[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by Topspinmo

Chicken feed. If they are donating means they got out of something?

I think they are good folks. I love it here. It is upsetting to hear them maligned by people who I think have other issues. Some folks are jealous of a business' excellent success.

[Marathon Man]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

I think they are good folks. I love it here. It is upsetting to hear them maligned by people who I think have other issues. Some folks are jealous of a business' excellent success.

Well said.

[Marathon Man]

Originally Posted by Michael 61

You echo my sentiments exactly! I did my research before deciding to move here and spend my retirement years. The organization, rules, politics, infrastructure, philosophy of the developer, etc of The Villages come as no surprise to me, and was actually the reasons why I’d decided to move here. I actually sorta feel bad for those who were not aware of how The Villages is run prior to moving here, and are now unhappy as retirees. Not a way I would want to spend my retirement years.

Well said. I wonder how many making comments here do not even live the particular districts and therefore are not affected.

[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by Goldwingnut

I agree with you, it shouldn’t be relevant and I have been trying to figure out the logic behind this additional contribution. I had a conversation with Mr. Blocker yesterday morning about this, he compared it to the turnover of the Hogeye preserve area in CDD12 a few years ago where the increase was deferred over a 3 year period, but it’s not the same thing. I’m still trying to put the pieces together on this one and have a few more stones to turn over.

Some things are certain:
1) this is only a deferral of the increase, the developer won’t pay it again, so an increase will come again next year.
2) next year there will be an outcry over the increase and people will expect the same or greater contribution by the developer again.
3) no matter what the developer does, nothing is ever good enough for some people, as is evident by many of the posts on this thread and elsewhere.

Well, that depends on who making money and who’s, paying. Naturally it making money have no complains and hail to king, now if paying money unforeseen head off king. This being going on for centuries. What I find strange such new area requiring all this maintenance?

[LeRoySmith]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

I think they are good folks. I love it here. It is upsetting to hear them maligned by people who I think have other issues. Some folks are jealous of a business' excellent success.

I love your attitude, we like it here too

[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by Marathon Man

Well said. I wonder how many making comments here do not even live the particular districts and therefore are not affected.

I thought we all one happy village?

[4$ALE]

Originally Posted by Marathon Man

Well said. I wonder how many making comments here do not even live the particular districts and therefore are not affected.

Let's take it one step further...... how many actually "live" here, not "own" here, but "live" here. For some it is just a vacation or golf destination or an investment. I have no problem with any of that, but it's my "home". I "live" here and "love" it.
Like Michael 61 said "I did my research before deciding to move here and spend my retirement years. The organization, rules, politics, infrastructure, philosophy of the developer, etc of The Villages come as no surprise to me, and was actually the reasons why I’d decided to move here."

[Altavia]

Originally Posted by Topspinmo

Well, that depends on who making money and who’s, paying. Naturally it making money have no complains and hail to king, now if paying money unforeseen head off king. This being going on for centuries. What I find strange such new area requiring all this maintenance?

If I understand correctly, the "maintenance" includes taking care of the grass, landscaping, irrigation, retention ponds, etc.

We bike the area regularly and it at least "feels" like there is more common area and paths per lot.

One example is the MMP along Marsh Bend Trail to Central Parkway is 2.5 miles long and includes very wide landscape areas the entire distance. Homes along one side only.

The same for Lake Denham Drive, a half mile of grass on both sides with no adjacent homes.

I don't know who is paying to maintain the large lake at Eastport?

There simply seems to be is more common ground to take care of per rooftop than other districts.

[twoplanekid]

As they run a successful business, I believe that it's nothing more or less than a business decision.

[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by twoplanekid

As they run a successful business, I believe that it's nothing more or less than a business decision.

I agree. We love it here but do have the right to comment on what goes on.

[Shipping up to Boston]

Originally Posted by Stu from NYC

I agree. We love it here but do have the right to comment on what goes on.

Amen!

It’s that little part of a democracy that the ‘purists’ often forget!

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by crash

The cost is shared by the people who live there less people the higher the cost. What I don’t understand is why did we take them over before the area was built out.

I don't believe that's correct, which was the genesis of my question.

The Developer pays his share on the unsold lots, so actual "sales" or "residency" is irrelevant. I believe.

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by maistocars

For #3, it doesn't really kick the can down the road, assuming that way more houses will be sold to absorb the cost. It was a problem this year because of the few houses (on a % basis of total expected homes) that have been sold. I would fully expect the fees next year should be more in line with what others pay in other districts.

Again, I don't think that's relevant. As far as I can figure out, the Developer pays the fees (whatever they may be) on the unsold/unoccupied lots. The number of sold homes or sold lots, should be irrelevant.

[LeRoySmith]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

The Developer pays his share on the unsold lots, so actual "sales" or "residency" is irrelevant. I believe.

I just read a long drawn out explanation on districtgov.org and this is exactly how I understand it

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by Altavia

If I understand correctly, the "maintenance" includes taking care of the grass, landscaping, irrigation, retention ponds, etc.

We bike the area regularly and it at least "feels" like there is more common area and paths per lot.

One example is the MMP along Marsh Bend Trail to Central Parkway is 2.5 miles long and includes very wide landscape areas the entire distance. Homes along one side only.

The same for Lake Denham Drive, a half mile of grass on both sides with no adjacent homes.

I don't know who is paying to maintain the large lake at Eastport?

There simply seems to be is more common ground to take care of per rooftop than other districts.

Originally Posted by BrianL99

It works, thank you

So I have one question that I thought I knew the answer to ... but might not.

Bottom paragraph, Page 1: "After reviewing the amount of new infrastructure turned over, compared with the number of new people moving into the District .... "

How does that make a difference? If I'm not mistaken, the Developer pays the maintenance fee on unsold lots, so how many people are moving in, shouldn't be relevant ... should it?

Originally Posted by Goldwingnut

I agree with you, it shouldn’t be relevant and I have been trying to figure out the logic behind this additional contribution. … I’m still trying to put the pieces together on this one and have a few more stones to turn over.

Some things are certain:
1) this is only a deferral of the increase, the developer won’t pay it again, so an increase will come again next year.
2) next year there will be an outcry over the increase and people will expect the same or greater contribution by the developer again.
3) no matter what the developer does, nothing is ever good enough for some people, as is evident by many of the posts on this thread and elsewhere.

That is exactly what Don Wiley said in his podcast a week or 2 ago and it makes perfect sense. Apparently the housing "density per acre" is lower in the CDD's affected by the large increases. They have more open space, paths, etc. to take care of.

The issue at hand (at least in this thread), seems to be the Developer's $2M "gift". As many have mentioned I'm sure there's some benefit to the Developer and it may be as simple as "optics". The benefit to the owners in that district, is clear and meaningful. However, it doesn't do anything to change the dynamics in the long run. The costs are the costs. They'll be back next year.

The under-lying question in my mind, which I posed eariler in the thread and Don Wiley subsequently agreed, is the "reporting" of the "gift". The newspaper reports and the District's comments, suggest that the increase in fees, is related to the lack of "sold properties" in those districts. That shouldn't make a difference, as I believe the Developer pays the exact same Maintenance Fees as homeowners pay.