Gracie you are right "this is small change to the developer" and I think that is what people are saying - a small price to pay to cover up a problem - especially when the money is technically coming from the resident's pockets. The developer has nothing to gain by pursuing this, but a lot to lose from the potential bad publicity.

But here is where I am at a loss.

The Morses didn't cut the trees down. What advantage would that give to them? Those houses have been sold for ten/twelve years, there are no open lots anywhere around there.

Someone who lived here obviously did. It isn't a cry to heaven for vengeance crime that would make potential buyers cringe like a meth house or a house of ill repute or street gangs or people shooting at each other. Someone cut down some trees. That is what I am saying. It isn't going to get too many potential buyers knickers in a hitch to find that out.

I can't see that the motive of the developer would be to rush to cover THAT up, for pete's sake.

I think that the river authority leveled an infraction and the CDD fixed it. I think that is what happened. They fix where drunks knock down fences, and other bad people nasties. They have money set aside for that. OUR money, but ....it is our town.

Anything--anything!--that brings one iota of negative publicity to an entity, be it corporate, political, or both, is to be avoided at all costs. You never know who is keeping score in a little black book hidden away somewhere, waiting for the right time to spring. It is just good practice to avoid this kind of publicity.

Bump.

Gracie, people having sex in public brings about a purient interest. It could even get people to visit to see just how sexy TV is. So, embarrassing but has the possibility of selling a house or two.

Selfish old folks mucking with the environment for their convenience draws nothing but negative publicity and an extremely ugly picture of TV residents. For those who think nature needs nurturing (and not just the serious tree hungers), this wanton act is a serious issue and enough to take TV off their short list of retirement considerations. Definitely something the developer had to have considered.

I don't think anyone is saying cutting down the trees benefited the developer. The point is covering it up as quickly as possible before it becomes BIG NEWS that the residents are in fact paying for is the complaint benefits the developer.

It is running on a bit long, but frankly, I don't think this horse is dead until we find out which self serving person or persons did this and make them pay, rather than making those of us citizens who had nothing at all to do with the cutting of the trees pay. Those who did this would love for us to declare this horse's demise.

A violation was committed, and the District had an obligation to ensure that one would not be committed. Thus they were fined and had to pay to repair the violation. I don't see any other choice that the District would have. If they don't pay a levied fine in a timely manner then that fine gets increased, and they would then be denied the ability to be assigned protection of environmentally sensitive areas in the future. It's the district's responsibility to protect the protected environment. They didn't. They got fined.

Law enforcement, with the cooperation of the local prosecutor, could find out who was responsible, and the district, through legal means, could recover the cost of the fine and repair, and should. For the life of me, I don't see how the Developer or the Developer's marketing strategy could be considered a serious suspect, either in the cutting of the trees, or the inability to determine who cut the trees. I just don't think that wrongly cutting down some trees, as bad as it is, is going to stop the sale of new homes. If the Developer had the clout to stop this investigation, we would have never in the past heard about the sex on the squares or the cases of drunken vehicle violations, which in my opinion are far more detrimental to the community image.

I think we all know who the prime suspects are in this caper, and I'm at a loss to know why we can't pursue this from a law enforcement and legal standpoint, and provide a just solution, meaning the perpetrators pay and we as innocent and law abiding citizens of The Villages don't.

OH. I don't get exited about stuff like that and don't run around with people who do. I think it is tied in with either a person's philosophy, or their politics.


If the rule or law is that I cannot cut down a tree, I would not cut down a tree, but to me cutting down a tree is a venial sin, not a mortal sin.


Only old Catholics will understand that.

But I loathe sneaky rule breakers like those who cut down those trees. If it says you can't. YOU CAN'T. It ain't right or nice.

But repairing the damage doesn't seem like a sneaky thing to do. I don't know a person in my world who wouldn't move here because someone cut down a tree. I took a test last week. It said I was a Centrist. I had to look it up. It means a moderate. That means that hardly anyone in The Villages thinks like I do. I think I ain't right.

It's only $50K, right? What's the big deal? Too much anguish for such a small amount.

Gracie, you have had an interesting take on not breaking the rules vs. not going after rule breakers. And I can understand that on one level.

My take is a bit different. As long as people think they can get away with stuff like this (because of exactly the outcome--developer not wanting to take the time & effort or suffer the bad publicity to go after them more thoroughly), they will continue to pull stuff like this. It may be 50K here, 15K there, but it's coming out of the little people's pockets, and that pi$$e$ me off royally.

In the meantime, I will not lose sleep over it. But it just ain't right.

$50K is not a small amount in my opinion. At least not to me. What could the District do with that $50 K (some list it as more like $100K) if we didn't have to spend it on this?

But it's more about right and wrong. I do not wish to pay for other person's transgressions, and if we just choose to let it go then injustice wins. And it will happen again somewhere else!

This is much , much bigger than any monetary amount. Not finding the perp , leaves speculation about who is involved and can affect the reputations of people unfairly. It is a festering sore.

It's only a festering sore for those who fixate on it and those who care what they think.

Isn't it about time to move on regarding this tree cutting incident? Enough has been said IMHO.