From the CDD:
False:
The Project Wide Advisory Committee can choose to demolish and NOT replace the
Brownwood Windmill and Water Tower to save money.
True:
The Project Wide Agreement requires the Project Wide Advisory Committee to utilize the
Project Wide Fund to maintain common infrastructure to design intent standards. This means
they must maintain, repair and restore infrastructure as close as possible to the original
landscape as-builts, architect plans and other design documents.

I read that as well, but you left out other key parts of the same document stating why the features need to be replaced.

It goes on to state that they are prominent aesthetic features and are an integral part of what makes the Villages the wonderful community that our residents love. We must maintain the overall design standard, superior quality, design appeal and overall “look and feel” of our community - the very reason many of our residents came to live in the Villages in the first place and call it home.

Talk about a double standard, that logic applies to purely aesthetic features dumped on the CDD’s, but doesn’t apply to other features that have real functional value but are retained by the developer? If the logic stated in the document we’re to be applied consistently, Hacienda Hills needs to be restored to its original design standard, appeal, and overall “ look and feel”. After all, as stated in the document, that’s the very reason many of our residents came to live in the Villages in the first place and call it home! Those are their words, not mine.

Not.

That did not add anything to my post, except it supported my post "they must replace", which was correcting your post stating, "Then the CDD can elect to not replace it if the own it."

My post you responded to was wrong. They did not use pressure treated lumber they used heartwood.

They should have used PTL and if so think the structures would still be intact. As usual the developer gets away with something.

I never stated that? And you are correct, by cherry picking only part of the document, you were able to show that the features have to be replaced. Selectively, you choose to ignore the other part of the document which explains the reasoning and inadvertently points out the double standard between assets dumped on the CDD’s versus those retained.

100% my error.

Confused you with Topspinner.

All you Top's all look the same.

:1rotfl::1rotfl:

Selectively..........yep.
HHills is old news, it's a large pain to you, not to me because TOPics (see how I threw in Top) are unrelated.
Anything I state about a windmill vs. HHills will not make you happy.
So I might as well avoid beating my head against a wall.
:ho:

I noticed the decay at the base of the huge wooden posts a few years ago

surprised that it's taken this long to realize something needed to be done

Way to go, you cracked the case. They planned all along to build thousands of houses, rec centers, golf courses, etc . in order to camouflage their goal of ripping off the AAC for the decorative water tower after 10 years.

Touche'

PWAC not the AAC - AAC has more experience dealing with the developer.

Actually they are kind of related, because they point out a blatant double standard. If the PWAC or AAC tears something down, they are required to replace it to preserve the overall “look and feel” of our community - the very reason many of our residents came to live in the Villages in the first place and call it home. Their words, not mine. Hacienda Hills is just an example of how the double standard is applied versus the Brownwood windmill and water tower.

Understand your view, but disagree...............totally different.

Since both were non functional it would fiscally responsible not to replace them. My brother in law converted his 40 year old windmill to electric and powers his barn and house with power also an electric pump in pond for irrigation.

In other words one side has all the power.

Yes, and that one side is called THE OWNERS.


:ohdear::ohdear: