[Bizdoc]

Originally Posted by mulligan

I could be wrong ( I was, possibly a couple of times), but as I read today's Daily Sun article, the key component of the proposed solution is deeding the lot inside the wall to the VCDD, thereby rendering the access to a public road theory moot. Now, they can restrict access as they see fit.

Reading this made a light bulb (albeit a dim one) go. Part of the dispute with the IRS is whether or not the VCDD is a "public entity". The IRS argues that it is not and thus can't act like a public entity.

However, if the State of Florida weighs in by insisting that the piece of land is now owned by a public entity (and thus must be publically accessible), then it makes the IRS case much weaker. The VCDD can't be public sometimes and private sometimes.

As long as the lot is owned by the developer, it is "private property" (remember that assertion from Monday?).

Of course, I could be wrong. Never said that I was a lawyer (which I am not). And I sure am not foolish enough to sue a billionaire with a staff of lawyers just waiting for something to do.

And if you really feel compelled to "do something" send EdV, Mr Brown, and the nice folks at Harbor Chase flowers for being kind and supportive when they did not have to be.

[Steve9930]

Originally Posted by Bizdoc

Reading this made a light bulb (albeit a dim one) go. Part of the dispute with the IRS is whether or not the VCDD is a "public entity". The IRS argues that it is not and thus can't act like a public entity.

However, if the State of Florida weighs in by insisting that the piece of land is now owned by a public entity (and thus must be publically accessible), then it makes the IRS case much weaker. The VCDD can't be public sometimes and private sometimes.

As long as the lot is owned by the developer, it is "private property" (remember that assertion from Monday?).

Of course, I could be wrong. Never said that I was a lawyer (which I am not). And I sure am not foolish enough to sue a billionaire with a staff of lawyers just waiting for something to do.

And if you really feel compelled to "do something" send EdV, Mr Brown, and the nice folks at Harbor Chase flowers for being kind and supportive when they did not have to be.

Life is like a box of chocolates, never know what your going to get.....:-)

[Arctic Fox]

Originally Posted by oot

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??

Agreed

And what makes people think that non-Villagers only come to TV in their golf carts? Putting up a wall on our golf cart path does not stop them driving here in their cars - and using our pools if, in fact, that's what they do.

The wall inconveniences we Villagers far more than it does outsiders.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

Originally Posted by EdV

The VCCDD is a municipal district. It cannot grant selective access to/from an adjacent public road.

Even if they own a piece of land which must be crossed in order to access that public road?

I think that every land owner has the right to say who can and cannot go on their property. Am I wrong.

[Arctic Fox]

Originally Posted by Dr Winston O Boogie jr

The land on which this wall has been erected is privately owned. It is basically a house lot which has never been sold.

That is one thing that has been puzzling me.

It seems very odd that there is one vacant lot in that area, in what seems to be quite a prime location.

Why was it left unsold?

Could it be that it was always the intention to have a golf cart path there?

Maybe a long-time resident of that area can let us know the history.

[EdV]

Originally Posted by Peachie

....As a Villager YOU are paying a premium because you have golf cart access to anything within The Villages owned property....... My friend, who lives in Spruce Creek, was looking forward to using that entrance .....(and is) excited about the highway crossing opening up so she could use The Villages cart paths.

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.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

Originally Posted by tucson

Good article posted on Facebook...

Where on Facebook? What is the Facebook address?

[Peachie]

Originally Posted by oot

Please don't take this the wrong way, but this Stonecrest thing has always bothered me overall. I understand I pay more to live in the Villages. I have access to a ton a clubs, many golf courses, many places I play various sports - more things than I can mention on how wonderful this place is. I also understand the fees we pay fund the paths.

I can go to Stonecrest anytime I like, just as they can come to the Villages just as they like. I have played their golf course, and ate at their restaurant, as they can on our side if they pay for golf. They don't get it for free.

If a visitor rents a cart should they be prohibited from riding the paths? Should we restrict the hotels from allowing people from parking in the lots for fear they may use a trail? Maybe ban the folk who rent the carts? Do you really think a cart riding down the path is going to cause such wear and tear that our fees are going to sky



There are people in Stonecrest, just as we have people here, which used that path. It has been that way for years and years. The wall is the real issue and it should never have been installed in the manner it was. I still feel the Stonecrest issue was never the reason for the wall to begin
with.

Oot, if you have ever rented or stayed at a motel in The Villages, you are residing in The Villages and on Villages property. That statement doesn't compare to providing a service to Stonecrest, (gate access) on a 24/7 basis for which we pay a premium.

Residents of Stonecrest, as I said earlier, I'm sure are very nice, good people, I think EdV is a good example of that. I think I'm also a very nice, neat, careful person but would you open the back door of your house and tell me or anyone in the vicinity to come in and use the TV or the kitchen or whatever anytime? We wouldn't cause any wear and tear...

The residents in Stonecrest bought there and not in The Villages for all of their own reasons and I respect that. It's a nice community.
They did not opt to live and pay amenity fees in The Villages. 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?

[EdV]

Originally Posted by Bizdoc

Reading this made a light bulb (albeit a dim one) go. Part of the dispute with the IRS is whether or not the VCDD is a "public entity". The IRS argues that it is not and thus can't act like a public entity.

However, if the State of Florida weighs in by insisting that the piece of land is now owned by a public entity (and thus must be publically accessible), then it makes the IRS case much weaker. The VCDD can't be public sometimes and private sometimes.
.,.

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.

[Steve9930]

Originally Posted by EdV

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.

So what is the potential burden should the IRS win their case? Just curious.

[Peachie]

Originally Posted by EdV

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.

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.

[Bogie Shooter]

Originally Posted by Steve9930

So what is the potential burden should the IRS win their case? Just curious.

Your curiosity can be satisfied at this site....expect to spend the afternoon.
Village Community Development Districts

[Arctic Fox]

Why the sudden fixation with using Stonecrest residents as scapegoats?

I don't know how long Stonecrest has been in existence, but the cart path has been open for twenty years, ten of them as a fully-finished purpose-built paved path, so why suddenly decide that we need to keep the Stonecrest people out?

It seems far more logical that something new has triggered the building of a wall.

And a rival non-Villages assisted living center fits the bill. Especially if the owner of it and our developer have had a long-standing feud.

[Peachie]

Originally Posted by Arctic Fox

Why the sudden fixation with using Stonecrest residents as scapegoats?

I don't know how long Stonecrest has been in existence, but the cart path has been open for twenty years, ten of them as a fully-finished purpose-built paved path, so why suddenly decide that we need to keep the Stonecrest people out?

It seems far more logical that something new has triggered the building of a wall.

And a rival non-Villages assisted living center fits the bill. Especially if the owner of it and our developer have had a long-standing feud.

If you read through the posts, you'll see that Spruce Creek and the new property developments are also included in the gate discussions. I believe Stonecrest is mentioned more often because quite a few people wonder why Stonecrest has to use the road versus The Villages cart paths not knowing that soon Spruce Creek will be able to cross 27/441 and would have access also if there is no gate.

[graciegirl]

../