Talk of The Villages Florida
Page 50 of 76 « First 40 48 49 50 51 52 60 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Talk of The Villages Florida (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/)
-   The Villages, Florida, General Discussion (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/villages-florida-general-discussion-73/)
-   -   Cart path closing (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/villages-florida-general-discussion-73/cart-path-closing-84885/)

graciegirl 08-14-2013 08:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CFrance (Post 725822)
I'm guessing... that the developer capitulated in a way that makes him look good, makes the VHA look good, keeps the POA out of his hair, and allows him not to respond as to why the wall was put up to begin with.

If this proposal is acted upon, good for all. And good for all who picketed to voice their displeasure.

The developer certainly does adhere to the first part of your grandmother's adage, Gracie... Least said!! ;^)
I grow to respect your attitude more every day.

Dr Winston O Boogie jr 08-14-2013 08:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by circletrack (Post 725677)
Hello, I lurk often but rarely post.

Several people have mentioned that parts of the cart path are dirt and run through private property. How would you as home and property owners feel if The Villages built a path leading into your front yard, inviting folks to drive right through your grass? They would be trespassing and you would be upset. Yet it seems in this case many are defending the trespassing that had been going on for years.

Yes this was handled terribly. And has been going on for way to long, but it's hard to argue legally against stopping people from driving though private property. There are all kinds of liability issues that could arise.

The police are issuing tickets to people driving through the grass at the front of the private buildings. How different is that from driving through the grass behind?

Just some food for thought. I too am awaiting an explanation. It is certainly deserved.
As has been previously explained the cart path that has been closed is paved, lighted and has been maintained for a long time. I understand that it was created by Harold Schwartz twenty years ago.

So that everyone might have a better understanding of what we are talking about, I am posting this Google Earth view with key landmarks explained.

The wall is at the area named "cart gate". This may be a bit of a misnomer as there is no actual gate. It is simply a paved path for carts, bicycles and pedestrians. If you go through that gate, you come into the medical center parking lots and access roads which have other "gates" to allow safe passage of golf carts. I believe that they also have designated golf cart parking areas. After that, you come to the access road for the under construction assisted living facility. They have also gone out of their way to make their facility golf cart friendly. You follow that roadway to a dirt path that is next to that water retention thingie that you see near where I've marked "dirt road created by assisted living". That dirt road is about 180 yards long and ends up at the road next to Lowe's parking lot. From there on there are no dirt roads until you get to Aldi. All of he businesses are cart friendly and most have cart parking areas. From the Aldi lot which is not shown in the photo there is another dirt path that leads to Wal-Mart. The land that that dirt path is on evidently belongs to the electric company and when the change hands a few months ago the new electric company closed it. They reopened it after a few days of protests and communication.

Sorry, for some reason, if you clicked on the photo I posted, it opened to my personal Photobucket account. I have removed the photo for that reason.

njbchbum 08-14-2013 08:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by twinklesweep (Post 725797)
There is a difference between "aren't entitled" and "are allowed." The use of our pools in TV by outsiders has long been an issue....
still don't know who the 'outsiders' are - either from peachie or from twinklesweep! :popcorn:

ttown 08-14-2013 08:58 AM
Again, in 25 yrs of pools and clubs....close to The Gate, have never seen or heard of any outsiders.

Mikeod 08-14-2013 09:05 AM
OK. I'm confused. (Not an uncommon situation.) How is this different from the gate erected long ago that had to be torn down as it blocked access to a public road? Don't misunderstand, I'm happy there may be resolution to the problem for Villagers, but what if Lady Lake or some other entity challenges it? What if the new care facility that has advertised golf cart access and now finds its residents will not have access decides it cannot allow carts to traverse the property? And what if Mr. Brown decides likewise since he perceives his property will lose value without cart access?

