Why is it?
 

Why is that when a private developer like The Villages builds and operates a community, it seems to thrive. Yet cities, run by elected officials, are in desperate financial straits all across the country.

Here, we have golf courses, pools, recreation centers, good roads, hundreds, if not thousands of houses being built, a fire department with good equipment and many other desirable amenities.

In almost every other community, they are laying off police and fire, raising taxes, cutting services and generally shutting down.

I guess the short answer is that cities run on tax money and The Villages runs on profit from building houses. I'm sure the answer is deeper than that but can cities learn something from The Villages?

Good question....
 

The answer may be upsetting because we all believe in democracy and I have laughed when Village07 sometimes refers to The Villages as a "benevolent dictatorship", but it is kinda true and it works. Not every one of the elected officials or great plans we have voted for is as good as the Morse family who profits for taking such good care of us, but is making the right decisions apparently.

Long live the king!

Maybe it's because
 

Maybe it's because people choose to live in The Villages. They don't live here to be near work or because their families have always lived here . . .

I believe the essence of the problem is that in TV there is a profit motive and emphasis is put on efficiency. In addition, the developer is using his own money and therefore he uses it wisely. Cities and States are "run" by politicians who do not use their 0wn money for operations. They merely vote on how to spend my money over which I have no control. If money is wasted, just tax those concerned a bit more to cover the liabilities; which they don't even cover anymore.

Add to the pie the fact that money is allocated for projects in the politician's home district which are extravagant and wasteful. These projects are initiated to garner votes not because they are a wise expenditure of funds.

Lastly, absent are watchdog agencies, Checks and balances, necessary when one is using other people's money.

The above only scratches the surface but I do not want to aggravate myself anymore than I already have.

It could be the cities are a hundred years old or more - what will TV look like in a hundred years?

While I generally agree with the sentiment, to be fair, TV is quite unique in its population and can't be compared to a generic city which can't control who gets to live there. Also, there are other private community developers who are also in dire straits financially (e.g. WCI), so it is hard to say that the answer is always privatization.

Certainly TV is not thriving merely because it is a private business. Too many businesses fail for it to be that simple. They have a successful business model for sure, attracting and retaining villagers with the array of amenities and lifestyle, and that contributes to its success. That array of amenities, coupled with an aging, active adult population, makes TV developers sort of umbrella salesmen in the rain.
IMHO, the reason cities have a tough go is fairly simple (and summed up well above by K2AT); politicians / greed / corruption coupled with a decreasing tax base because everyone is moving to TV. :)

TV vs. Cities
 

Among other things, TV has…..

- No politicians, therefore no made up jobs for political supporters,
- Over 55 population, therefore limited education budget,
- Financially solid population, therefore limited social services required,
- Fairly new infrastructure; therefore lower maintenance costs, and
- Tightly controlled governance, therefore little need to please constituencies with costly pet projects.

Yep....No schools.

For Gods sake end this thread. If "they" find out about TV they may decide that we need "Real change."

Yoda

A member of the loyal opposition

I am a Big Fan of Charter Schools
 

........because they don't have to adhere to any silly union curriculum. The teacher's union disdain them as they are considered competition. I know of teachers that took a pay cut because they couldn't stomach "government schools" any longer.

So....what happens after build-out?

TH, I gotta disagree on your last point. TV does not run on profits from home sales. It "runs" on a combination of fees and taxes. New development such as new rec centers, pools, exec courses, and trails is the product of home sales but once in, these items are operated, maintained, etc., without financial input from the developer. In fact, as the IRS is happy to point out, these items are sold early on by the developer to the us. Our funding plants the flowers in the round-abouts, not the developer's. Country clubs and their golf courses, the Polo Fields, and the various restaurants and stores are entrepreneurial actions of the developer and others. Very possibly, the developer may well use some profits from home sales to support some of these endeavors.

I believe the main difference between TV and municipalities facing financial ruin is that TV has no permanent underclass which it must support. Sure, parts of the pre-Historic section are fairly old and in poor shape compared to the areas in District 6 or 7, but these are not welfare warrens. Not so much smaller towns, but cities have a self-perpetuating class of people who are recipients of government services yet contribute nothing to the public coffers. TV doesn't have that situation.

And if you do not agree with me, then you, sir, are worse than Al Gore.





`