[dewilson58]

County workshop next March.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by dewilson58

County workshop next March.

Yep, just another paradoxical law in TV land

A bicycle can cross at 8 mph
A pedestrian can cross at 3 mph
But a golf cart at 20 mph can't cross

Go figure

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Yep, just another paradoxical law in TV land

A bicycle can cross at 8 mph
A pedestrian can cross at 3 mph
But a golf cart at 20 mph can't cross

Go figure

Pedestrian, bicycle, motor vehicle (golf cart) - all different animals, all treated differently.

It's like a strange rock/paper/scissors game:
Bicycles and pedestrians can share a sidewalk but golf carts are prohibited.
Bicycles and golf carts stay to the right on the MMP and neighborhood roads but pedestrians (should) stay to the left.
On 44, bicycles can travel on the roadway, pedestrians must use the sidewalks, but golf carts are not allowed at all.


Two things that came to my mind:
- It can't be legal to cross at that point today if the BOCC is going to consider whether it should be allowed
- March? Are they really that busy or is that simply kicking the can down the road for another year? (I haven't listened to that meeting yet to see if a reason was mentioned)

[starflyte1]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Yep, just another paradoxical law in TV land

A bicycle can cross at 8 mph
A pedestrian can cross at 3 mph
But a golf cart at 20 mph can't cross

Go figure

Rarely, if ever, does The Villages allow golf carts to cross to businesses that are not on Village property and pay rent to TV. For whatever reason whoever controls the roads sides with TV.

[Howdy]

The Village's Management could easily " Persuade " Wildwood to allow Golf Carts to Crossover at certain points.

That said so far it is Not in it for them to have the slightest interest in pursuing it.

Why ? The obvious....No Homes for sale. Middleton is the #1 Priority.

[Aces4]

Originally Posted by Howdy

The Village's Management could easily " Persuade " Wildwood to allow Golf Carts to Crossover at certain points.

That said so far it is Not in it for them to have the slightest interest in pursuing it.

Why ? The obvious....No Homes for sale. Middleton is the #1 Priority.

Makes sense, doesn't it? Remember changing the rules allows non-Villagers access to the MMPs.

[tophcfa]

Originally Posted by starflyte1

Rarely, if ever, does The Villages allow golf carts to cross to businesses that are not on Village property and pay rent to TV. For whatever reason whoever controls the roads sides with TV.

Not when allowing golf carts opens up a pathway for non Villagers to enter the Villages and use the multi modal paths paid for by Villagers Ammenity fees. In this case, Beaumont residents would have golf cart access to the Villages. I suppose if a gate, like the one in the historic section, could be added at an access point to the Villages than TV might support the crossing.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by tophcfa

Not when allowing golf carts opens up a pathway for non Villagers to enter the Villages and use the multi modal paths paid for by Villagers Ammenity fees. In this case, Beaumont residents would have golf cart access to the Villages. I suppose if a gate, like the one in the historic section, could be added at an access point to the Villages than TV might support the crossing.

Amenity fees have nothing to do with the MMPs.
MMPs are not funded with amenity fees.
MMPs are not maintained with amenity fees.
MMPs are not amenities.

The gate idea is interesting but probably not workable. The crossover would be on a public street so there can be no resident-only gate.

I don't understand the concern about *outsiders* getting to the Villages, they can do that by automobile right now. They can get everywhere by automobile that they can get to by car. Non-Villagers from Middleton can already access the MMPs, what is different between those non-Villagers and Beaumont non-Villagers?

On the other hand, I *can* see why the Developer would not want to facilitate Villager access to businesses outside the Villages. If all those Villagers on golf carts can get to my business outside the Villages then why would I pay a premium to rent space inside the Villages?

[Aces4]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Amenity fees have nothing to do with the MMPs.
MMPs are not funded with amenity fees.
MMPs are not maintained with amenity fees.
MMPs are not amenities.

The gate idea is interesting but probably not workable. The crossover would be on a public street so there can be no resident-only gate.

I don't understand the concern about *outsiders* getting to the Villages, they can do that by automobile right now. They can get everywhere by automobile that they can get to by car. Non-Villagers from Middleton can already access the MMPs, what is different between those non-Villagers and Beaumont non-Villagers?

On the other hand, I *can* see why the Developer would not want to facilitate Villager access to businesses outside the Villages. If all those Villagers on golf carts can get to my business outside the Villages then why would I pay a premium to rent space inside the Villages?

If you feel you would like to pay for the upkeep, trash clearance, amenity usage and liability for those outsiders using the MMP's, go for it. There was a time when an outsider was carting on the MMP's and crashed into a Villager on a bike ride and caused very serious injuries to the Villager. Also, that would be a huge lowering of security but maybe that's something Villagers don't care about.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by Aces4

If you feel you would like to pay for the upkeep, trash clearance, amenity usage and liability for those outsiders using the MMP's, go for it. There was a time when an outsider was carting on the MMP's and crashed into a Villager on a bike ride and caused very serious injuries to the Villager. Also, that would be a huge lowering of security but maybe that's something Villagers don't care about.

