[EdV]

Originally Posted by Peachie

EdV, did the state grant an easement over the highway for the bridge or did the state build the bridge for the public? I don't know where to find that information.

I don't think it's fair to state that we're quibbling over patches of cart paths. The Villages is designed with patches of cart paths all over and that doesn't make them any less private.

I thought it would suffice to simply point out that one need not travel on amenity maintained paths to get from Stonecrest to Spanish Springs etc. by cart. But apparently not. So:

Per TV’s districtgov website: “A Community Development District is a public non-profit unit of local government with the special purpose of providing the services described above. As a unit of local government, the District is subject to many of the same State Statutes that regulate cities and counties.”

So the roads in a CDD are public, not private. Furthermore, both the roads and the multi-modal paths were built using tax free municipal funds, not private developer funds. And those paths were built specifically to provide cart access where travel in the roads would not be safe. And since those paths are the only way for a cart to get through that area, they too must be available to the public. And the fact that they are maintained by amenity funds does not preclude this.

The by-laws of Stonecrest require us to allow public vehicle access to the Links of Stonecrest golf course even though the golf course is privately owned and the roads are maintained by our association funds.

[bimmertl]

POA issues statement on 'Berlin Wall' standoff - **************

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by CFrance

Okay, Gracie. I hear ya. But still... a little bit of transparency and better PR work would have gone a long way. And then to have someone turn around and blame "social media" (I'm assuming she's referring to TOTV) is maddening. Like it's our fault for speculating after they refused to answer any questions from the many who called to ask why.

They need to beef up their PR department!

One thing I know for sure is...

They ain't gonna.

Sure beats the heck outa me how they do things. But overall it's been working.

I wouldn't be Janet Tutt for all the tea in China.

Is that politically correct?

[deltaguy]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

Whoa....appalling and insulting. She has a job to do and probably wants to keep it. I know I want her to keep it.

CFrance. You know that I always agree with you, but it was a matter of three or four days until something happened as an attempt to resolve this dumb thing that they did.

We are all old enough to know that when a problem surfaces in any organization; business, church, charity,social club that meetings transpire and things are debated (argued).

Solutions are sometimes fair and transparent but most times cloudy and face saving. We can see that even in the way this country is run.

We need to keep calm and carry on. See if this doesn't work out and if it doesn't then we can go right back to the sturm und drang.

That is what I think. What do I know. I love you to pieces CFrance. You are probably right again.

Although actually accurate, the term "strum und drang" represents a level of intellectual capacity that is not likely understood by 99+% of readers of this Thread.

[DAVIDPHS55]

If and when the villages tears down the wall and installs a gate that can only be opened by residents will the new assisted living complex block access to their golf cart path. Think about it.

[ajbrown]

In the end it matters little what I think , but I would have liked to see Janet Tutt’s statement start a bit more like the following:

“We” (unclear who we is) made a mistake. We were faced with a situation where we had to close this wall for “a situation with liability on the property and security”. As a team (whoever that is) we did not properly understand the impact of that decision to our residents. In hindsight we could have managed this much more effectively. The situation then took on a life of its own because of social media……

The only other explanation (which I prefer to not accept) is that "they" did think about this and did not care and are now back pedaling.

Having spent many years in network security for large information technology organizations I have made this mistake.

[kittygilchrist]

sturm, not strum. jeepers am I in the <99th percentile??

[Peachie]

Originally Posted by EdV

I thought it would suffice to simply point out that one need not travel on amenity maintained paths to get from Stonecrest to Spanish Springs etc. by cart. But apparently not. So:

Per TV’s districtgov website: “A Community Development District is a public non-profit unit of local government with the special purpose of providing the services described above. As a unit of local government, the District is subject to many of the same State Statutes that regulate cities and counties.”

So the roads in a CDD are public, not private. Furthermore, both the roads and the multi-modal paths were built using tax free municipal funds, not private developer funds. And those paths were built specifically to provide cart access where travel in the roads would not be safe. And since those paths are the only way for a cart to get through that area, they too must be available to the public. And the fact that they are maintained by amenity funds does not preclude this.

The by-laws of Stonecrest require us to allow public vehicle access to the Links of Stonecrest golf course even though the golf course is privately owned and the roads are maintained by our association funds.

So in essence, you're stating their are no private golf cart paths in the villages? Anyone can go anywhere, anytime on these paths? I'm learning many new things.

