[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by dewilson58

Yes, and that one side is called THE OWNERS.

Then, the owners CDD can elect not to rebuild it.

[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by dewilson58

100% my error.

Confused you with Topspinner.

All you Top's all look the same.

Have you took the leap yet…..

[Jayhawk]

Originally Posted by Stu from NYC

So who actually does own the squares? If the developer why are they not responsible for maintenance?

Those 2 structures (water tower and windmill) are not on the square. No different than the kiddie play park that is near Lake Sumter Landing square.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by Jayhawk

Those 2 structures (water tower and windmill) are not on the square. No different than the kiddie play park that is near Lake Sumter Landing square.

?? Have you ever been to Brownwood Paddock Square? Those two structures most certainly were on the square. See google maps for proof.

[tophcfa]

Originally Posted by dewilson58

Yes, and that one side is called THE OWNERS.

Disagree, the owners of the non functional windmill and water tower don’t appear to have the power to determine the cost effectiveness of replacing worthless aesthetic only features that seemingly only help the other party sell homes. Unless your claiming the developer defacto owns the CDD’s.

[Jayhawk]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

?? Have you ever been to Brownwood Paddock Square? Those two structures most certainly were on the square. See google maps for proof.

Yep, my error I was thinking about the large water tower at the entrance. The one made from corrugated metal.

Lo Siento

The Villages, Florida, Brownwood water tower | The villages florida, Village, Florida

[dewilson58]

Originally Posted by Topspinmo

Then, the owners CDD can elect not to rebuild it.

They can, but they signed a contract and they need for it to expire.

[dewilson58]

Originally Posted by tophcfa

Disagree, the owners of the non functional windmill and water tower don’t appear to have the power to determine the cost effectiveness of replacing worthless aesthetic only features that seemingly only help the other party sell homes. Unless your claiming the developer defacto owns the CDD’s.

The owners do have the power, subject to the contract they signed.

Once the contract expires, then there will be no "subject to".

[tophcfa]

Originally Posted by dewilson58

The owners do have the power, subject to the contract they signed.

Once the contract expires, then there will be no "subject to".

Agree, hopefully the CDD’s have learned from their mistakes and will never again agree to acquire assets from the developer under terms that limit the control of their ownership. Certainly, the developers legal council would never let them enter into such a fiscally irresponsible contractual agreement. Yet they expect the CDD’s to acquire assets from them under those terms. That’s the double standard I have been referring to.

[rustyp]

Originally Posted by tophcfa

Agree, hopefully the CDD’s have learned from their mistakes and will never again agree to acquire assets from the developer under terms that limit the control of their ownership. Certainly, the developers legal council would never let them enter into such a fiscally irresponsible contractual agreement. Yet they expect the CDD’s to acquire assets from them under those terms. That’s the double standard I have been referring to.

History repeats itself. 2008 and $40 mil ago a maintenance problem ..........

[Bilyclub]

Originally Posted by tophcfa

Agree, hopefully the CDD’s have learned from their mistakes and will never again agree to acquire assets from the developer under terms that limit the control of their ownership. Certainly, the developers legal council would never let them enter into such a fiscally irresponsible contractual agreement. Yet they expect the CDD’s to acquire assets from them under those terms. That’s the double standard I have been referring to.

The Brownwood CDD owns the square. The developer appoints the Brownwood CDD board. The fault lies in the PWAC agreement which is why CDD 7 is trying to get changes made to that contract.

[Chi-Town]

The windmill and water tower are part of the charm of the Square. Not much else in the way of a landmark. They should be rebuilt. The water wheel and steam clock in LSL would be history with the why waste the money mentality.

[twoplanekid]

Originally Posted by tophcfa

Agree, hopefully the CDD’s have learned from their mistakes and will never again agree to acquire assets from the developer under terms that limit the control of their ownership. Certainly, the developers legal council would never let them enter into such a fiscally irresponsible contractual agreement. Yet they expect the CDD’s to acquire assets from them under those terms. That’s the double standard I have been referring to.

I have been a party to three purchases from the Developer for over $300 million. It is my view that it's an all or nothing vote for the CDD boards as staff negotiates the agreement with the Developer. As an example, I wanted to have NSCUDD signage on the water towers that NSCUDD owns and operates to let people know who is responsible for them. In the purchase agreement it states that nothing can be changed from the way it was purchased by NSCUDD. Now, I don't mind having the Developers logo (The Villages) on the tower but just wanted to add information someplace as to who now owns the water tower. It can't be done even though a public agency owns the towers after paying millions for it. I love most everything in the Villages but there are a few things that I question and see a need for changes.

[tophcfa]

Originally Posted by twoplanekid

I love most everything in the Villages but there are a few things that I question and see a need for changes.

Totally agree

[Bogie Shooter]

Originally Posted by twoplanekid

I have been a party to three purchases from the Developer for over $300 million. It is my view that it's an all or nothing vote for the CDD boards as staff negotiates the agreement with the Developer. As an example, I wanted to have NSCUDD signage on the water towers that NSCUDD owns and operates to let people know who is responsible for them. In the purchase agreement it states that nothing can be changed from the way it was purchased by NSCUDD. Now, I don't mind having the Developers logo (The Villages) on the tower but just wanted to add information someplace as to who now owns the water tower. It can't be done even though a public agency owns the towers after paying millions for it. I love most everything in the Villages but there are a few things that I question and see a need for changes.

Originally Posted by tophcfa

Totally agree

And it’s those few things that are blabbed about on here………. ad nauseum.