I favor right over wrong. All is finally clear.

If someone broke into the Lake Sumter Office and trashed it to the tune of 50k and up would there still be this level of progress on the investigation?

I don't understand the point you are trying to make. I think that the sheriff's office has done what it can do at this point.

I think I remember that you have suggested that people who live in that village are in cahoots and would not turn someone in if they knew for sure who did it. I completely don't understand how the size of a person's home makes them more or less moral.

I think that there will be someone charged with the crime if proof can be brought. I think that it is shameful and wrong, but no one can prove who was behind it for sure and with proof that can hold up in court.

I think that what Polar Bear said is true and that people watch TV and think it all works like on TV. It may never be solved in court. But those of us who live here in EVERY village are mad as hell it happened.

It isn't right to cut down trees and incur a huge community expense to replace them and it isn't right to blame a whole bunch of people who have bigger houses for being unethical.

In fact, one is as bad as the other.

Everybody knows who did it, or thinks they know. They just don't have PROOF. Sometimes the legal system works for us and sometimes the legal system doesn't work for us.

Um, Nope!

I love living in TV and don't begrudge the Company a single dime they have made. That said, my point is if the Company were out 50 k vs the collective community I believe there would be a tad more urgency to solve the thing.

The size of someone's house does not make them more or less moral. There is a sense of entitlement that many that have more money possess however. It can be observed on a daily basis in TV from the way the "help" are treated in restaurants, rec centers, golf courses and stores. There is another set of justice based on your income. It is simply naive to believe otherwise.

District to Pay for Unauthorized Tree Cutting
 

...and simply sad to believe it is a universal truth.

Me too, but in the case of the tree cutting, it seems far from clear to me. In fact, it seem inexplicably murky.

WHAT do you think really happened then? WHAT exactly? Who is it that you mistrust the most? Then second? Then third? and who do you think is lying and who do you think is not doing what you think should be done which is? And who is to blame? And who profited from this?

I have not, nor will I read all 400+ posts to this thread. What I don't understand is what costs are involved. Someone must have paid to have the trees cut down. What are the costs that remain. If they are because it looks unsightly with dead trees laying all over the place, why not just leave it a view in perpetuity for those who live there and are likely responsible. What am I missing here?

The trees must be replaced, according to the Southwest Florida Water Management District, who fined the district $30,000 because the trees were removed. The costs of replacing the trees is $50,000, which has already been done and paid.

There is also a $5000 per year inspection fee to be paid by the district for a number of years. This $100,000 debt will be paid by districts five through eleven.

The land in question is owned by SWFMD. The home owner and the logging people trespassed on SWFMD property to clear cut this land in order to have a clear view of the Lake, either for their own use for to help sell a property. You can find much more information on the power that SWFMD wields on their site. The cost incurred is basically the fine for trespassing and removal of trees and plants.

Nice answer but you didn't answer my question. Obvious to me that someone must have paid to cut the trees down. What other costs are there for the district to cover. If it's to restore the area, clear dead trees etc. why spend a dime. Let the homeowners responsible look at the dead trees lying on the ground forever.

You really do need to go back and read at least the first hundred posts to learn why this was illegal, etc.

I think you missed her message. The land on which the trees were cut, and from which they were removed, belongs to a very powerful state sanctioned agency that heavily regulates its property. They can levy fines and demand return of the property to its prior state. This the did, and they will charge the district for the cost of monitoring the site as well. I know you did not want to review the previous posts, but a quick skim would have helped.

Didn't know that. Thought the land belonged to TV. And no, I'm not going to skim 100 posts to find the one or two that might offer correct information.