[janmcn]

Originally Posted by Bogie Shooter

I have never seen where Jane Tutt "swept anything under the rug".

Has Ms Tutt ever addressed the issue of why the district is on the hook for paying the $50,000 and not waiting for the guilty party to be found and made to pay? If she has, I've not see it.

In the 15 years I've lived here, I don't ever remember an event like this where one or two residents break the law and all residents are being asked to pay the damages. Maybe others know of any such events.

[Indydealmaker]

Originally Posted by janmcn

Has Ms Tutt ever addressed the issue of why the district is on the hook for paying the $50,000 and not waiting for the guilty party to be found and made to pay? If she has, I've not see it.

In the 15 years I've lived here, I don't ever remember an event like this where one or two residents break the law and all residents are being asked to pay the damages. Maybe others know of any such events.

The district is on the hook because the district owns the property. It is not up to The Villages to decide when they pay. The district must mitigate the property damage when they are told.

Why is everything such a conspiracy?

[rubicon]

Originally Posted by Bogie Shooter

I have never seen where Jane Tutt "swept anything under the rug".

Hmmmmmmm "never" that's absolute? Requires being around Tutt 24/7

I too respect Ms. Tutt but leaders do occasionally bend under pressure.

[Villageswimmer]

Originally Posted by Indydealmaker

The district is on the hook because the district owns the property. It is not up to The Villages to decide when they pay. The district must mitigate the property damage when they are told.

Why is everything such a conspiracy?

A previous poster asked whether TV has insurance against vandalism on its property. Sounds like a reasonable question to me. Thoughts?

[Warren Kiefer]

Originally Posted by bagboy

I agree 100%

It's Janet not Jane !!!

[graciegirl]

I hate it when people try to make this place look bad. I really do believe that everyone can see the same people bashing, bashing, bashing. AND I know why. THANK GOODNESS that the MAJORITY of people who live here don't agree with them.

Janet Tutt is an ethical person. If I had her job I would throw myself off the Morse Bridge.


Daily.

[Warren Kiefer]

Originally Posted by rubicon

Hmmmmmmm "never" that's absolute? Requires being around Tutt 24/7

I too respect Ms. Tutt but leaders do occasionally bend under pressure.

The problem here is that Janet Tutt is actually hired by the Developer. The developer is the only land owner in the VCCDD District which employs Ms Tutt. BUT, the developer does not pay her salary, the residents do. I would not accuse her of being biased, but it does have a possible conflict of interest connection.

[Warren Kiefer]

Originally Posted by Cedwards38

An even bigger question for me is "Who done it"? I hope the Sheriff's offices finds the culprits and makes them pay the costs back to the District.

I would like to see the Authorities ask those who most benefitted from the cutting of the trees to take a lie detector exam. There is no doubt in my mind that if anyone knows any details of the cutting, it would be quickly exposed.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by Warren Kiefer

I would like to see the Authorities ask those who most benefitted from the cutting of the trees to take a lie detector exam. There is no doubt in my mind that if anyone knows any details of the cutting, it would be quickly exposed.

THEY can't DO that. I am not defending the folks who did it.

But you just can't accuse someone without proof. And a lie detector test is worth the paper it's printed on. People with no conscience can pass them 24/7.

There is no conspiracy with The Villages government.. Someone did something wrong and there is no way to prove they did. Period and amen.

I am guessing that people who live closeby are pretty sure they know who did it, but they don't know Which who.

[janmcn]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

THEY can't DO that. I am not defending the folks who did it.

But you just can't accuse someone without proof. And a lie detector test is worth the paper it's printed on. People with no conscience can pass them 24/7.

There is no conspiracy with The Villages government.. Someone did something wrong and there is no way to prove they did. Period and amen.

I am guessing that people who live closeby are pretty sure they know who did it, but they don't know Which who.

So they walk, we pay. The lesson learned here is do whatever you want, just don't leave a trail, and the other residents will cover your fines because we weren't given a choice.

[Barefoot]

Originally Posted by naneiben

A previous poster asked whether TV has insurance against vandalism on its property. Sounds like a reasonable question to me?

Good question.

[Bogie Shooter]

Originally Posted by Barefoot

Good question.

Probably self insured.

[downeaster]

Originally Posted by Warren Kiefer

The problem here is that Janet Tutt is actually hired by the Developer. The developer is the only land owner in the VCCDD District which employs Ms Tutt. BUT, the developer does not pay her salary, the residents do. I would not accuse her of being biased, but it does have a possible conflict of interest connection.

I fail to see where there is a conflict of interest. We do not know who the perpetrator(s) is so how can we assume Janet Tutt has a conflict of interest. Are you assuming she knows the culprit and is protecting them?
It is now in the hands of the Sheriff's Department.
It is not Janet Tutt's decision to pay the fine. That decision was made when the agreement was established permitting expanding in that location.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by janmcn

So they walk, we pay. The lesson learned here is do whatever you want, just don't leave a trail, and the other residents will cover your fines because we weren't given a choice.

Jan...people do things like that every day that we pay for. All of the people who defraud welfare, we pay for.

It is ALWAYS wrong and not new.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by downeaster

I fail to see where there is a conflict of interest. We do not know who the perpetrator(s) is so how can we assume Janet Tutt has a conflict of interest. Are you assuming she knows the culprit and is protecting them?
It is now in the hands of the Sheriff's Department.
It is not Janet Tutt's decision to pay the fine. That decision was made when the agreement was established permitting expanding in that location.

So right.