[VT2TV]

I saw an note on the other online newsleter about problems with the bridge across Lake Sumter, and that the repairs were going to cost an incredibly large amount. It said that the cost of the repairs would be covered by the CDDs south of 466. I haven't seen anything else about it. Has anyone else seen this, or did I dream it???? If it is true, why are the CDDs south of 466 the only ones responsible for the costs? The bridge was there long before a lot of us had even heard of the Villages. If it is a state road, why would the state not be responsible for any repairs or upkeep????? Or at the least, why not the Developer. The CDDs south of 466 are certainly not the only users, or even the primary users of this road.

[Barefoot]

Originally Posted by VT2TV

I saw an note on the other online newsleter about problems with the bridge across Lake Sumter, and that the repairs were going to cost an incredibly large amount. It said that the cost of the repairs would be covered by the CDDs south of 466. I haven't seen anything else about it. Has anyone else seen this, or did I dream it???? If it is true, why are the CDDs south of 466 the only ones responsible for the costs? The bridge was there long before a lot of us had even heard of the Villages. If it is a state road, why would the state not be responsible for any repairs or upkeep????? Or at the least, why not the Developer. The CDDs south of 466 are certainly not the only users, or even the primary users of this road.

You didn't dream it!
I saw the article in the online newspaper about the CDDs south of 466 being responsible for paying for $$$ repairs to the Sumter Bridge.
I guess because the Bridge is located in Sumter County, not Marion or Lake.
I vote we have toll collectors and charge anyone using the Bridge!

[chuckinca]

Isn't Morris a public road - repairs should be paid by Sumter County (i.e. 90% Sumter County Villages tax money and probably a good amount from state 2).

.

[KeepingItReal]

Originally Posted by VT2TV

I saw an note on the other online newsleter about problems with the bridge across Lake Sumter, and that the repairs were going to cost an incredibly large amount. It said that the cost of the repairs would be covered by the CDDs south of 466. I haven't seen anything else about it. Has anyone else seen this, or did I dream it???? If it is true, why are the CDDs south of 466 the only ones responsible for the costs? The bridge was there long before a lot of us had even heard of the Villages. If it is a state road, why would the state not be responsible for any repairs or upkeep????? Or at the least, why not the Developer. The CDDs south of 466 are certainly not the only users, or even the primary users of this road.

About as easy to understand as the residents paying the legal fees for the IRS issue?? Estimates of .5 to 1.5 Million which is quite a large spread for an estimate.
Maybe the HOA has an acceptable explanation as to why the residents should pay for this too...

[Bonanza]

Originally Posted by VT2TV

I saw an note on the other online newsleter about problems with the bridge across Lake Sumter, and that the repairs were going to cost an incredibly large amount. It said that the cost of the repairs would be covered by the CDDs south of 466. I haven't seen anything else about it. Has anyone else seen this, or did I dream it???? If it is true, why are the CDDs south of 466 the only ones responsible for the costs? The bridge was there long before a lot of us had even heard of the Villages. If it is a state road, why would the state not be responsible for any repairs or upkeep????? Or at the least, why not the Developer. The CDDs south of 466 are certainly not the only users, or even the primary users of this road.

Originally Posted by KeepingItReal

About as easy to understand as the residents paying the legal fees for the IRS issue?? Estimates of .5 to 1.5 Million which is quite a large spread for an estimate.
Maybe the HOA has an acceptable explanation as to why the residents should pay for this too...

No, Morse is not a state road. It is a public street and maintained by the county. However, the problem is not an issue with the roadway itself. The problem has something to do with the infrastructure beneath the bridge. Perhaps an engineer can explain the problem in detail; I cannot.

Regarding the IRS thing. We, the residents have already paid well over a million to the attorneys who have represented The Villages (us) thus far. It is my understanding that the developer has not contributed one cent towards these fees. This is not an estimate; we have already paid and the fat lady hasn't sung yet. There's more to come.

[Walter123]

Originally Posted by chuckinca

Isn't Morris a public road - repairs should be paid by Sumter County (i.e. 90% Sumter County Villages tax money and probably a good amount from state 2).

