Originally Posted by Peachie (Post 726048)

snipped
I guess I don't understand the philosophy that Villagers need to open their back door and provide for Stonecrest and Spruce Creek, or any other development in that area, so they may use golf cart access. Once it is established there shall be public access to that area by any golf carts, you can't go back. Is it fair to the residents in OB to lay additional cart traffic next to and past their homes?

Originally Posted by Peachie (Post 726057)

EdV, I think you misunderstood my statement... I don't mind anyone using the public roads, I was referring to closing the private cart paths of The Villlages. Sorry if i wasn't clear.

Originally Posted by Dr Winston O Boogie jr (Post 726041)

Where on Facebook? What is the Facebook address?

Originally Posted by Peachie (Post 726066)

If you read through the posts, you'll see that Spruce Creek and the new property developments are also included in the gate discussions.

Originally Posted by njbchbum (Post 726072)

peachie - ever since that non-gated hole in the wall has been there access to the villages has been available to anyone. what makes you think that traffic from the outside is going to increase now? for all of the years i have been there i have never heard nor read of the area residents complaining about excessive golf cart traffic? why do you continue to raise only a slim possibility of such when no one else does? or are you just upset because 'outsiders' MIGHT be using multi-model paths that are paid for/maintained by villager's amenity fees - especially when you have no idea how many 'outsiders' use them now or MIGHT use themin the future? i just don't get your concern?

Originally Posted by Arctic Fox (Post 726087)

Sorry, Peachie, I didn't mean "sudden" as in "just recent posts", I meant it as in:

Why, if they have been using that cart path for ten or more years would a wall only now be built to keep them out.

Why was a wall not built ten years ago, or as soon as Stonecrest opened?

Just seems very odd to build a wall at 6 am on a Saturday morning (and give no explanation before or after doing so) to solve a "problem" that has been in existence for ten or more years.

Originally Posted by EdV (Post 726049)

First of all, it’s VCCDD not VCDD but aside from that you have misunderstood the IRS position as it now stands.

The VCCDD is a local, special purpose government under Florida law. That law includes the ability of the VCCDD to issue municipal bonds but not necessarily federally tax free municipal bonds.

It is the IRS current position that the VCCDD did not meet the IRS criteria for issuing those tax free bonds. So regardless of the final IRS outcome, the VCCDD would continue to exist as a local, special purpose government.

Originally Posted by EdV (Post 726038)

The retail and medical facilities are not “Villages owned property”. But the roads you travel on in your cart to get to those facilities are maintained with the tax dollars of all the taxpayers in the counties. As such, your friend has every right to travel on those roads whether in a car or cart.

Clearly your friend is excited about the prospect of using those roads to get to all of the medical and retail facilities. I can’t imagine you supporting this VHA blockade solution that would deny her that right and then to continue to call her your friend.

Originally Posted by maddie101 (Post 726083)

Originally Posted by Peachie (Post 726088)

njbchbum, you made the perfect point, if no non-Villagers are using the cart paths, why would it matter if a gate is placed there as it is in the rest of The Villages?

SPRUCE CREEK will soon have access to the same golf cart path for entrance into The Villages, it appears, since regular golf carts should be able to cross 27/441 shortly.

My friend in Spruce Creek told me this past spring that the scuttle butt going around Spruce Creek was that Stonecrest was upset this crossing was going to happen because Spruce Creek golf carts would have access to them but they couldn't access Spruce Creek. Stonecrest must have their expectations too.

I would think you would be delighted with the new plan because you can access business on 27/441.

Originally Posted by Steve9930 (Post 726112)

Well here is the straight skinny on the Stonecrest vs Sruce Creek 441/27 crossing. There was some concern to the safety of the individuals that would be using the access road to get to Wal-Mart. The access road has some blind corners and people are not familiar with seeing Golf Carts on this road. There have been a number of fender benders on the road section that leads to the Stonecrest Gate and the crossing road. Cars coming off 441/27 into Stonecrest are a little speedy and may not be aware of the crossing traffic. A collision between an auto and a Golf Cart has the Auto winning every time. Some of the Stonecrest residents were also interested in getting access to the shopping on the West Side of 441/27 which would require access out of Spruce Creek's side gate. In turn Stonecrest would need to give them access to Stonecrest's direct Wal-Mart gates. The end result is Stonecrest approved Spruce Creek's usage of the access roads as far as I know. There are always people that complain no matter what happens. The bottom line is Stonecrest is very happy that Spruce Creek will not be able to get to Wal-Mart and the other shops on the East Side of 441/27 legally.

Originally Posted by Peachie (Post 726114)

So what you are saying, Steve, is that Stonecrest has blocked Spruce Creek access? Interesting....

Originally Posted by Steve9930 (Post 726112)

The bottom line is Stonecrest is very happy that Spruce Creek will not be able to get to Wal-Mart and the other shops on the East Side of 441/27 legally.

Originally Posted by Peachie (Post 726088)

My friend in Spruce Creek told me this past spring that the scuttle butt going around Spruce Creek was that Stonecrest was upset this crossing was going to happen because Spruce Creek golf carts would have access to them but they couldn't access Spruce Creek. Stonecrest must have their expectations too.