Water views
 

From the unmentionable news site it seems that the folks losing their water views at Bridgeport at Lake Miona have been granted permission to trim back overgrowth to maintain their water views - at their own expense.

It appears this involves the State Agency called Southwest Water Management District. This is the one who levied fines on the Villages when Homeowner had trees removed behind their property in Bridgeport at Lake Miona.

southwest florida water management district - Bing

:BigApplause: Good win-win decision IMHO

illegal removal of trees, they didn't get permission. I can see this might pit neighbor against neighbor cause if someone doesn't have straight on view they would expect the neighbor next door to clear at they're direct view for the neighbor's view. As long as You only have control over clearing directly behind your property and you want to spend the money I see no problem with this.

IMHO it is rather expensive to live on the water in TV. This quote from the online news: "He indicated that he and his neighbors are prepared to pay initial costs and continuing maintenance as part of a maintenance plan approved by the Southwest Florida Water Management District. The initial project is estimated to cost $100,000."

The operative words here are "initial costs and continuing maintenance", so this is going to be an ongoing payment plan to have your water view that you paid an arm and a leg for 10 years ago! So they are obviously paying taxes on a water view that is no longer there, and now they have to pay big money to get it back!

Kinda puts a damper on buying real lake front property - and there are a lot of lots being sold in the new southern areas which are on lakes.

Stuff grows. To each their own. No one forces you to buy anything.

This opens up a can of worms. What about all the homes in other areas of the Villages with overgrown views? Can anyone now get permission to clear vegetation blocking their view? Can homeowners do the clearing themselves rather than paying for the work to be done? Our home has a preserve in the back yard and I would love to be able to take out some growth and improve our view. Seems that if homeowner's in one area are allowed to clear vegetation then it's only fair that others should be able to do the same?

Now that a precedent, of sorts, has been set all one has to do is get permission....just like painting your house a different color.....seek permission.
That seems fair.

Oh this is going to be interesting. I am guessing the preserve may come under the same rules from the water district, so I would be VERY cautious of doing any clearing. When we were looking at houses, we were asked if we wanted a water view, and I guess we were very lucky when it was mentioned that these were 'protected' areas, we declined the water view, and found a wonderful house, with a view that will change very little.
As for previous comments (online news and others), I am GUESSING that going forward there could be some type of assessment attached the those specific houses involved in this agreement, This would avoid the new neighbor saying well I am not going to pay.
I tend to agree this may have opened a can of worms, but it may be possible to control with a special assessment or something similar.

Just curious, why do people refer to the news site "as the site we cant mention"?

It’s called the “golden rule”; those with the gold, make the rules.... Grease the palms of the rule makers and the rules are changed.

:agree:

I doubt the board of the SFWD (unpaid appointees of Govenor) were bribed by a few homeowners affected. They merely worked through the system, said they would pay for the work and yearly maintenance to remedy problem, and got agreement. If they want to pay for this why would anyone care?

PS What "rules" were changed?

Anyone know how many homes will be involved to split the $100k fee? Curious if all homeowners will be excited to belly up the $.

:agree: