Originally Posted by Topspinmo (Post 2361875)

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

Originally Posted by graciegirl (Post 2362244)

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.

Originally Posted by Michael 61 (Post 2362168)

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.

Originally Posted by Goldwingnut (Post 2362087)

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.

Originally Posted by graciegirl (Post 2362244)

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.

Originally Posted by Marathon Man (Post 2362249)

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

Originally Posted by Marathon Man (Post 2362249)

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

Originally Posted by Topspinmo (Post 2362250)

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?

Originally Posted by twoplanekid (Post 2362272)

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

Originally Posted by Stu from NYC (Post 2362318)

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

Originally Posted by crash (Post 2362096)

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.

Originally Posted by maistocars (Post 2362142)

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.

Originally Posted by BrianL99 (Post 2362336)

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

Originally Posted by Altavia (Post 2362263)

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 (Post 2361978)

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 (Post 2362087)

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.