[rubicon]

The POA Bulletin carried two articles of interest on page 1,2,4,16.

On page one the POA made reference to a June 20 article carried by the Daily Sun pertaining to the Developer (The Villages Lake-Sumter, Inc.) maintaining ratios with amenities resulting from its continuing expansion.

As I recalled the Daily Sun in an article expanding on information of the addition of Fenny, Southern Oaks, etc indicated that upon completion it would comprise population wise 1/3 of The Villages. None of the forementioned articles reference this %

A village resident Mike Burns made an inquiry as to the concern for overcrowding. And the POA responded making reference to the Developer's attention of a homes to facility ratio. essentially then it appeared as if the issue of overcrowding was asked and answered.

However my question is what number was used to determine this ratio? An amenity is charged to every household . Is 1.8 average used per household perhaps 2.0? Do these numbers accurately reflect the reality and the actual use of facilities by residents, renters and guests?
My only point is the ratio developed by the Developer could be faulty??

The second article had to do with water conservation. Again averages are based on a head count. so that a one person home average use is overstated and a 3 person home perhaps understated?

the explanation for the 10% surcharge was wanting. One of the responses was the one thing they the utility could not control was consumer use. Yet in that same article Janet Tutt side stepped the bottling company issue. if water conservation is such an concern then the impact statement long ago would have prevented the Developer from continuing expansion

Once again i am left with more questions than answers????

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by rubicon

The POA Bulletin carried two articles of interest on page 1,2,4,16.

On page one the POA made reference to a June 20 article carried by the Daily Sun pertaining to the Developer (The Villages Lake-Sumter, Inc.) maintaining ratios with amenities resulting from its continuing expansion.

As I recalled the Daily Sun in an article expanding on information of the addition of Fenny, Southern Oaks, etc indicated that upon completion it would comprise population wise 1/3 of The Villages.

A village resident Mike Burns made an inquiry as to the concern for overcrowding. And the POA responded making reference to the Developer's attention of a homes to facility ratio. essentially then it appeared as if the issue of overcrowding was asked and answered.

However my question is what number was used to determine this ratio? An amenity is charged to every household . Is 1.8 average used per household perhaps 2.0? Do these numbers accurately reflect the reality?
How many users of facilities are there when a house is rented? 2, 4, 6, 10, 12....... My only point is the ratio developed by the Developer could be faulty??

The second article had to do with water conservation. Again averages are based on a head count. so that a one person home average use is overstated and a 3 person home perhaps understated?

the explanation for the 10% surcharge One of the responses was the one thing they the utility could not control was consumer use. Yet in that same article Janet Tutt side stepped the bottling company issue. if water conservation is such an concern then the impact statement long ago would have prevented the Developer from continuing expansion

Once again i am left with more questions than answers????

The POA bulletin has improved since the forever president stepped down but still isn't where I look for information.

[Bogie Shooter]

one should keep an open mind and get both sides of the coin.

[Madelaine Amee]

Originally Posted by Bogie Shooter

one should keep an open mind and get both sides of the coin.

......... and I do just that. Read the Daily Sun and the POA paper. Good to have both.

[PennBF]

I view the major problem with the Villages is there is no real check and balance. You have a Janet Tutt making the call and she is an agent of the Developer. Whether or not you like or dislike the Villages it stands there is no check and balance and therefore the Developer has total control.
If you were involved with Condo's in Florida you would see there are a number of controls which don't exist in the type of Government that wields controls over the rules governing the Villages. An excellent example is the Amenities and who controls them, who is the auditor to ensure fair treatment, where do the excess revenues go, and many etc.

[rubicon]

Originally Posted by Bogie Shooter

one should keep an open mind and get both sides of the coin.

but my observation is that residents only get one side of the coin always have and always will unless and until something drastically changes.

Where can we go for objective information in this community that isn't owned or owing to the Developer? Sumter One survived repeal for a reason....just saying

Mine is an observation and not a judgment or complaint

[Bogie Shooter]

Originally Posted by PennBF

I view the major problem with the Villages is there is no real check and balance. You have a Janet Tutt making the call and she is an agent of the Developer. Whether or not you like or dislike the Villages it stands there is no check and balance and therefore the Developer has total control.
If you were involved with Condo's in Florida you would see there are a number of controls which don't exist in the type of Government that wields controls over the rules governing the Villages. An excellent example is the Amenities and who controls them, who is the auditor to ensure fair treatment, where do the excess revenues go, and many etc.

Major problem?
I have read about some of those Condo's in Florida.....I would not want any part of them.

[ColdNoMore]

Originally Posted by Madelaine Amee

......... and I do just that. Read the Daily Sun and the POA paper. Good to have both.

I like The Sun's sports section.


The rest?


Meh.