How about the bridge over 27/441, built and owned by the state is it?

[Peachie]

[QUOTE=deltaguy;726559]Although actually accurate, the term "strum und drang" represents a level of intellectual capacity that is not likely understood by 99+% of readers of this Thread.[/QUOTE


They could google it, lol.

[Peachie]

Originally Posted by ajbrown

In the end it matters little what I think , but I would have liked to see Janet Tutt’s statement start a bit more like the following:

“We” (unclear who we is) made a mistake. We were faced with a situation where we had to close this wall for “a situation with liability on the property and security”. As a team (whoever that is) we did not properly understand the impact of that decision to our residents. In hindsight we could have managed this much more effectively. The situation then took on a life of its own because of social media……

The only other explanation (which I prefer to not accept) is that "they" did think about this and did not care and are now back pedaling.

Having spent many years in network security for large information technology organizations I have made this mistake.

Great statement, AJ, too bad you weren't in the office when they were preparing theirs.

[EdV]

Originally Posted by Peachie

So in essence, you're stating their are no private golf cart paths in the villages? Anyone can go anywhere, anytime on these paths? I'm learning many new things.

How about the bridge over 27/441, built and owned by the state is it?

I never said all cart paths. But before I respond to that, do you understand the difference between cart paths in TV and multi-modal paths in TV. There’s an important difference.

As for the bridge, it doesn’t matter who built it. It was built to provide a way to allow golf carts to get from the public roads on one side of 441 to the public roads on the other. You cannot allow some people to use it but not others.

[Peachie]

Originally Posted by EdV

I never said all cart paths. But before I respond to that, do you understand the difference between cart paths in TV and multi-modal paths in TV. There’s an important difference.

As for the bridge, it doesn’t matter who built it. It was built to provide a way to allow golf carts to get from the public roads on one side of 441 to the public roads on the other. You cannot allow some people to use it but not others.

I'm learning a lot from this discussion, EdV. If the builder of the bridge was Morse and he built it with an easement from the state to reach his private development on the other side of 27/441 that would probably make it a private bridge. But I'm unable to find out or determine by fact at this point if it is indeed public or private. I'm still researching.

The private paths, (or so I thought), that I was addressing were the paths between the public roadway and the access to the private Village property adjacent to the park, parking lot and the dog run area by the bridge. Am I to understand that's all public property?

Thanks for your patience in enlightening me.

[mulligan]

Y'all still seem to be missing the key point in the proposed solution. The undeveloped house lot inside the wall will be deeded to the vcdd (NOT THE VCCDD) rendering it private property. I don't believe there's any obligation on the part of the vcdd to allow cart traffic to cross private property.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

Originally Posted by justjim

Wow! Wow! So according to Janet Tutt, Social Media caused this problem. How about just a "little bit" of transparency before you affect the lives of the elderly of "your" kingdom?

I think that everyone has to read Janet Tutt's statement a bit more carefully. She never said that social media caused the problem. She didn't blame social media for the problems that have been cause by the wall.

She said social media has spread misinformation about why the wall was erected.

And I think that she is 100% correct. It's exactly what I've said about speculation in several posts on this site.

She gave the reason that the wall was built.

In another article she stated that they made a mistake and didn't realize how much that it would affect the lives of the residents.

For some people this will never end. People asked for an answer to why the wall was built. An answer was given. Many of those people are saying, that they don't believe that answer. People also wanted the wall taken down and the path reopened. That is apparently going to happen and yet many people want to continue to create controversy over who came up with the plan to open the path.

Some people have a pre conceived notion that the developer is simply a bad guy that hates all of us and cares only about money. I think that too many people have seen the movie characters Ebenezer Scrooge and Gordon Gecko and believe that those people really exist.

As far as I am concerned, the answer to why the wall was put up has been answered. An apology has been issued for the way that it was done and a solution has been arrived at that will open the wall and allow Villages residents to have the access to the businesses that we've always had.

I don't really care about any of the rest of it. I don't really care who came up with solution. I thank Janet Tutt for taking responsibility and apologizing. All that you can do when you make a mistake is explain it, apologize for it and rectify it. I see that that is what has been done in this situation.

[graciegirl]

I am going to really try hard not to read any more of this subject until the new gate is installed. I have gone too close too hurting feelings of people I respect.

I hope it's soon and peace and calm once again returns to our wonderful town.

Ciao