After reading all these posts, I began to think that the problem isn't access for Stonecrest/Spruce Creek residents, nor is it an attempt to force people to use businesses on TV property. Rather it is because TV is selling/leasing lots for businesses within its boundaries at a premium because of golf cart access and will have a harder time doing so if businesses can buy/lease land outside TV and still be accessible by golf cart. (Fruitland Park comes to mind.) This is why I don't think you'll see a tunnel under 44 below Brownwood unless they buy all that land.

Warren Kiefer 08-14-2013 09:08 AM
Smoke Screen
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bkcunningham1 (Post 725724)
The story reads:

VHA president proposes solution to golf car issue
STAFF REPORT

THE VILLAGES - Villages Homeowners Association President Bill Gottschalk accounted Tuesday a possible solution to the issue of golf cars entering and exiting the community across private property on Paradise Drive.

The VHA proposal, which Gottschalk plans to present to the Amenity Authority Committee, calls for the developer to donate to the district government the home site on Paradise Drive, which had previously been utilized as a golf car path. As a condition of that donation, the district would build and maintain a gate that would allow access to Villages residents only.

According to Gottschalk, the VHA-proposed solution is a compromised reached after hearing the various concerns of residents and meeting with both the district and the developer.

"We found that all of us-district, developer and residents-shared similar concerns about both security and convenience," he said. "Previously, at this particular location, nonresidents had unfettered access, allowing them to travel in and out of our community and utilize our facilities, paid for and maintained by Villages residents.

"At the same time, we all recognize the desire of many Villagers to access certain convenient serves, particularly medical services, like the urgent care center. In addition to these issues, the developer had a liability concern with all these golf carts passing back and forth across private property. We believe our proposed compromise balances all of these concerns and gives Villages residents both added security and greater access to needed services."

Gottschalk said the compromise is consistent with the philosophy of the Vllages Homeowners Association, which is to e an effective advocate for the residents and to work constructively with the community partners like the district and the developer to solve problems.

"We have a regular and constructive dialogue withe both, which enables us to do more than complain, but rather to actually get things domes that benefit our residents and our community." he said. "Personally, I appreciate how everyone was willing to come together to work on this issue and that the VHA could be the catalyst for this resolution."
Today's Daily Sun article is a lot of smoke and mirrors. So the president of the VHA has come up the the long sought after solution. In reality, the solution does not address the concerned residents questions and it is NOT the VHA position to provide those answers. Why after all the passing years the Developer became concerned about the safety of residents crossing private property. Harold Schwartz himself encouraged the use of that parcel of property and if I understand correctly, had a gate erected which later was ruled to be in violation and had to be removed. I am convinced that all of this wall issue could have gone better if the party who had the wall erected would have stepped up to the plate and provided the desired answers. It is still a mistake to have the VHA do the explaining. I can assure you that in the next POA bulletin there will be a well researched article with factual comments.

oot 08-14-2013 09:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdV (Post 725830)
What an incredibly ill-conceived solution. Using Gottschalk’s logic, allow me to restate his solution:

This VHA-proposed solution will allow TV residents unfettered access to non-resident facilities, while at the same time denying non-residents access to ‘our’ facilities.

Can any of you who have voiced your outrage at cart path closing and its egregious denial of access to public facilities honestly say that you think this is a fair and equitable solution to all those affected by the path closure?

Furthermore, Gottschalk’s accusations are blatantly false. The golf cart bridge over 441 was approved by the state and built and maintained by Morse commercial entities, not amenity funds. So Stonecrest residents can drive through Orange Blossom Hills, over the bridge and to all of the medical and retail facilities along the west side of 441 without ever setting foot on amenity supported paths or facilities. Who does he think he’s fooling?

Now if the reason for the wall being erected was concern for liability (an often used legal smokescreen), then why not propose to have Morse donate the homesite to the town of Lady Lake or Lake county, thereby making it an extension of Paradise Drive.
I agree with you EdV. There may be people on the other side who have grown to use businesses on our side of the wall as well. They may use doctors in our community. It is a shame this whole situation ever happened in the first place.

