![]() |
Quote:
Cindy |
Thank you Don for your thorough explanation. You addresses several of my concerns, which I sincerely appreciate. Additionally, I'd like to encourage you and others serving in a similar capacity to control costs so that Amenity Fees are minimized. For example, things like "Community Watch" and people at the Gates should be minimized or eliminated.
|
Our amenity fees are cheap for what we get. There is no other place that offers you the same activities for this low of a fee. We lived in a 55+ community and we paid more for 99% less activities.
If you are a coach potato and don’t do anything, there are other places you can live in that have $0 or low fees, that have 0 activities or a small subdivision might have no fees |
Quote:
Does the Developer have the unlimited right to add residences, who will all have unlimited rights to all the existing amenities, regardless of where they're located? IF the Developer opted to stop building Recreational Centers, can he still keep adding homes, which have unlimited rights to the already constructed Recreational Centers & Pools? IF the Developer opted to stop building Executive Golfs courses, do the folks in those newer villages (presumably South), have the unlimited right to inundate the existing Executive Courses in the North? Does the Developer have the unequivocal right to decide how many Executive Golf courses, pools, recreational centers, etc., are needed to serve a given population? As near as I can see, there's no obligation for the Developer to provide "x number of Executive Golf course holes, per x number of residences" ... nor any obligation to do the same with Recreational Centers or any other amenity. It seems he's the sole judge of what's necessary or fair? Amy I missing something, besides the obvious that some things are "market driven". |
Quote:
|
Quote:
With respect to the number of amenities provided in the new areas, yes by all means it is their sole right and judgment to determine how many new amenities they build in these areas, no the residents don't get a say in it. It's their money, their land, and their business model, and they can do whatever they legally want to, so yes, they get to be the sole judge. That being said, they've been at this a very long time and know their market better than anyone, including the residents, why would stop feeding the goose that laid the golden eggs - why would they stop building the amenities that are key to driving home sales? Sure, you can feast on goose for dinner and enjoy the feast - reap additional profits by saving on new amenities - but this is very short term and would lead to hunger/failure very quickly. All your hypothetical “IF”s are simply “what if they start mutilating the goose”, they are much better business people than that. The developer can continue to build as long as they want and within the limits of the development agreements continue to grow The Villages. Within these development agreements there is verbiage that provides guidance on equitable amenities – “don’t kill the goose, feed the goose regularly”; most is probably unnecessary. There is an ebb & flow to the number of homes versus number of amenities, 40+ years of history clearly indicates they clearly understand this and adjust accordingly. Golf courses are a prime example, some areas do not lend themselves to golf courses or sometimes they try something new – pitch & putts. As homes continue to be built, so do the homes. For the golf courses there are at least 5 executive and 3 more championship courses under construction or planned, with I’m sure many more to follow. Not everything is perfect, a prime example is the small number of swimming pools north of 466 in CDD 3 & 4. Perceptions are also not perfect, the number of golf courses compared to the actual number of homes (not the perceived number) is much closer to the norm than most perceive. Bottom line is, until you pony up and put your money at risk like they have, you don’t get a say in what the future holds and what they build, and they get to make all the decisions. Until then, just like in the financial ads, past performance is not a guarantee of future performance and cannot be guaranteed. I’m no gambler and don’t like taking unnecessary risks, in the case of The Villages, to me it’s as close to a sure thing as I can get for the place I’ve retired. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Paradise Center $40 mil lawsuit Brownwood water tower Lake Sumter shoreline reclaim Lake Sumter boardwalk As long as there is money in the pot someone will figure out how to spend it. Want a sure thing ? Here is my sure thing. There will never be another deferral rate. We will index amenities to CPI index and never miss a beat. We will fall behind and institute special bailout funds. Still it is close to Utopia here however some people make it sound like the king just keeps on giving and the peasants keep on taking. No the peasants are paying their share just as they agreed to do. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
It's only a conceptual question, as I don't play golf on the Executive Golf courses, nor have I ever stepped foot in a Recreational Center, other than to pick up a Guest Pass. I've developed Condominium projects in other states. In many cases, when selling units, we retain the right to add additional land and phases to the project, all of which will become "part of the whole" when complete and entitled to use any amenity constructed with the original phase. At least in the states I've developed Condominiums, the possibility of adding other (future) land (phases) to an existing Condominium, has to be specifically addressed in the Declaration and it typically isn't unlimited. Is that how The Villages is structured? Is there no limit to the potential expansion of The Villages and all homes added, become part of the whole and entitled to use of any and all amenities? I'm not asking if the Developer would, might, shouldn't or wouldn't build all the way to Tampa and not build any amenities. I agree that market conditions are self-limiting and a determining factor. My question is, does the Developer have the unlimited right to to grant access to the existing amenities, to as many homes as he wants. Quote:
The Developer no longer owns the majority of the amenities (assuming the recent sale has been consummated), yet they have the exclusive right to determine the intensity of use the Amenities (they no longer own) are subjected to? They get to decide the "pools per person ratio" for their new CDD's and at the same time, change the current "pools per person ratio" in the existing CDD's? I have to be missing something here. |
Quote:
|
DON: Can this be fixed?
If someone pays $215/month, and someone else pays $195/month.... Can anyone list the extra amenities that extra $20/month pays for? Seems unfair that there are different rates for identical amenities. |
Quote:
Not only does the team absorb the penalty yards the Ref's impose, the goal line keeps moving farther away. |
Quote:
I pay a bit less than the new rate of $199 but my rate will be increasing around April and will put me pretty close. All rates should be close to the new contractual rate or will adjust to be close to the rate. (If yours is less then lucky you). My rate was set to the contractual rate when I purchased, just s my deed restrictions said it would. My rate adjusted every year with the CPI just as the deed restrictions said it would. What more can I ask for other than the rate follows the restrictions I agreed to when I purchased? |
Back Story is the facts
Quote:
He manages to remove the personal, political, and emotional aspects of many OPs and gives the facts. We all need that now. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:31 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by
DragonByte SEO v2.0.32 (Pro) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.