Talk of The Villages Florida
Page 5 of 14 « First 3 4 5 6 7 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Talk of The Villages Florida (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/)
-   The Villages, Florida, General Discussion (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/villages-florida-general-discussion-73/)
-   -   District to Pay for Unauthorized Tree Cutting (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/villages-florida-general-discussion-73/district-pay-unauthorized-tree-cutting-139639/)

Barefoot 03-04-2015 08:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by naneiben (Post 1023302)
A previous poster asked whether TV has insurance against vandalism on its property. Sounds like a reasonable question to me?
Good question.

Bogie Shooter 03-04-2015 08:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barefoot (Post 1023376)
Good question.
Probably self insured.

downeaster 03-04-2015 10:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren Kiefer (Post 1023359)
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 03-04-2015 11:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by janmcn (Post 1023374)
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 03-04-2015 11:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by downeaster (Post 1023417)
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.

Bonanza 03-05-2015 03:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by graciegirl (Post 1023131)
We haven't been accessed for anything in the eight years we have owned property here. Not ONE penny from the deal we made when we bought.
Gracie, I haven't beem here nearly as long as you so I can't speak from any experience and I am sure you are right (you usually are!).

BUT . . . while there haven't been any assessments, residents have been paying and are paying for things not normally associated with, let's say, normal things.

We have been paying and will continue to pay for the IRS fiasco until maybe in the next century, it will be settled. :shrug:
We will have to pay for the soil erosion under the bridge. And now -- the damn tree situation!

It also makes me wonder if we are also paying for the widening of 466A (1.8 miles) in the Fruitland Park area where the developer is supposedly paying for the widening of that part of the road. Are "we" really paying for that???

Consequently, since there has not been any special assessment, it would seem that there is a lot of surplus money in the pot, no?
But the real question is why are we, the residents, paying for all these things?

graciegirl 03-05-2015 07:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonanza (Post 1023477)
Gracie, I haven't beem here nearly as long as you so I can't speak from any experience and I am sure you are right (you usually are!).

BUT . . . while there haven't been any assessments, residents have been paying and are paying for things not normally associated with, let's say, normal things.

We have been paying and will continue to pay for the IRS fiasco until maybe in the next century, it will be settled. :shrug:
We will have to pay for the soil erosion under the bridge. And now -- the damn tree situation!

It also makes me wonder if we are also paying for the widening of 466A (1.8 miles) in the Fruitland Park area where the developer is supposedly paying for the widening of that part of the road. Are "we" really paying for that???

Consequently, since there has not been any special assessment, it would seem that there is a lot of surplus money in the pot, no?
But the real question is why are we, the residents, paying for all these things?
There has been no assessment for anything in eight years and apparently EVER.

The IRS Fiasco...as you call it was not anything underhanded. We live in a CDD form of government that is only in Florida and we are not the only CDD. The municipal bonds are the issue. The fact that the interest on them was tax free. NOT the bonds on our property. They challenged how the CDD works. It was not some conspiracy to avoid income tax or a way to get away with something that is wrong. If it were it wouldn't have gone one for eight years and three IRS agents without resolution.


We are paying the lawyer because the lawyer is protecting us and the way things are run.

The developer has paid for so many things. He isn't our mom, but widening the road is to their interest in continuing the development in Fruitland Park.

Which keeps people working, which allows people like you and me to move here, which keeps the economy flowing here, which makes money for the developers kids who long ago made more money than they need for all of the things that anyone could want in four lifetimes,,,but still they keep working in very high stress jobs. I would have to guess that the motivation is that this is a history making place, and a good thing, and a matter of pride to them. They don't need any more money...and they must feel a responsibility to the teams they have employed who have stuck with them for years and years. They keep working. Things keep being wonderful and beautiful.

I don't think that in our lifetime, you or I will pay a penny for any assessments.

As Bogie Shooter says. The Morses are self insured.

Don't blame the tree fiasco on The Morses. They had nothing to do with it.

The soil erosion under anything is not their fault either.

