Quote:
Originally Posted by stebooo
(Post 1913148)
I know you pretty much stand with the developer or a lest that is how it appears. Specifically why was this necessary? It implies something wasn't liked about how things were set up in 1-11. Given the politics of late excuse me sas I seem to want to challenge given recent untruths and deception of certain parties.
|
Interesting how you can assume so much about people. As for me, I try to look at the facts in most matters and leave my personal likes and dislikes aside. If I were to let emotions play out then I would be one of the loudest critics to protest against anything the developer does, they've tried just about everything possible to stop me from flying, stop my videos, and shutdown my business. But none of this is relevant to the issue and doesn't cloud my judgement.
Why is splitting PWAC a good idea?
First and foremost is the design differences between the areas north and south of SR44. The areas south of SR44 have more open/green space than north. The design of the fencing, gates, retention ponds, MMPs, walking paths, and many other features are different to the extent when dealing with CDD12 issues PWAC has to remind itself that the differences exist and are intentional and trying to make one area like the other is not always a good thing. Since PWAC's primary concern is the common infrastructure areas it makes sense to split it where the infrastructure differences are markedly different, at SR44.
Next is the size of the PWAC, with CDDs 5-12 and BWCDD there are 9 people sitting the committee, how many is too big? 10, 11, 12, 15...? Right now, it is big enough, if every supervisor gives 3 minutes of input on a topic, we've easily burned through a half hour at a meeting. At some point we have to say enough, this is a good and logical point for that. We don't want to make ourselves like Congress with so many voices that nothing ever happens, and no work gets done.
There were other options taken into consideration, the most logical one was the combining of some of the smaller CDDs into larger CDDs as is now allowed under FS190. This however had its drawbacks and did not address the differences that still exist between areas north and south.
There are some negatives that can arise out of this separation. There currently exists a social rift between the areas north and south because of the extended physical separation that has existed for so long. This was a consideration for me in recommending the delay until 2022 for the split, to give the community time to grow back together and do a little healing before we make yet another demarcation in the community. The US and THEM needs to go away.
The biggest downside to the splitting of PWAC will be the reduction in risk mitigation. Less CDDs means less places to draw from if a major issue were to arise. The easiest example of this is CDD4's sink hole not long ago. Residents in CDD4 had to go it alone to cover $1.5M in costs and felt a 20-30% increase in maintenance assessments to cover these costs. Had the issue happened south of CR466 the Project Wide Agreement would have played its role and every CDD would have kicked in to cover the costs. This would have put some temporary stress on working capital or R&R funds but would not have resulted in any maintenance assessment increase. With the loss of CDD12 and 13 that impact become a little more difficult to handle. Let's not forget that 12 and 13 will be going it alone in a new project wide agreement, so for now they would only have the 2 CDDs to rely on, not 8.
If you have a problem or a concern with the planned separation,
NOW IS THE TIME TO SPEAK UP. The CDDs involved will be going over this topic in detail in this month's meetings and will be making a decision that will be passed on to PWAC and SLCDD next month. Let them know how you feel. Attend the meetings, speak your mind, get involved, show more than digital courage!
