[photo1902]

Originally Posted by Bogie Shooter

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

Along with the replies

[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by Bogie Shooter

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

So we should just behave like a herd of sheep? Sorry not going to happen.

Feel free to scroll on by responses you do not care for. Funny do not criticize you for your responses.

[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by dewilson58

Yes, and that one side is called THE OWNERS.

The owner is not the developer. The residents of the Villages purchased all kinds of stuff from the developer under all kinds of restrictions that most of us have no idea about.

[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by Bilyclub

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.

Unfortunately most of us have no idea why CDD7 wants to make changes. From what I know the PWAC agreement is very one sided favoring the developer.

Wish they would give out more info on this.

[tophcfa]

Originally Posted by Bogie Shooter

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

Even worse than complaining about complaining. Complaining about those who have the audacity to care enough about the community they live in to not take everything at face value and question things.

[renrod]

Why not ask Wildwood to chip in? I live on the south end and we are in Wildwood. I pay $1000 property tax to Wildwood, in addition to my taxes to the State and County. If Wildwood gets approximately $1,000 from each house plus all the new houses they should be rolling in dough. The Villages asks (??) Wildwood to annex the new building areas before the houses are started, and they gladly do it.

BTW, who is the mayor of Wildwood and what is his day job?

[Bogie Shooter]

Originally Posted by tophcfa

Even worse than complaining about complaining. Complaining about those who have the audacity to care enough about the community they live in to not take everything at face value and question things.

To question is good. To put the opinion in a loop. So it can be repeated and applied to way more than one topic is just bitching on and on and usually comes around to bashing the Developer. Which in turn is really just disparaging the community.

[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by Bogie Shooter

To question is good. To put the opinion in a loop. So it can be repeated and applied to way more than one topic is just bitching on and on and usually comes around to bashing the Developer. Which in turn is really bashing the community.

So you think we can only complain about one topic only.

This is a great place to live but like nothing else in life nothing is perfect and nothing wrong with constructive criticism.

BTW this is a discussion board and we are allowed to make more than one posts on a topic as long as we did it in a respectful manner.

[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by renrod

Why not ask Wildwood to chip in? I live on the south end and we are in Wildwood. I pay $1000 property tax to Wildwood, in addition to my taxes to the State and County. If Wildwood gets approximately $1,000 from each house plus all the new houses they should be rolling in dough. The Villages asks (??) Wildwood to annex the new building areas before the houses are started, and they gladly do it.

BTW, who is the mayor of Wildwood and what is his day job?

Only 1000. I paid 3 thousand in Marion landfill.

[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by dewilson58

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

Tear it down and set on it till contract up.

[Bilyclub]

Originally Posted by twoplanekid

The following was received by me from the Village District manager Kenny Blocker ->

Did the District attach Exhibit A which they claim to list what the PWAC is responsible for?

[dewilson58]

Originally Posted by Topspinmo

Tear it down and set on it till contract up.

doesn't work that way.........since it's already down, if they don't replace they have a liability exposure.

[twoplanekid]

Originally Posted by Bilyclub

Did the District attach Exhibit A which they claim to list what the PWAC is responsible for?

The information you request was not attached but can be found here on the District website -> Village Community Development Districts

Looking at the third amended and restated (https://www.districtgov.org/committe...ated%20IGA.pdf... , it's a 20 year agreement starting ??? and states " a lot of legalize that I would have a lawyer lead me through. No mention of windmills or water towers except to state " Paddock Square" is included.

Hope this helps someone.

[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by twoplanekid

The information you request was not attached but can be found here on the District website -> Village Community Development Districts

Looking at the third amended and restated (https://www.districtgov.org/committe...ated%20IGA.pdf... , it's a 20 year agreement starting ??? and states " a lot of legalize that I would have a lawyer lead me through. No mention of windmills or water towers except to state " Paddock Square" is included.

Hope this helps someone.

I understand the agreement is up for renewal but is there a reason it should be for 20 years? A lot can happen during that time.

[tophcfa]

Originally Posted by dewilson58

doesn't work that way.........since it's already down, if they don't replace they have a liability exposure.

Yet they had to tear it down to avoid potential liability exposure. A no win situation.