Security:
I've always been baffled by the belief that someone about to break the law will be stopped by a sign that says, "don't break the law." If those "outsiders" want to do something bad in the Villages they can do that now whether from an auto, on foot, or by driving their cart across 466A. I can't imagine someone intending to break into a house saying to themselves, "Rats! I wanted to break into a house but the sign says I can't take a golf cart across 466A. Guess that's out of the question."

Accidents:
With all the discussions on here about how bad Villagers drive, including comments from Villagers insisting that they will continue to drive poorly, you're worried about a few more golf carts? *IF* there was a time when an outsider crashed into a Villager on a bike then that makes one against all the times a Villager caused an accident.

Trash:
With 80,000+ Villagers driving around dropping empty mini bottles, water bottles, golf towels, golf scorecards, golf shoes, club covers, food wrappers, etc. I am not at all worried about the amount of trash that might be added by 50 Beaumont residents driving to Pinellas Plaza or Brownwood Square.

Upkeep:
It's an incredible stretch to think 50 additional carts will result in any additional upkeep.


The two reasons why this won't happen:
1. The Developer will talk to the commissioners and express their objection to it
2. The BOCC won't want to set a precedent and open up requests for a number of other crossings

[tophcfa]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Amenity fees have nothing to do with the MMPs.
MMPs are not funded with amenity fees.
MMPs are not maintained with amenity fees.
MMPs are not amenities.

From the district government website discussing the MMP’s. “Financial decisions and actions shall be the responsibility of the respective entities (community development districts and Ammenity authority committee) based on their established procedures and authority.”

So how exactly do you think the Ammenity authority committee is funded?

[DrMack]

If it happens there, then it happens everywhere. The speed limit is 45mph on 466A. I highly doubt iWildwood would take on the liability of the change. Further, when the developer gives up golf cart path entry control, they give up an even larger portion income. The current businesses whom pay royalties to The Villages will now have to lower price points to stay open and compete with those that don’t.

[Normal]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Yep, just another paradoxical law in TV land

A bicycle can cross at 8 mph
A pedestrian can cross at 3 mph
But a golf cart at 20 mph can't cross

Go figure

Widen the crosswalks? Walking pedestrians competing with golf carts under a time limit for light charging? What could possibly go wrong?

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by tophcfa

From the district government website discussing the MMP’s. “Financial decisions and actions shall be the responsibility of the respective entities (community development districts and Ammenity authority committee) based on their established procedures and authority.”

So how exactly do you think the Ammenity authority committee is funded?

The Amenity Authority Committee (AAC) has no budget. The AAC advises the Recreation Advisory Committee (RAD) and the budget you see on the AAC page is actually the RAD budget.

The AAC *may* also serve as an advisory group the the numbered CDDs above 466 just as the PWAC is an advisory group for the CDDs below 466 down towards Eastport. In *that* capacity, including the AAC in the Multi-Modal Path Discussion Group (MMPDG) is a quick way to include representatives from the numbered CDDs above 466.

It is the numbered districts that own the MMPs and it is the maintenance funds, not amenity funds, from those numbered districts that maintain the MMPs. That is why the Project-Wide Advisory Group (PWAC), that does have a budget and advises on maintenance of common areas below 466, is responsible for MMPs.

[tophcfa]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

The Amenity Authority Committee (AAC) has no budget. The AAC advises the Recreation Advisory Committee (RAD) and the budget you see on the AAC page is actually the RAD budget.

The AAC *may* also serve as an advisory group the the numbered CDDs above 466 just as the PWAC is an advisory group for the CDDs below 466 down towards Eastport. In *that* capacity, including the AAC in the Multi-Modal Path Discussion Group (MMPDG) is a quick way to include representatives from the numbered CDDs above 466.

It is the numbered districts that own the MMPs and it is the maintenance funds, not amenity funds, from those numbered districts that maintain the MMPs. That is why the Project-Wide Advisory Group (PWAC), that does have a budget and advises on maintenance of common areas below 466, is responsible for MMPs.

Semantics. The alphabet bet soup of various authorities and advisory committees most certainly isn’t consistent with simplicity and transparency. At the end of the day, the CDD’s own and maintain the MMP’s and the CDD’s are funded by the Villages Homeowners who pay bonds, pay annual maintenance assessments, and monthly Ammenity fees. Regardless of how one wants to boil it down, it’s you, me and our fellow Villages homeowners who foot the bill. I would venture to guess that a vast majority of Villages homeowners aren’t in favor of paying for stuff that can be accessed by non Villagers. Those folks could have paid more and bought a home in the Villages if they wanted to use the stuff paid for by Villages residents. I get it that anyone can access the Villages by automobile, bicycle, or on foot, but golf cart access is not a right.