They could have geologists stacked on top of engineers and things sink here occasionally.

Bogie Shooter 03-05-2015 08:53 AM
"
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonanza (Post 1023477)
Gracie, I haven't beem here nearly as long as you so I can't speak from any experience and I am sure you are right (you usually are!).

BUT . . . while there haven't been any assessments, residents have been paying and are paying for things not normally associated with, let's say, normal things.

We have been paying and will continue to pay for the IRS fiasco until maybe in the next century, it will be settled. :shrug:
We will have to pay for the soil erosion under the bridge. And now -- the damn tree situation!

It also makes me wonder if we are also paying for the widening of 466A (1.8 miles) in the Fruitland Park area where the developer is supposedly paying for the widening of that part of the road. Are "we" really paying for that???

Consequently, since there has not been any special assessment, it would seem that there is a lot of surplus money in the pot, no?
But the real question is why are we, the residents, paying for all these things?
Maybe you should go to some of the budget meetings, they are all open to the public. You could find answers to the questions, that you just throw out to stir the pot!

Bonanza 03-06-2015 04:23 AM
Stirring the Pot? I Guess YOU Don't Care!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bogie Shooter (Post 1023550)
Maybe you should go to some of the budget meetings, they are all open to the public. You could find answers to the questions, that you just throw out to stir the pot!
It's unfortunate that you think I am stirring the pot and I resent your implication.
I guess you can't tell the difference between real questions that affect all of us
versus simply overlooking things that take place here and then criticizing someone who brings these items up.

I mentioned these things and Gracie commented. That was fine.
Can you tell me with a straight face that you don't find it strange that (supposedly) all residents south of 466 will be responsible for paying for the soil erosion?
Why residents south of 466 when residents north of 466 use the bridge just as much?
Anyone can use the bridge; it is a public bridge.
So why just certain residents and why any residents at all, since it is a county road?
You don't find it strange that a public road and bridge is built on private property?

You don't think it's strange (again, supposedly) that the residents of Districts 5 through 9 (I think that's accurate) have to pay for the tree thing?

I could go on, but these things have nothing whatsoever to do with a budget.
If that is your way of telling me you know more than me, it hasn't worked.
It's unfortunate you couldn't offer anything constructive.
You didn't even follow the forum's rule to stay on topic!
You think that asking these kind of questions are stirring a pot?
If you really think so, you are very wrong.
You may not care about answers to these questions, but I do, as do many others.
This forum is a great place to ask questions because there are a lot of smart and informed people who know some of these answers.

NYGUY 03-06-2015 08:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bogie Shooter (Post 1023550)
Maybe you should go to some of the budget meetings, they are all open to the public. You could find answers to the questions, that you just throw out to stir the pot!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonanza (Post 1023964)
It's unfortunate that you think I am stirring the pot and I resent your implication.
I guess you can't tell the difference between real questions that affect all of us
versus simply overlooking things that take place here and then criticizing someone who brings these items up.

I mentioned these things and Gracie commented. That was fine.
Can you tell me with a straight face that you don't find it strange that (supposedly) all residents south of 466 will be responsible for paying for the soil erosion?
Why residents south of 466 when residents north of 466 use the bridge just as much?
Anyone can use the bridge; it is a public bridge.
So why just certain residents and why any residents at all, since it is a county road?
You don't find it strange that a public road and bridge is built on private property?

You don't think it's strange (again, supposedly) that the residents of Districts 5 through 9 (I think that's accurate) have to pay for the tree thing?

I could go on, but these things have nothing whatsoever to do with a budget.
If that is your way of telling me you know more than me, it hasn't worked.
It's unfortunate you couldn't offer anything constructive.
You didn't even follow the forum's rule to stay on topic!
You think that asking these kind of questions are stirring a pot?
If you really think so, you are very wrong.
You may not care about answers to these questions, but I do, as do many others.
This forum is a great place to ask questions because there are a lot of smart and informed people who know some of these answers.
:popcorn::popcorn:

Bogie Shooter 03-06-2015 09:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonanza (Post 1023964)
It's unfortunate that you think I am stirring the pot and I resent your implication.
I guess you can't tell the difference between real questions that affect all of us
versus simply overlooking things that take place here and then criticizing someone who brings these items up.

