[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

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". It doesn't do anything to change the dynamic 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.

That is what we heard, what I wrote about in post #46, and what was explained in information on districtgov.org as reported in post #75.

What's in it for the Developer...
I really don't want to speculate since I'm only guessing but my bet is optics plays a big part. They certainly aren't saving money, they are paying for unsold homes in CDD14 and CDD15 along with unleased properties in Eastport (I assume Eastport is paying but maybe not) and now are kicking in $2M on top of that.

[birdawg]

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.

it’s paradise, created by a family who have made thousands love their home and community. Find a better place and move if your not happy here.

[Justputt]

From an in-pool "meeting" today, some were complaining because the planned maintenance fee increases should have been disclosed. Basically, TV knew grass, shrubs, etc. were going to be planted by the time CDD14 was built out and some folks felt the planned/future increase should have been disclosed, even if only in "today's dollars". Everyone understood there is a cost/acre to mow, grounds care, etc., but TV should have been able to provide good faith non-binding estimates to home purchasers of the final amounts. Personally, it would have been nice to "see" this coming, but it wouldn't have impacted our decision to buy and build where we did. So, maybe disclosures should include estimates of likely increases as a CDD is built out or just an estimate of CDD maintenance fees on buildout.

[JoMar]

Originally Posted by Justputt

From an in-pool "meeting" today, some were complaining because the planned maintenance fee increases should have been disclosed. Basically, TV knew grass, shrubs, etc. were going to be planted by the time CDD14 was built out and some folks felt the planned/future increase should have been disclosed, even if only in "today's dollars". Everyone understood there is a cost/acre to mow, grounds care, etc., but TV should have been able to provide good faith non-binding estimates to home purchasers of the final amounts. Personally, it would have been nice to "see" this coming, but it wouldn't have impacted our decision to buy and build where we did. So, maybe disclosures should include estimates of likely increases as a CDD is built out or just an estimate of CDD maintenance fees on buildout.

Don't think it would have made a difference....the non-binding estimates would translate to "when we bought our house we were told ........". Followed by "Gary Morse is rolling in his grave" followed by "It's all about being greedy", followed by "The kids are ruining TV. Not sure that the CDD 14 commissioners were even in place to be able to do what you are asking.

[pokeefe45@aol.com]

The contribution by the developer results in a direct savings of about $200 in maintenance assessments for my Unit and Lot in District 14. No doubt the expenses will still be there next year, and we could expect at least the balance of the 56% increase needing to be assessed then, as the District is now fully built out. The number of landowners 'lots' never changed-what changed quicker than most districts in past years is the amount of common area land that now needs to be maintained. As explained well by Commissioner Wiley, you didn't have to mow, irrigate, fertilize and care for sand and clay in the last fiscal year-but this year it's all landscaping and drainage and ponds and........ That's where the increase kicked in. As for the Board of Supervisors in District 14-there are now 2 of 5 that are residents of the District (more recently appointed based on 2 resignations) and 3 seats are up for re-election (or election, as they were originally appointed) this November. Regarding motives-my belief is that this is a good business decision by the 'developer'. The $2 million will quell what was quickly becoming some very vocal negative 'press'. It will take only about 25 or 30 home sales to recoup those funds, and the outcry had a chance at inhibiting those same home sales in the new build areas. I can tell you from personal experience that once announced, conversations in gatherings and on social media quickly turned elsewhere. I even saw the re-emergence of a strain about dog defecation and related disposal issues, which always signals a return to normalcy in any community.