Originally Posted by graciegirl (Post 725084)

I hear all kinds of views and many from anonymous posters and many from new posters and many from people that most of us have read over some time and have an idea who they are and what kind of folks they are.

I wish that there was some way to know when people log in with inflammatory posts particularly that the rest of us knew if they lived here, if they had a dog in the fight to defame this whole area and the developer for some reason productive to them and their money or if they opposed the developer because he is rich or because they don't agree with his financial support of certain things we aren't allowed to mention.

It seems that the residents of the historic area have more reason, the most reasons to be upset terribly by the change. I wish that the rest of us knew how many do not own cars or cannot drive cars. Is it more than ten people? Is it more than twenty people? Is there a way that can be changed or helped?

I know that I, like many of my age treasure being independent and getting where I need to go myself, without the rigamarole of waiting for others to come pick me up or asking for charity. I see those as most affected. It isn't insurmountable but it isn't going to be easy shifting doctors or hiring a cab or getting a car to take you to work. There are other restaurants and Lowes isn't someplace most of us need to get to frequently. There is a service that will shop for you, I know, I know we like to shop for ourselves.

I am NOT trying to minimize but only trying to do what I have always done for myself when a roadblock is thrown up to my plans. This time unfortunately it is a real roadblock. Acess the damage and try to make new plans.

It is a big problem for those people but just how many people are involved that only have golf cart transportation that could not change that mode? Is it such an issue that they would feel it necessary to move? Does it affect more home owners than renters? Although I don't think that matters now that I have typed it.

I think that most of the rest of us have watched and hoped that the gate would be reopened and the way that you who live in the three villages affected could go back to the way things were.

Perhaps the town of Lady Lake could be persuaded to pave the area of frontage if it is public property?

We may never know the real reason why the wall was put up. I personally think that trying to change it is futile. We do not VOTE in a CDD.

Frustration breeds anger, but is anger productive? I was hoping to hear some good reason why the wall was put up. I think it well may be that the property owner of the area next door could claim that their place is golf cart accessible to The Villages and that is ****ing off the Morses.

Originally Posted by graciegirl (Post 725152)

That statement makes me angry personally. The same has been said about me ...even going so far as to hear from a complete stranger when she met me for the first time that she heard from a woman golfer who posts on here that GARY MORSE bought and paid for my house.

Rubicon is a fair person and he says what he honestly feels. He doesn't work for the developer, I would bet my best hat on that. You have read him over the years, just as we have read posts from frequent posters.

Saying stuff like that isn't solving the problem.

The Morses have closed the wall. We can't vote. We knew this was a CDD when we bought. Apparently the Morses ARE throwing their weight around and that is NOT RIGHT. I have been a huge supporter of the developers but on this issue I don't agree at all.

But let's not start a war here. Let's deal with the facts how they stand.

Originally Posted by jlaryh33 (Post 725283)

Today I followed cart tracks through the grass, and along side US 441 N....

Originally Posted by Virtual Geezer (Post 725273)

And you expect them to go down after this stunt? By closing the path the developer is forcing residents to use the Walmart on 466 which is located on his property and he gets a piece of the action for every dollar spent. He was getting nothing from those using the Walmart on 441.

Harold Schwartz would be rolling over in his grave over this stunt.

VG

Originally Posted by JeffAVEWS (Post 724899)

I'll post this again, I still think there is easement there! This should by fodder for the POA's lawyers.
Quoted from Wikipedia:

Easement by estoppel

When a property owner misrepresents the existence of an easement while selling a property and does not include an express easement in the deed to the buyer, the court may step in and create an easement. Easements by estoppel generally look to any promises not made in writing, any money spent by the benefiting party in reliance on the representations of the burdened party. If the court finds that the buyer acted in good faith and relied on the seller's promises, the court will create an easement by estoppel.

For example: Ray sells land to Joe on the promise that Joe can use Ray's driveway and bridge to the main road at anytime, but Ray does not include the easement in the deed to the land. Joe, deciding that the land is now worth the price, builds a house and connects a garage to Ray's driveway. If Ray (or his successors) later decides to gate off the driveway and prevents Joe (or Joe's successors) from accessing the driveway, a court would likely find an easement by estoppel.

Because Joe purchased the land assuming that there would be access to the bridge and the driveway and Joe then paid for a house and a connection, Joe can be said to rely on Ray's promise of an easement. Ray materially misrepresented the facts to Joe. In order to preserve equity, the court will likely find an easement by estoppel.

On the other hand, if Ray had offered access to the bridge and driveway after selling Joe the land, there may not be an easement by estoppel. In this instance, it is merely inconvenient if Ray revokes access to the driveway. Joe did not purchase the land and build the house in reliance on access to the driveway and bridge. Joe will need to find a separate theory to justify an easement.

Originally Posted by janmcn (Post 725282)

The story of Orange Blossom Restaurant is the exact same story we heard about the Santiago Restaurant. What was that five years ago, maybe? It's the exact same story we heard about the Chula Vista Restaurant in the mid-2000's. It's the exact same story we heard about the Silver Lake Restaurant in the early 2000's.

After a while of hearing the same story over and over, it starts to sound like a bunch of hooey. This is why I, for one, am not optimistic that the Orange Blossom Restaurant will ever reopen. I hope I'm wrong.

Originally Posted by Arctic Fox (Post 725293)

Let us assume that the closure has been forced upon the developer for whatever reason - liability risk, request from third party, whatever.

How would a good businessman handle this situation?

(A) He could advise the 70,000 people in his development of the closure well ahead of time, via notices and articles in his daily newspaper, saying how sorry he is that many people will be inconvenienced; explaining why it has to happen, and assuring us that he is looking for a solution so that we will not be inconvenienced for too long.

or

(B) He could send in contractors at 6 am on a Saturday morning to build the wall without any prior notice, refuse his employees and his newspaper permission to say anything about it and ensure that, even three days after the wall goes up, no one has any real information as to why it happened.

I'm sorry, but (B) is not the correct answer, so either the developer is losing it as a businessman or the closure wasn't forced upon him.