Bridge at Lake Sumter Landing
 

I saw an note on the other online newsleter about problems with the bridge across Lake Sumter, and that the repairs were going to cost an incredibly large amount. It said that the cost of the repairs would be covered by the CDDs south of 466. I haven't seen anything else about it. Has anyone else seen this, or did I dream it???? If it is true, why are the CDDs south of 466 the only ones responsible for the costs? The bridge was there long before a lot of us had even heard of the Villages. If it is a state road, why would the state not be responsible for any repairs or upkeep????? Or at the least, why not the Developer. The CDDs south of 466 are certainly not the only users, or even the primary users of this road.

You didn't dream it!
I saw the article in the online newspaper about the CDDs south of 466 being responsible for paying for $$$ repairs to the Sumter Bridge. :confused:
I guess because the Bridge is located in Sumter County, not Marion or Lake.
I vote we have toll collectors and charge anyone using the Bridge!

Isn't Morris a public road - repairs should be paid by Sumter County (i.e. 90% Sumter County Villages tax money and probably a good amount from state 2).

.

No, Morris is a cat.:icon_wink:

Maybe we could hire a troll to live under the bridge

There is a small piece on this bridge problem buried in either the VHA or the POA newspapers this week. When we first bought here the Black Kow company used to mine black cow fertilizer somewhere around that area and we were somewhat surprised when they developed there, we thought it was all boggy land, but they obviously had to get permission to build - it will be interesting.

Am I wrong in thinking the North side and the South Side have different forms of Government? Someone much smarter than me, please explain.

If the county does not own the land someone gave them permission to build a street on that land, as in our neighborhoods. What is the law on maintaining the land beneath a road? Is it the responsibility of the county or the landowner upon which the road is built. If a sinkhole develops on a highway, who has to fix it? Is it relevant that the land would be fine but for the extra stress which the road caused to the land causing it to become unstable? Whose responsibility was it to determine the suitability of that land for the construction of a bridge? Does the land owner (us) have a right to say, we want a bridge and here is some land, so now county you must build it regardless of the suitability of the land? Or is it the county or state engineer's job to say, No this is not a suitable location without enhancing the land or the supports or building the bridge in a different manner. Can we, the land owners, revoke our permission to use the land or has the land been deeded to the county? Someone knows the answers, I just ask some questions

Janet Tutt is hosting a District 8 Town Hall Meeting on February 26 at 6:00pm at Sea Breeze Rec Center. Anyone impacted may wish to attend the meeting and ask questions.

The article in the on-line news said that the district owns the land that the bridge sits on, and the county owns the bridge. Since it is the land that is sinking, causing the bridge to sink, the district must pay to shore up the land.

Most of the time that roads are built, doesn't the state or other municipality buy the land that the road sits on? Therefore that entity is responsible for the road.

[QUOTE=janmcn;1007496]The article in the on-line news said that the district owns the land that the bridge sits on, and the county owns the bridge. Since it is the land that is sinking, causing the bridge to sink, the district must pay to shore up the land.


Which came first - the chicken or the egg???

[quote=gomoho;1007501]This is the way it was explained at a meeting I attended but now I wonder who owns the land under 466. How do you build a road/bridge on non road/bridge property?

Doesn't this topic come up yearly? And nothing happens. Perhaps a local urban legend.

.


Yes, that is how I understood it. But it does not seem to address the issue of who determined how to build the bridge, what supports it needed, and who determined that the land was solid enough to proceed. Whomever did that engineering, soil testing, or whatever should it would seem be liable for their error in determining the solidity of the ground and the type of bridge which it could support. That is why engineers have insurance to cover such error and omissions. I'm sure the district did not design the bridge, but if it did then our designers were at fault and we should be going after them for their error.