Looking at the pictures, it appears the wall is off Villages property. Perhaps the owner of the property that connects to the Villages wanted golf cart traffic stopped.

thanx for the correction, champion6! now i have revealed my prowess with home improvement project! good thing i can fix most anything with one finger - and a phone!

TV owns the property on BOTH SIDES. The south side is obviously TV residential. Parcel on the north side is owned by TV Regional Hospital.

Gracie I suggest you read this history of St. George Episcopal Church of The Villages, how it was started and how they held their weekly services at the Church on the Square for nearly five years. Their congregation and first priest had input into the design of the Church on the Square and the Episcopal Diocese even gave the developer a $25,000 "start-up" loan for construction (the loan was repaid).

So I'm not too sure about your assertion that the Church on the Square was always a venue for musical performances.

History

Yea! don't forget use scooter drivers also. we want to be treated like all other villager's and not be discriminated again just cause we choose scooters. Equal rights for ALL"""""

So the people that have golf carts stuck on the other side of the wall have absolutely no way of getting their carts home except for having them hauled by truck, correct?

PS: Are you the mysterious power ball winner that hasn't come forward yet?

janmcn - that's what i guessed! have not heard of a resolution to that one yet.

p.s.: wish that i was that winner! i would have taken over the hilltop restaurant and tiki bar!!! :)

I thought that I read that one of the provisions in building the new residential care facility in that area was to not only assure cart access to the Lowes/Beals and points south ... but to improve what had been a long bumpy dirt path??

The cavalier attitude of several posters on this thread that have not relied on this cart access is sad. I would say disappointing, but I have come to expect it from them .... however, I will no longer have to read their postings unless someone quotes them.

Food For Thought
 

I think there was an established easement, 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."

Closing
 

Great post Arctic Fox! As to access...I have faith that the Villagers will find a way to get there. Legal or not. Safe or not...I have already seen this.
Just wish we knew who and what was behind this .

Closing
 

Great post Arctic Fox.
As to access...I am sure Villages will find a way to get there. Legal or not. Safe or not. I have already seen this .
Just wish i knew the reasoning behind this.

Isn't it interesting that this change was scheduled for 6:00am Saturday morning when all the management offices are closed for the week-end, and no one is available to answer any questions or complaints?

It seems that the Sumter County Sheriff's Office could be called out to assist these cart drivers cross at the light at Lowe's in order to get their carts back home. If they can't, these carts may not be there tomorrow.

This change also effects Stonecrest residents. They will no longer be able to visit the restaurants and shops by golf cart or play golf in TV using their own golf carts.

I would not want to be the person(s) answering the phones at the various offices that people will be calling on Monday morning...

The sign they put up was so devious: Construction alert. This path will be closed at 6:00am Sat Aug 10th. Why did they not add for good or forever? Why no advance notice? Construction alert makes it sound temporary.

Before we break out the torches and pitch forks to storm the Dark Lord's castle, you may want to look at the Sumter GIS. I'm not an expert on surveying and property lines, but there's a piece of property where Life Family Practice and Lake ENT are located. If their property includes 1/2 of the circle (which it would if the circle is on an easement), then they could be justified in asking for the path to be closed.

Yeah, it was a sucky way of doing it, but then again, no matter how you shake and bake it, we don't own that chunk of real estate and may or may not have a claim on its use as a cart trail.

If you look at the 2013 $5 map, you will note that it doesn't show a cart path there.