.

No, Morris is a cat.

[jblum315]

Maybe we could hire a troll to live under the bridge

[Madelaine Amee]

There is a small piece on this bridge problem buried in either the VHA or the POA newspapers this week. When we first bought here the Black Kow company used to mine black cow fertilizer somewhere around that area and we were somewhat surprised when they developed there, we thought it was all boggy land, but they obviously had to get permission to build - it will be interesting.

Am I wrong in thinking the North side and the South Side have different forms of Government? Someone much smarter than me, please explain.

[blueash]

If the county does not own the land someone gave them permission to build a street on that land, as in our neighborhoods. What is the law on maintaining the land beneath a road? Is it the responsibility of the county or the landowner upon which the road is built. If a sinkhole develops on a highway, who has to fix it? Is it relevant that the land would be fine but for the extra stress which the road caused to the land causing it to become unstable? Whose responsibility was it to determine the suitability of that land for the construction of a bridge? Does the land owner (us) have a right to say, we want a bridge and here is some land, so now county you must build it regardless of the suitability of the land? Or is it the county or state engineer's job to say, No this is not a suitable location without enhancing the land or the supports or building the bridge in a different manner. Can we, the land owners, revoke our permission to use the land or has the land been deeded to the county? Someone knows the answers, I just ask some questions

[Madelaine Amee]

Janet Tutt is hosting a District 8 Town Hall Meeting on February 26 at 6:00pm at Sea Breeze Rec Center. Anyone impacted may wish to attend the meeting and ask questions.

[janmcn]

Originally Posted by blueash

If the county does not own the land someone gave them permission to build a street on that land, as in our neighborhoods. What is the law on maintaining the land beneath a road? Is it the responsibility of the county or the landowner upon which the road is built. If a sinkhole develops on a highway, who has to fix it? Is it relevant that the land would be fine but for the extra stress which the road caused to the land causing it to become unstable? Whose responsibility was it to determine the suitability of that land for the construction of a bridge? Does the land owner (us) have a right to say, we want a bridge and here is some land, so now county you must build it regardless of the suitability of the land? Or is it the county or state engineer's job to say, No this is not a suitable location without enhancing the land or the supports or building the bridge in a different manner. Can we, the land owners, revoke our permission to use the land or has the land been deeded to the county? Someone knows the answers, I just ask some questions

The article in the on-line news said that the district owns the land that the bridge sits on, and the county owns the bridge. Since it is the land that is sinking, causing the bridge to sink, the district must pay to shore up the land.

Most of the time that roads are built, doesn't the state or other municipality buy the land that the road sits on? Therefore that entity is responsible for the road.

[gomoho]

[QUOTE=janmcn;1007496]The article in the on-line news said that the district owns the land that the bridge sits on, and the county owns the bridge. Since it is the land that is sinking, causing the bridge to sink, the district must pay to shore up the land.


Which came first - the chicken or the egg???

[TVMayor]

[quote=gomoho;1007501]

Originally Posted by janmcn

The article in the on-line news said that the district owns the land that the bridge sits on, and the county owns the bridge. Since it is the land that is sinking, causing the bridge to sink, the district must pay to shore up the land.


Which came first - the chicken or the egg???

This is the way it was explained at a meeting I attended but now I wonder who owns the land under 466. How do you build a road/bridge on non road/bridge property?

[mtdjed]

Doesn't this topic come up yearly? And nothing happens. Perhaps a local urban legend.

[blueash]

The article in the on-line news said that the district owns the land that the bridge sits on, and the county owns the bridge. Since it is the land that is sinking, causing the bridge to sink, the district must pay to shore up the land

.


Yes, that is how I understood it. But it does not seem to address the issue of who determined how to build the bridge, what supports it needed, and who determined that the land was solid enough to proceed. Whomever did that engineering, soil testing, or whatever should it would seem be liable for their error in determining the solidity of the ground and the type of bridge which it could support. That is why engineers have insurance to cover such error and omissions. I'm sure the district did not design the bridge, but if it did then our designers were at fault and we should be going after them for their error.