More Accurate
 

Is it more accurate to change the term of "Developer" to "Owner"?:popcorn:

Most accurate would be plural, developers or owners. This entity is now owned by more than one person.

Perhaps Morse Clan would be fitting...

***

It's semantics, of course. Choosing 'developer or 'owner' to describe a relationship to a property is a matter of what you want to convey.

"Developer" indicates an intent to improve or convert a property, and the means to achieve the goal; 'developers' may be persuaded to integrate a change in the property so it blends well with a community.

Conversely, "owner" would not indicate any particular activity intended for a property, and it may convey an inability on the part of others to compel or persuade the 'owner' to any specific end result.

Also, a designation of 'developer' may indicate a short-term ownership status, or not, while an 'owner' carries no implicit obligation to sell, improve, or do any particular thing with a property. However, zoning laws may require a specific use for a property, such as commercial or residential. Any property owner would have to comply with the zoning use, including developing (themselves or through a separate development entity) the property for the required use.

Too much to absorb! How about the Morse’s.

I think "developer" is more accurate and much more descriptive. The Villages property is being developed, improved, and managed, not just being owned. Almost all property is owned by someone.

How about oligarchy?

To paraphrase from above...

"The Villages has also been described as an oligarchy because economic elites and organized groups representing special interests have substantial impacts on policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence."

Ha! Noted!

Even the Morris's!:icon_wink:

Sounds like something else I read about all the time ...... :icon_wink:

The Developer probably does have substantial impact on policy. Overall, I don't have any complaint on what they've done. They've built a beautiful Charter School to attract workers, built golf courses, rec. centers, pools, dog parks, Wiechens preserve, outdoor exercise equipment, softball centers, archery ranges, etc. They have laid out a vision to build another Charter School, medical facility, etc. I have no issue with their vision.

Or perhaps you'd like policy managed by committee??? Have you seen the random, self-centered, negative demands by some of the villagers?? Maybe you want it to be just like congress.... constant fighting where nothing gets done.

As someone owning a home north of 466, I think the term developer is obsolete. Harold Schwartz and Gary Morse developed that area. The current generation of the family might be considered developers south of 44 where new development is actually happening. In the northern sections of the Villages I think the new term should be the dictators.

The areas north of 466 are “governed” by the CCDs and the AAC. All are elected by the residents. On the AAC the developer has one vote.

Yet every vote goes in the favor of the dictators. The only one that did not was the dictators trying to jam the run down Hacienda Hills CC building down the AAC’s throat. How did that work out, the dictators forced an eyesore and amenity clustering rental apartment complex down their throat. Wake up to reality.

I’m sure you’ve all heard, and many of you have said:
“America, love it or leave it”
Well, guess what word to ‘change’ in that sentence.
Call a broker!