People from communities like Stonecrest should not be able to use our pools and such...and I don't they go out of their way to do so. They have their own pool (which is really nice!) They do however, spend money at the stores, which helps keep those stores in our community.

Even if they were to drive a cart on one of the paths instead of the public streets - is it really that big of a deal. Life is short - can't we all just get along??

njbchbum 08-14-2013 09:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeod (Post 725859)
OK. I'm confused. (Not an uncommon situation.) How is this different from the gate erected long ago that had to be torn down as it blocked access to a public road?
my thought, too!

with apologies to edmund burke and george santayana, 'Those who ignore history are bound (or doomed) to repeat it.'

Dr Winston O Boogie jr 08-14-2013 09:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by njbchbum (Post 725840)
and my father always reminded me, 'don't count your chickens before they hatch.'

am not gonna hold my breath until that committee meets, the wall comes down and the gate goes up! i just wonder if it will be done before or after the hilltop restaurant gets reopened and/or we return for the winter!

wonder, too, when can folks schedule medical appts with doctors in the medical campus area and use their golf cart to get their?
Evidently you're not alone. I went by there on my bicycle about an hour ago and there were about 50 people demonstrating, handing out leaflets and asking people to sign petitions.
Personally, I tend to give the benefit of the doubt and see what happens. If we don't see any progress or at least hear something within the next week or so then I'd say it's time for all that.
In the meantime, we hear that a solution has been reached and we have no real reason to doubt that.

Steve9930 08-14-2013 09:16 AM
I had read a post sometime back that gave the history of the gate and how Lady Lake had forced the gate open to all because it said you could not selectively block access to a public road. If this post was correct then it will eventually revert back to where it all was prior to the building of the wall. What an exercise in futility. What I'm delighted with is the people that needed access to the facilities apparently will get their access back.

Dr Winston O Boogie jr 08-14-2013 09:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeod (Post 725859)
OK. I'm confused. (Not an uncommon situation.) How is this different from the gate erected long ago that had to be torn down as it blocked access to a public road?
I'm not familiar with the gate that was erected a long time ago. The land on which this wall has been erected is privately owned. It is basically a house lot which has never been sold.

I am hoping that the solution that was announced by the VHA comes to fruition soon as from what I understand, the developer could simply sell that lot or build a house on it.

Steve9930 08-14-2013 09:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by oot (Post 725865)
I agree with you EdV. There may be people on the other side who have grown to use businesses on our side of the wall as well. They may use doctors in our community. It is a shame this whole situation ever happened in the first place.

People from communities like Stonecrest should not be able to use our pools and such...and I don't they go out of their way to do so. They have their own pool (which is really nice!) They do however, spend money at the stores, which helps keep those stores in our community.

Even if they were to drive a cart on one of the paths instead of the public streets - is it really that big of a deal. Life is short - can't we all just get along??
Always pleasant to read a post full of common sense. Thanks.

Dr Winston O Boogie jr 08-14-2013 09:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdV (Post 725830)
What an incredibly ill-conceived solution. Using Gottschalk’s logic, allow me to restate his solution:

This VHA-proposed solution will allow TV residents unfettered access to non-resident facilities, while at the same time denying non-residents access to ‘our’ facilities.

Can any of you who have voiced your outrage at cart path closing and its egregious denial of access to public facilities honestly say that you think this is a fair and equitable solution to all those affected by the path closure?

Furthermore, Gottschalk’s accusations are blatantly false. The golf cart bridge over 441 was approved by the state and built and maintained by Morse commercial entities, not amenity funds. So Stonecrest residents can drive through Orange Blossom Hills, over the bridge and to all of the medical and retail facilities along the west side of 441 without ever setting foot on amenity supported paths or facilities. Who does he think he’s fooling?