I mentioned these things and Gracie commented. That was fine.
Can you tell me with a straight face that you don't find it strange that (supposedly) all residents south of 466 will be responsible for paying for the soil erosion?
Why residents south of 466 when residents north of 466 use the bridge just as much?
Anyone can use the bridge; it is a public bridge.
So why just certain residents and why any residents at all, since it is a county road?
You don't find it strange that a public road and bridge is built on private property?

You don't think it's strange (again, supposedly) that the residents of Districts 5 through 9 (I think that's accurate) have to pay for the tree thing?

I could go on, but these things have nothing whatsoever to do with a budget.
If that is your way of telling me you know more than me, it hasn't worked.
It's unfortunate you couldn't offer anything constructive.
You didn't even follow the forum's rule to stay on topic!
You think that asking these kind of questions are stirring a pot?
If you really think so, you are very wrong.
You may not care about answers to these questions, but I do, as do many others.
This forum is a great place to ask questions because there are a lot of smart and informed people who know some of these answers.
As usual. Whatever...............

Warren Kiefer 03-06-2015 01:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by graciegirl (Post 1023370)
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.
Of course they can do it. All lie detector exams are voluntary and as far as accusing someone, this is not the case. In fact most people who agree to the exam are more interested in an indication of being innocent rather than the feeling of being accused. If I were one of the residents who seems to have benefitted by the cutting, and I were innocent, I would ask for the exam.

Warren Kiefer 03-06-2015 01:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by downeaster (Post 1023417)
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.
You totally missed the point !! No one is accusing Janet Tutt of doing anything wrong. Her possible conflict of interest regarding all issues involving the Residents and the Developer is easily apparent. Her employment can easily be controlled by the Developer, yet we residents directly pay her for her services. A person that pays the salary usually has control of the hiring and firing of an individual. The board that has control of Janet Tutt, is an elected body, BUT THE ONLY LANDOWNER THAT CASTS SUCH VOTES IS THE DEVELOPER HIMSELF. I cannot imagine anyone who knows the inner workings of the VCCDD not seeing the possible conflict of interest.

Chi-Town 03-06-2015 02:10 PM
With break-ins occurring throughout the area and normal monitoring of the community I doubt if additional resources are going to be allocated to a victimless crime. It is probably a cold case already.

There should be insurance to cover this act. And if it is self insurance an amount of money is already set aside. Never should have happened though.

Moderator 03-06-2015 03:27 PM
Learn to be civil or risk infractions
 
If members cannot conduct themselves without a confrontational attitude, they risk losing the privilege of participating in TOTV. You can disagree without a "nose to nose" attitude.

manaboutown 03-06-2015 03:48 PM
As usual it is all about the money, i.e. out of whose pocket will it come?

Hopefully the cretins who vandalized the property by cutting down the trees will be identified, tried and convicted. Perhaps restitution can be had through a civil lawsuit so that those who did the deed pay the price.

Call me cynical, but the tree cutting could not have been accomplished by any one person without some witness observation or knowledge precedent or subsequent by others.

BTW, who would benefit from the cutting through view enhancement or other outcome?

dewilson58 03-06-2015 04:02 PM
Feels like this thread is long over dead.

downeaster 03-06-2015 04:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren Kiefer (Post 1024241)
You totally missed the point !! No one is accusing Janet Tutt of doing anything wrong. Her possible conflict of interest regarding all issues involving the Residents and the Developer is easily apparent. Her employment can easily be controlled by the Developer, yet we residents directly pay her for her services. A person that pays the salary usually has control of the hiring and firing of an individual. The board that has control of Janet Tutt, is an elected body, BUT THE ONLY LANDOWNER THAT CASTS SUCH VOTES IS THE DEVELOPER HIMSELF. I cannot imagine anyone who knows the inner workings of the VCCDD not seeing the possible conflict of interest.
I do understand the inner workings of the VCDD, Warren. As in any government position there is always a possibility of conflict of interest. I would like to discuss this with you here in more detail but I hesitate in view of Moderator's recent admonition.

graciegirl 03-06-2015 04:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by manaboutown (Post 1024300)
As usual it is all about the money, i.e. out of whose pocket will it come?

