And by the time you get lawyers involved 50k will look like a pittance.

Another consideration that should be giving the perp some nervous moments.

According to a comment in the on-line news, the $50,000 figure is actually closer to $100,000. It cost $50,000 to replace the trees, according to published sources, but that figure doesn't include the $30,000 fine. Does anyone know if that is true?

Has anyone seen what amount was deducted from districts five through ten's budget to pay for this?

The districts were also assessed an inspection fee by swiftmud of about $5000 per year for a number of years, bringing the total to almost $100,000.

This thread has reached 322 posts 323 if you include this one. so the issue is on a lot of people's minds and a lot of those people are just livid over the fact that someone had a party, they were not invited ,but go stuck with the bill and they rightly want to know why.

It is clear that the District takes command from The Villages of Lake Sumter, Inc (TVLSI) because TVLSI has the only voting rights and TVSLI controls Sumter county, its commissioners (Sumter One) which is a powerful incentive and warning to Sumter County Agencies. It is also the basis for the IRS bond issue

I am convinced that the District and suggestion from The Villages Lake Sumter, Inc. (Developer)said we don't want a lot of publicity here its not a good look for "Florida's Friendliest Town" pay the bill

So, who exactly is to blame. who exactly is at fault, and how would YOU handle it? How could the district in any way financially benefit from this?


Stuff DOES happen. Nasty people bilk the general public all of the time. I think of all of the perfectly capable people that defraud welfare, and we pay and pay and pay and pay.

I think Rubicon's take on this makes a lot of sense.

Is it a given that it was one or more of the residents?
Is it possible one of the houses for sale the realtor(s) might have been involved?
Is it possible one or more of one of the developers organizations was "somehow" involved?

I became jaded and suspicious when I first heard about it, especially when TV stepped right up to the plate and very quickly announced it was paying for the result.....it just raises a question of why such a quick response with so many unknowns?

Because the bill came to the district? From a government authority? Isn't the James River authority an offshoot of a federal green agency

I don't get it. I don't get it. I don't get it. How could the developers in any way benefit from any of this. This is small change to them. I/4 of the price of a designer home. It is no big whoopy do to have someone cut down trees as far as ruining the reputation of the villages. I think something spicy like sex on the square would be closer to that kind of bad publicity.

Pretty expensive for some firewood gratuitously donated to four homeowners!

This thread meets the text book definition of "beating a dead horse".

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.

For those who have heard enough on the subject, move on! No one is making these posts mandatory reading for anyone. Those of us who think that very important principles are involved continue to keep the issue alive.:spoken:

Agree. Those that want to move on, no need to click on this thread. For those of us that want justice served, we never know when the next post is going to make us slap our head and say 'that's what happened' or 'that's why they did that' or 'now it all makes sense'.

Why do you think it is up to the developer to go after whoever did this? It seems like a criminal matter to me. It did not happen, as far as I know, on developer owned land.

Remember whem the oak trees were cut down at Buena Vista and Old Mill Run to build the Edgewater Bungalows? That wide open expanse with the trees gave way to construction of villas. I would imagine that the people who backed up to there missed those trees.

Good question, biker1. Such actions are permit violations...state issues that are up to the state to pursue.

With over 23,000 views of this thread, and 16 posts today, it seems there is still a lot of interest in this topic.

\\\

Wonder what would happen if a tenacious investigative reported took an interest in this case? Maybe someone who did not think well about TV. Ummmmm

Remain calm, Gracie. Deep breaths.:icon_wink:

Such as Lauren Ritchie, perhaps?

Maybe check out the bridge issue too.

.

so much for those that called "BS" on my statement the wealthy get a pass.....I'm sure the Sheriff's Dept is working as hard as OJ to find the perps

Well, I see we didn't solve the case overnight. :laugh:

The post said "reporter".