Now if the reason for the wall being erected was concern for liability (an often used legal smokescreen), then why not propose to have Morse donate the homesite to the town of Lady Lake or Lake county, thereby making it an extension of Paradise Drive.
I think that the concern is that residents of Stonecrest are coming over here and going to the Town Squares which are often very crowded. There has also been some talk that some of them have snuck onto the executive golf courses after hours and may use the pools and rec centers. I've been to pools and rec centers on several occasions where no one has asked for my ID. In fact some of the pools only have a staff member check every hour or so and even then, unless they see something very suspicious they don't go around and check IDs. Those are certainly not public facilities.
I don't know about the cart paths or multi modal paths in the Villages. Are they considered public facilities or are they paid for with our amenity fees?
Isn't the cart path at the end of the bridge through the dog park an amenity support path?
If the lot is deeded to the VHA does it not become an amenities supported path?
Isn't it the duty of the VHA to see to the needs of Villages residents? Why should they be concerned about people from outside the Villages?
As far as making it an extension of Paradise Dr., I believe that would require that cars be allowed to pass through. If the town or county owned it, what would prevent them from selling it as a house lot?

Mr. Grampi II 08-14-2013 09:47 AM
I have been following this issue since the original post. I do not post much for a lot of reasons but primarily as I do not have the bottomless reserve of diplomacy that Gracie and others have demonstrated, I also do not share the disdain for the developer that some have expressed.....

I have been coming to the Villages since the early 90's, my parents rented there every year and some of my fondest memories are on the historic side, the people there are very nice. I own my own home here now and I took my mom down the path to Lowes in May, it was a trip down memory lane for her and I look forward to being able to do so again when I return in September.

By all outward appearances this was handled very poorly and we may not ever know the real story. I really feel for the folks impacted...

I hope this proposal is accepted and this is resolved, even though it is a far from perfect solution. For those of us that view the Developer as the devil (again, I do not share your view) I offer the following, as a young boy my grandmother once told me "we should make every attempt to avoid making a deal with the devil, but left with no other choice, we should take some comfort in knowing the devil keeps his word"....

TVMayor 08-14-2013 09:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bkcunningham1 (Post 725724)
The story reads:

VHA president proposes solution to golf car issue
STAFF REPORT

THE VILLAGES - Villages Homeowners Association President Bill Gottschalk accounted Tuesday a possible solution to the issue of golf cars entering and exiting the community across private property on Paradise Drive.

The VHA proposal, which Gottschalk plans to present to the Amenity Authority Committee, calls for the developer to donate to the district government the home site on Paradise Drive, which had previously been utilized as a golf car path. As a condition of that donation, the district would build and maintain a gate that would allow access to Villages residents only.

According to Gottschalk, the VHA-proposed solution is a compromised reached after hearing the various concerns of residents and meeting with both the district and the developer.

"We found that all of us-district, developer and residents-shared similar concerns about both security and convenience," he said. "Previously, at this particular location, nonresidents had unfettered access, allowing them to travel in and out of our community and utilize our facilities, paid for and maintained by Villages residents.

"At the same time, we all recognize the desire of many Villagers to access certain convenient serves, particularly medical services, like the urgent care center. In addition to these issues, the developer had a liability concern with all these golf carts passing back and forth across private property. We believe our proposed compromise balances all of these concerns and gives Villages residents both added security and greater access to needed services."

Gottschalk said the compromise is consistent with the philosophy of the Vllages Homeowners Association, which is to e an effective advocate for the residents and to work constructively with the community partners like the district and the developer to solve problems.

"We have a regular and constructive dialogue withe both, which enables us to do more than complain, but rather to actually get things domes that benefit our residents and our community." he said. "Personally, I appreciate how everyone was willing to come together to work on this issue and that the VHA could be the catalyst for this resolution."
This is a joke, the VHA president has concerns about security so he proposes locking the back door and leaving the front door wide open.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:47 PM.
Page 50 of 76 « First 40 48 49 50 51 52 60 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v2.0.32 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.