Hopefully the cretins who vandalized the property by cutting down the trees will be identified, tried and convicted. Perhaps restitution can be had through a civil lawsuit so that those who did the deed pay the price.

Call me cynical, but the tree cutting could not have been accomplished by any one person without some witness observation or knowledge precedent or subsequent by others.

BTW, who would benefit from the cutting through view enhancement or other outcome?
At the very least, hopefully many will now know what our very first grasscutter told us when we first moved here, that Live Oak trees past a certain diameter were protected by law from being removed.

Bogie Shooter 03-06-2015 05:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dewilson58 (Post 1024305)
Feels like this thread is long over dead.
Do ya think...........................

Mleeja 03-06-2015 09:52 PM
:BigApplause:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bogie Shooter (Post 1024381)
Do ya think...........................

tommy steam 03-06-2015 10:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by manaboutown (Post 1024300)
As usual it is all about the money, i.e. out of whose pocket will it come?

Hopefully the cretins who vandalized the property by cutting down the trees will be identified, tried and convicted. Perhaps restitution can be had through a civil lawsuit so that those who did the deed pay the price.

Call me cynical, but the tree cutting could not have been accomplished by any one person without some witness observation or knowledge precedent or subsequent by others.

BTW, who would benefit from the cutting through view enhancement or other outcome?
Put a big fat reward for anyone with information , no questions asked . Maybe one of the workers who was in on it might come forward.

DonH57 03-06-2015 10:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by naneiben (Post 996873)
I found this article mystifying. The "investigation" seems to be moving at a snail's pace. And what's with the two of the four homes "believed to be for sale." Either they are or they are not. Just the noise inherent in cutting these mature trees would certainly lead to neighbors asking questions. Something sounds fishy, and I hope folks living in that CDD don't end up paying.
So no one heard or seen anything while all this was done? Sounds like it was done by the same entity that formed the crop circles.:22yikes:

Mleeja 03-06-2015 10:25 PM
Couple of more post and we will hit 20 pages! The trees will grow back before we are done here. Kind of makes you miss talking about the Morse Ave. bridge... :024:

Barefoot 03-06-2015 10:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy steam (Post 1024497)
Put a big fat reward for anyone with information , no questions asked . Maybe one of the workers who was in on it might come forward.
An interesting suggestion. :thumbup:

Bonanza 03-07-2015 12:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren Kiefer (Post 1024241)
You totally missed the point !! No one is accusing Janet Tutt of doing anything wrong. Her possible conflict of interest regarding all issues involving the Residents and the Developer is easily apparentHer possible conflict of interest re. Her employment can easily be controlled by the Developer, yet we residents directly pay her for her services. A person that pays the salary usually has control of the hiring and firing of an individual. The board that has control of Janet Tutt, is an elected body, BUT THE ONLY LANDOWNER THAT CASTS SUCH VOTES IS THE DEVELOPER HIMSELF. I cannot imagine anyone who knows the inner workings of the VCCDD not seeing the possible conflict of interest.
I was not aware that we, the residents, pay Janet Tutt's salary, and frankly, I find this very upsetting. In the real world, the fiduciary of an "employee" belongs to the person who is paying the salary. Period! So if this isn't a conflict of interest, what is it? Are we, all 110,000+ residents, drinking the Kool-Aid?

graciegirl 03-07-2015 08:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonanza (Post 1024547)
I was not aware that we, the residents, pay Janet Tutt's salary, and frankly, I find this very upsetting. In the real world, the fiduciary of an "employee" belongs to the person who is paying the salary. Period! So if this isn't a conflict of interest, what is it? Are we, all 110,000+ residents, drinking the Kool-Aid?

