I don't consider this a rehash of old news, before the POA article, did anyone know for a fact that the AAC board, when considering the purchase, was acting with false information?? The POA has directly placed the blame on certain persons shoulders. I personally have serious reservations about how the entire purchase procedure took place.

Why would a seller get to dictate how a building they are selling gets to be used in the future, as long as no zoning violations are involved. We all know that it operated as a restaurant for several years. It was the developer that allowed the building to set empty and deteriorate, thus leading to it's need to be torn down. Nobody knows, at this point, that Ms Tutt wasn't instructed to give a false statement about the building's usage.

HOW would it benefit or hurt the developer or not HOW the property was used? I would have to think that the developer TRIED to lease it as he does restaurant facilities that he owns. .....or it doesn't make him any money. He is in the business of building and selling or building and leasing. I doubt he wanted it to sit empty. How would it hurt or HELP the developer or the community if it were used or not used as a restaurant?




Why do some people always think that it is the bad developer and some people always think it is the good developer? The latter would be me of course.


Up until now I had never encountered anyone who looked down on people in business to make money.


I just can't put my arms around the issue here???????

Not uncommon
 

It is not unheard for a seller to put into a contract what the property can or can't be used for in the future. There are many examples. A church building is sold and the owners don't want it to be turned into a nightclub. The owner builds another new restaurant nearby and doesn't want the building to be competition, etc. etc.

As to "why" in this case, it would only be speculation.

I don't believe that Ms. Tutt would knowingly give a false statement for the Developer or anybody.

Only Janet Tutt knows why she told the AAC board and the spectator there were no restrictions on the facility being used for a restaurant. I will say this, she and the Board's attorney should have known what was in the sales agreement, especially when thet are in a advisory role. Someone did not do the job they are being paid to do, simple as that. And for it to take seven months for the Board to be informed of the restriction is not good. In addressing the comment of another OP. It is not unusual when a business is sold, to place restrictions on the new owner not using the previous name and also at times the former owner may be restricted to ever opening another business within X miles.

More Janet Tutt bashing can be found here...............isn't this getting kind of old?
https://www.talkofthevillages.com/fo...t-tutt-105350/

NO it is certainly not getting 'old' ... unless your are an employee of TV. It is time that all Villagers understand the governing structure of the TV and the rights and 'responsibilities' of those individuals that have been elected or 'appointed' to responsibly oversee the governance of our community ... in the interests of the community at large.

It bothers me when people get slapped in the face and the just smile. I put my rose colored glasses away a long time ago. It is not about bashing Janet Tutt, it is about the reality of events and how they affect us as Villagers.

Thank you Warren. That is it exactly. These people have been appointed to do a job and this was an obvious failure. The residents need to be made aware. Some of us will not bury our heads in the sand. We like to stay on top of issues that affect our lifestyle here. Thanks again to the POA for their article, and to you Warren for opening a few people's eyes.

I like learning new things: could you please elaborate how this will "affect our lifestyle here". Thanks.


I'm serious - I'd like a decent explanation. Perhaps I'm just not seeing it.

The purchase of any facility on Villages grounds relates to our lifestyle. When we end up paying extra money for said facility, way over what it is probably worth, one can only imagine what things that extra money could have been used for. There is not an unending pit of money available - when money is spent in one place, it is not available to be spent somewhere else.

There had been no restrictions on the use of the building as a restaurant. Those restrictions only came into fruition after the CCD bought the property. The AAC had a lawyer review the purchase and he screwed up.

I don't understand your comment that there were no restrictions on the use of the facility. Surely you aren't saying the the restrictions were added by someone after the purchase was completed. The CDD did not buy anything, never do never will !! The purchasing authority in this case in the AAC. All this said, OF COURSE the restaurant restriction was there all the time. Everyone in an advisory position should have knowm exactly what was in the sales agreement. I really thought the developer should have donated the facility to the residents as a goodwill jesture.:pray:

Answer
 

It is a simple answer: "Follow the money".!!:read:

Well Russ, for me it is simple. The Developer actually controls who the District Managers are. District Managers actually are in place to represent the Villagers. It is the Villagers who provide the funds for the Manager's salary. It isn't all that unusual that the residents find themselves in opposition to a Developer's decision. We then find the District Manager in a unhealthy position and having a conflict of interest, oppose the Developer and probably lose their job, support the Developer and the Villagers lose. Ms Tutt actually does a good job considering how her position is controlled, but in my opinion, those (we Villagers) who pay her salary, should have direct control of who is hired as District Manager.

I know that I take things personally because this is my town, my home, and the best run place I have ever lived and I have lived in some nice homes and areas. I take it personally because ANYONE who lives here lives like a rich person. ANYONE.


I take it personally because I kind of identify with a Midwesterner like Mr. Morse who came here and due to some cussed dumb good luck, a lot of hard work, and scary chances I would have been to meek to take with any money I had, along with some wonderful ideas unused before has made a huge success. This place proves that free enterprise is a very good thing.


I identify with most of his politics and I would certainly have done all of the same things he had done if I was that smart and that brave and that hard working. As a result he got rich, and then richer, and now mega rich.


I think that most of the criticism of what is WRONG with this place and the developer are based on envy and the fact that the Morses contribute to the party we aren't allowed to mention. The critics, most of them, don't belong to that party.


I think that some people are naïve to think that the goal of business is not to turn a profit.BUT In so doing, they employ people and keep the economy thriving as well as accumulate personal wealth. "Follow the Money" is an astute observation and also an unwarranted criticism.


