[dbussone]

Originally Posted by outlaw

That's what happens to old unhappy people. Ergo the term "grumpy old farts".

Or as I prefer, Grump Buckets.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by outlaw

I don't think it's called a maintenance fee. Do you have a charge that says non-ad valorem?

Mine is listed under the "Non ad valorem assessments" section on 2 lines---one for bond and one for maintenance. Since this is on the county tax bill, is this for public infrastructure maintenance and nothing to do with amenities? I also found the previously posted list of what is covered by the fee in each area quite confusing. Knowing who is paying for what and how much it costs might shed light on possible fee outcomes after the mythical build out. And by that I mean status quo amenities, not the hypothetical wish list that some feel is inevitable.

[outlaw]

Originally Posted by rustyp

Yes - two of them. Waste collection fee and The Villages Fire District.

Sounds like you don't pay the maintenance fee in the typical TV way. Could be your common grounds maintenance is wrapped up in your city taxes, etc.

[billethkid]

Originally Posted by outlaw

Don't know what you mean. This happens regularly with developments. If you are saying it won't happen in TV, you may be right. But to say it isn't true of any developments is wrong. I believe, as in any captive market, the business entity will charge what the "customers" will bear. The business will tend to maximize profit. I have no problem with this scenario, because I think I am willing to bear more expense than most in TV, if it means fewer people using the amenities. As an example, if the developer decided, after the imaginary build out, to charge a green fee for playing on the executive courses, I would be ok with it, up to a point, if it meant there would be more tee time availability and the speed of play would pick up. If the developer started charging a participation fee for, let's say, water volleyball, I would be ok with that if it meant I didn't have to get there 45 minutes early and wait in line just to get a spot. The developer is already doing this with the tennis clubs, championship golf courses, country club pools, trail fee on executive courses, and fitness centers. No one really knows what will happen, and some just rely on this developer benevolence concept that may have existed when the original developer was alive. But now we have the children running things, and we will have to wait and see. I have heard from more than one business owner regarding their dealings with the developer, and "benevolent" is not used in their description.

I high light the above example ONLY to facilitate adding to the points I have already made about the kinds of "things" that can/will happen whenever/if the developer is no longer in the picture.

The developer had a strategy of building a lifestyle for everybody, regardless of income, stature, affordability, etc. That lifestyle include free golf for life (executive courses) and reasonabley priced Championship green fees.

Under resident ownership a real possibility of doing things differently is the high lighted example above (again only using the high light as an example....no counterpoint intended whatso ever by me).
And if for some reason something like that was approved......remember it is the active voters who make things happen....not the opinions on TOTV....there would be very many unhappy folks who may not want to pay green fees as that is not what they bought into, some may not afford the new rules, etc.

While using the above example to make a point, and it is currently hypothetical, it is in fact a real possibility.

Having lived in a real gated community with only 3 18 hole golf courses that went through the transition from developer to resident control, I can cite first hand some examples. The golf courses were for the exclusive use of residents only. Our monthly fees included playing the 3 courses. After the transition there was a movement started by some golfers to add a greens fee to be more of a filter to reduce the number of players to make t times easier for them to get and a side benefit they expected reduced pace of play.

It did get approved. It did all the things the participating golfers wanted to have happen. It also increased dramatically the number of homes that went up for sale.

For many reasons already listed in this thread, it seems unlikely the developer would divest from the operations of TV. However, keep in mind that it is always a possibility. And let there be no mistake, there will be a change in the lifestyle most residents bought into.

[lefty]

Why would there be a raise? Because the number of units paying the fees remain steady, how ever the costs will rise as materials, and labor both increase as time goes on.

[morriewayne]

Yes