I suggest going to a meeting where how a CDD is run is explained and not taking an explanation from someone who posts on this forum.

How can it be a conflict of interest if the person who manages the business of a CDD doesn't KNOW who cut down the trees? She wasn't there. I wasn't there. You weren't there. We are all pretty sure who dunnit...but proof is another matter.

. The CDD common grounds and preserves are enjoyed by all of us. Some more than others. Lovely views if you live on them.

I don't understand the combative stance against the developers.

virgind 03-07-2015 08:33 AM
By paying for the trees to be replaced is the district saying we did it.If I had to pay that and was not the guilty party I would want to find out did and have them pay. Kind of suspicious .

bargee 03-07-2015 08:37 AM
Tree Cutting
 
We now have people calling for an end to these postings.I would think that is exactly what the people involved in this illegal act were hoping for.Drag something out long enough and everyone will tire of hearing about it.

Cedwards38 03-07-2015 09:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy steam (Post 1024497)
Put a big fat reward for anyone with information , no questions asked . Maybe one of the workers who was in on it might come forward.
Yeah, we could start a bidding war between the VCDD offering a reward and the jerks who initiated this who would try to buy their silence! :BigApplause: Honestly, I bet that has already happened.

Mleeja 03-07-2015 10:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bargee (Post 1024616)
We now have people calling for an end to these postings.I would think that is exactly what the people involved in this illegal act were hoping for.Drag something out long enough and everyone will tire of hearing about it.
The only problem is no one is offering anything new. What is being posted on page 19 is the same thing posted on page 2. Post something new or original, or at least take the time to read what others have posted.....

marianne237 03-07-2015 12:21 PM
would have been cheaper in the long run to just have the moss removed ... than you could have seen the view (IMHO)

Bogie Shooter 03-07-2015 04:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mleeja (Post 1024508)
Couple of more post and we will hit 20 pages! The trees will grow back before we are done here. Kind of makes you miss talking about the Morse Ave. bridge... :024:
Its Morse Blvd.

Bogie Shooter 03-07-2015 04:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by graciegirl (Post 1024607)
I suggest going to a meeting where how a CDD is run is explained and not taking an explanation from someone who posts on this forum.

How can it be a conflict of interest if the person who manages the business of a CDD doesn't KNOW who cut down the trees? She wasn't there. I wasn't there. You weren't there. We are all pretty sure who dunnit...but proof is another matter.

. The CDD common grounds and preserves are enjoyed by all of us. Some more than others. Lovely views if you live on them.

I don't understand the combative stance against the developers.
You mean, this is the first you noticed from this poster?

Bogie Shooter 03-07-2015 04:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by virgind (Post 1024612)
By paying for the trees to be replaced is the district saying we did it.If I had to pay that and was not the guilty party I would want to find out did and have them pay. Kind of suspicious .
What makes you think the district is not trying to find out who did it?

Bogie Shooter 03-07-2015 04:54 PM
[QUOTE=Mleeja;1024699]The only problem is no one is offering anything new. What is being posted on page 19 is the same thing posted on page 2. Post something new or original, or at least take the time to read what others have posted.....[/QUOTE]

Could not agree more.

Bogie Shooter 03-07-2015 04:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by marianne237 (Post 1024783)
would have been cheaper in the long run to just have the moss removed ... than you could have seen the view (IMHO)
Ah ha...........how did you know the trees had moss?

marianne237 03-07-2015 04:57 PM
moss on trees...don't they all?

graciegirl 03-07-2015 05:00 PM
He's kiddin' Marianne.

Bogie. You ain't right.

Mleeja 03-07-2015 06:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bogie Shooter (Post 1024913)
Its Morse Blvd.
Ave...Blvd.... Don't ya know it is not anout the bridge, it is the manmade island under the bridge!:ho:


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:23 PM.
Page 5 of 14 « First 3 4 5 6 7 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v2.0.32 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.