If the developer had FAILED. We wouldn't all be here. There are glitches and mistakes in an operation as big as this, but I get annoyed when the same people. over and over, AND OVER are picking, picking PICKING.


I am by nature a positive person, but I didn't just fall off the turnip truck.


I wonder how this place would be if the naysayers ran it.

Thank you Graciegirl we could not have said it better ourselves. We feel blessed to live here. The "ups" far outweigh the "downs".

I can tell you what it would be like.

It would be like almost every city in our country that is run by a bunch of incompetent elected officials that don't have a clue how to run a city and have ruined the majority of them.

This place would no longer be the paradise it is. The beautifully clean and manicured road ways, golf courses and towns wouldn't exist because the money that was being used to maintain them would be spent on "entitlements", inflated union wages, and imposed government programs.

It is hard for me to understand how some people accuse others of attacking them when all they are asking that all the facts are known before blaming someone. As near as I can tell, nothing in this thread so far is anything but speculation. Did someone ask the wrong questions? Did someone make a mistake? Probably. But to speculate that there is some conspiracy involved is unfounded and slanderous. Why don't we wait for all the facts before we call the hangman?

In a nutshell, what you have said is that you are personally offended when people criticize actions of the developer, because he had a lot of good ideas and became rich. And further, if I read correctly, those that criticize the developer do so because they are jealous or because they don't belong to your political party quote: I think that most of the criticism of what is WRONG with this place and the developer are based on envy and the fact that the Morses contribute to the party we aren't allowed to mention. The critics, most of them, don't belong to that party.

Well, I feel this place is my hometown too, and I'd like to see it run the best it can be run. If that means noticing when things are not done right, and encouraging conversation on such topics, so be it. In the long run, that will make the Villages a better place. All in all, The Villages is a wonderful place to live, and we enjoy it here, but it is not perfect. I'm sorry you feel any comments that are critical to The Villages or to the Developer are politically motivated and that we are all so "jealous". You couldn't be more off base. And frankly, it just sounds like someone looking for excuses when reality and the facts don't stand up to independent scrutiny.

Gracie,
I think that one of the biggest contributors to the ludicrosity of some of the complaints is a lack of understanding as to how CDDs work and how The Villages is governed.

Community Development Districts (CDD's) were never designed to be a vehicle for one individual to gather a handful of friends and family members and call themselves a government and issue tax-free bonds. Correct me, if I am wrong. Until then, we will just have to wait until the IRS totals up the amount of back taxes and penalties owed and keep paying the attorney's fees to protect the developer's bottom line. The last I heard, those attorney fees were close to one million dollars.

The villages is not a cruise ship
 

I can only speak for myself. I have no personal malice toward the Developer ( Villages Lake Sumter, Inc), the AAC, Janet Tutt, POA, VHA.
I do have a business interest in every finanical transaction involving residents and me.

In this situation I would like to know what financial affect it has on residents and what residents? The financial Loss of this mistake
Who created the error? How the error can be prevented from happening again. And what can be done to contain damages?

The biggest obstacle I see is that some residents always default to "you just don't like the Developer" I cringe every time I read that statement because it is nonsensical irrelevant and doesn't do one thing to help us keep our financial house in order.

If you look closely at the leadership that is suppose to be prioritizing this communities needs you will see and hear that they act as if they were planning activities for people on a cruise line. This is one of the PROBLEMS associated with viewing THE VILLAGES as a VACATION DESTINATION rather than a RETIREMENT COMMUNITY. We have heavily invested our retirement dollars here as the last place many of us will settle.

The "You can live like a millionaire on your retirement saving" slogan is fool hearty, naive' and misrepresents the objectives and goals needed to sustain a viable community.

Residents might fair better if they would approach this as their home rather than a Disneyworld because it is affecting their common sense and good judgment

Again Thanks Mickey. How anyone can say that the District Manager's position in not a 100% conflict of interest is beyond me. I am not saying the Developer is a bad person, or that Janet Tutt is a bad person, but I absolutely know in my mind believe the way the District managers position is filled is a conflict of interest. It is so simple, Janet tutt becomes District Manager thru the blessings of the Developer, The residents are responsible for paying her salary, The Central Districts Boards(elected by the developer) determine how much she will be paid. Good decisions that favor the developer probably means a higher salary, The developer wants to sell a rec center to the residents. So which side of the fence does the District Manager sit on to determing whether or not to accept a offer that might seem high???

Add to the 'bunch of incompetent elected officials that don't have a clue how to run a city and have ruined the majority of them'.....the phrase "who constantly cultivate NO accountability to taxpayers".

The elected politicians' "game" is always to shift blame, accuse others, and cultivate lack of accountability and keep nobody identifiable with whom "the buck stops".

It makes a much better hiding place for the elected politicians whose #1 priority is getting re-elected, who spend like drunks and are too lazy, inept and glad-handed to own up to the problem so it can be fixed.

At least here, the developer IS held accountable to taxpayers because WE decide whether to buy a home and stay here (which feeds or kills all the millions of square feet of commercial real estate that's developer owned), and WE stay on top of the issues in question thru our voices in VHA and POA and right here on this board.

WEll said. Its all out there in plain sight in black and white.

Exactly!!! I don't care what political party anyone belongs to. Why can people look at this situation and see nothing wrong?

once again mickey, you are right on the mark. I marvel how at times people can be led along in some kind of blissful state. Jim jones was not a good man, yet, hundreds never questioned his motives or his intentions. I suppose i have the personality of a doubting thomas and challenge that which i think could and should be changed.

Sometimes it takes a brave person to try to change things which we know are wrong.