[Jdmiata]

Where can we go for objective information in this community that isn't owned or owing to the Developer?
Answer.....the POA

[ColdNoMore]

Originally Posted by Jdmiata

Where can we go for objective information in this community that isn't owned or owing to the Developer?
Answer.....the POA

YEP!

[Mleeja]

Originally Posted by ColdNoMore

YEP!

Originally Posted by Jdmiata

Where can we go for objective information in this community that isn't owned or owing to the Developer?
Answer.....the POA

Nope, not the POA. They are biased against the the developers and they are going to spin the facts to meet their narrative.

One has to read all available sources, and then they can form an opinion. Using only one source leaves you open to the source's biases.

[ColdNoMore]

Originally Posted by Mleeja

Nope, not the POA. They are biased against the the developers and they are going to spin the facts to meet their narrative.

LOL

As if The Sun doesn't "spin the facts" so as to always put the developer in a positive light...and meet their own "narrative?"

Not that I begrudge them for doing so, given that it is wholly owned, directed and run by the developer...primarily to advertise their homes for sale.

Sorry, but I prefer to have a source that is solely dedicated to looking after the best interests of us residents...not a glorified sales brochure masquerading as a newspaper.

Originally Posted by Mleeja

One has to read all available sources, and then they can form an opinion. Using only one source leaves you open to the source's biases.

I agree that multiple sources are needed to divine the 'truth.'

When was the last time you read an article in The Sun...that even hinted at a criticism of the developer?

Off the top of my head, I can't recall a single one in the last 6 years.

That IS NOT 'news' by any definition...it's simply propaganda.

And once again, they are entitled to such...since they own it. Just don't confuse it with serious journalism.

Even so, I will continue to subscribe to the paper, pull the sports section and first page out...then put the rest of it in the recycle bag.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by ColdNoMore

LOL

As if The Sun doesn't "spin the facts" so as to always put the developer in a positive light...and meet their own "narrative?"

Not that I begrudge them for doing so, given that it is wholly owned, directed and run by the developer...primarily to advertise their homes for sale.

Sorry, but I prefer to have a source that is solely dedicated to looking after the best interests of us residents...not a glorified sales brochure masquerading as a newspaper.





I agree that multiple sources are needed to divine the 'truth.'

When was the last time you read an article in The Sun...that even hinted at a criticism of the developer?

Off the top of my head, I can't recall a single one in the last 6 years.

That IS NOT 'news' by any definition...it's simply propaganda.

And once again, they are entitled to such...since they own it. Just don't confuse it with serious journalism.

Even so, I will continue to subscribe to the paper, pull the sports section and first page out...then put the rest of it in the recycle bag.

Now that is an issue not limited to the Sun. Some say that all major networks show bias.

One has to carefully research sources and motives of any organization in order to be well informed.

Me and my house, We like The Daily Sun.

[rubicon]

Originally Posted by Mleeja

Nope, not the POA. They are biased against the the developers and they are going to spin the facts to meet their narrative.

One has to read all available sources, and then they can form an opinion. Using only one source leaves you open to the source's biases.

While I am not enamored by the POA I can tell you unequivocally that they are not biased against the Developer. if you review their long history they have made every attempt to work with the Developer in a desire to provide relief to residents. Any resident believing that the POA does not have a genuine interest in working on behalf of residents is mistaken

My criticism of the POA is that their ability to do anything is very limited either by design of our goverment or unwillingness to be more risk takers.

The TVHOA was financed by the Developer specifically to compete with the POA. If the Developer were 12th Century England and the POA Scotland then the HOA was designed to be the equivalent of droit du seigneur Sorry couldn't help myself.

In some respects the philosophy of all that is owned or controlled by the Developer fits the profile of a nursing home where that generations music is blasted throughout the facility and the news is always sanitized so as not to upset its residents most of whom lean toward and prefer nostalgia...to wit the Daily Sun

[kansasr]

Originally Posted by rubicon

While I am not enamored by the POA I can tell you unequivocally that they are not biased against the Developer. if you review their long history they have made every attempt to work with the Developer in a desire to provide relief to residents. Any resident believing that the POA does not have a genuine interest in working on behalf of residents is mistaken

My criticism of the POA is that their ability to do anything is very limited either by design of our goverment or unwillingness to be more risk takers.

The TVHOA was financed by the Developer specifically to compete with the POA. If the Developer were 12th Century England and the POA Scotland then the HOA was designed to be the equivalent of droit du seigneur Sorry couldn't help myself.

In some respects the philosophy of all that is owned or controlled by the Developer fits the profile of a nursing home where that generations music is blasted throughout the facility and the news is always sanitized so as not to upset its residents most of whom lean toward and prefer nostalgia...to wit the Daily Sun

The HOA doesn't even own the trademark to their own logo - it's owned by the developer.