[Russ_Boston]

Originally Posted by amgoldho

I love this place and always will at the same time from here on, I will tell people all that glitters is not gold. The best advertising in the world is word of mouth! Think about it!!

I don't understand this statement. Are you saying that you love this place and will give it BAD word of mouth? OR Are you saying that you love this place and will give it GOOD word of mouth?

Why on earth, even if you thought otherwise, own an investment in some location and then give it BAD word of mouth to endanger your investment?

Just wondering.

[Peachie]

I thought the same thing, Russ... if your soup is flat, wouldn't you add salt vs spitting in the pot? :dontknow:

[amgoldho]

OK, why would I say I love it here and then say to a possible new resident what has happened and could that happen again.

Because I came here with the belief that the developer always would put residents into consideration in future planning and building. Obviously this is not the case when you are left with the impression when you are looking at what was planned and would remain that way. Now every piece of open land except the golf courses is open to building. Freedom Point and Old Mill Landing are the examples. Isn't there a point of no return?

Yes, I will tell possible new residents what could happen and if they can live with that, fine. I will just pass along a warning. The ecology (I am far from being a greenie) of Florida is a fragile ecology and if the ecology is altered and/or disrupted the chance of something going wrong increases. South Florida has a long term water issue which could be remedied by the Everglades Restoration Project which will cost billions of dollars. If smart growth was the rule this issue could not happen. I will grant the developer one very important observation, the developer builds according to the contour of the land and does not tear it apart whether be a residential subdivision or commercial. Everything built seems to fit and is low profile. Other developers should be like ours in that respect.

I would be less angry and hurt, if the developer said to us, "there is open land which we could develop in the near future. This would either be residential or commercial." They would probably get more suggestions as to what to do with the open land then go behind the back.

[Peachie]

Alan, I don't know if it because we live in an area that has had so much grow in the last 25 years but when hubby and I first visited The Villages four years ago, we wondered what would be put in the undeveloped areas where the buffalo roamed. Even four years ago there was conversation in The Villages that the buffalo were on that land to make the taxes more palatable until the areas were developed. (Hubby and I have seen a lot of beautiful farmland in the Midwest gobbled up for development.) We, also, would like to know what is planned for those areas but I'm sure there is a masterplan for this community and the developer is not looking for our input for changes. If they start filling in the lowlands and lakes, we will then be in trouble.

[samhass]

I guess I'm confused. Who owns the land..we or he? If he owns the land, why shouldn't he be able to develop it, within zoning standards, as he sees fit? He seems to have a grand master plan. His plan has made TV a highly desirable place to live in the US. We are here and many more want to come. Utopia does not exist...but TV is kind of close.
Going back to the buffalo, you had to know they would never be a permanent fixture and were simply a tax tool. We all use tax tools. Why is there this constant demonization of Gary Morse? He is richer and way smarter than I am. That does not awaken the green eyed monster within me. We all made the choice to live here. We could and should try to improve our living conditions here in TV with constuctive suggestions.
I have never felt the developer "went behind my back." He doesn't require my permission or consent to do much of anything.

[ladykathleen]

When we moved here there was a lawsuit against the developer building Sumpter Landing brought against him because of concerned citizens worried about the water tables in this area and the impact that so much development would have on the land. Much open space was here all that not so long ago. Many residents who bought here were "promised" not written, that no development would take place in several areas. I attended a garden meeting a year ago by a former resident who is very distressed with the loss of natural habitat that was supposed to remain undeveloped for wildlife. There had been an orginal plan that we saw and were told about, about what would be developed in the future ,however that is not so today. Is this a situation where like the Talk Host the railroad was not shown on the Villages maps of that time.

[samhass]

I hate that talk Host has to endure the train. This subject is not about the train. It is about the Lake Sumter Landing area.
People will continue to move to Florida. Central Florida is a wonderful place to live on many levels. You will not stop the influx of people into this area. High density dwelling seems preferable to urban sprawl.
More than once I have seen the attitude " I was here 2,4,5,10,___ years ago. You new people should stay up north where you came from. Is that the real issue here? We have what we want and all you newbie wannabees should not mess up our lifestyle."

[SteveFromNY]

Originally Posted by samhass

More than once I have seen the attitude " I was here 2,4,5,10,___ years ago. You new people should stay up north where you came from. Is that the real issue here? We have what we want and all you newbie wannabees should not mess up our lifestyle."

Deb, I agree with your position. Lots of the old not-in-my-back-yard syndrome. I can't imagine how naive someone would have to be to see that large swath of land alongside the hotel and across from that HUGE empty parking lot and think it was going to remain a buffalo pasture forever. It's going to be developed by the evil developer that developed all the rest of the wonderful things in TV. What has the developer done wrong already? Some may find fault in certain areas, but overall everything seems to add to the desirability of TV. Look around at the open space that will stay. The golf courses (yes, of course there are golf courses that won't be developed), the "preserves" that are all around, even just the roads and pools and rec centers - which aren't open space per se, but still not developed with folks living there. Overall the entire effect is positive, and apparently I am not alone thinking that.
IMHO, if the developer puts something in place in that empty cow field, it will be a boon to the area, only making it a little more desirable to be here. I know he (they) are making lots of money, and it's in their continued best interest not to :edit: it up so they can keep doing so.

[dianerk]

We purchased in 2006. Asked at that time what would go across from Barnes & Noble where the buffalo were at that time. (We actually assumed it would NEVER stay a buffalo pasture.) We were told it was zoned for future buildout. Just my humble input to this bashing of the developer.

[Peachie]

Sam and Steve, stand up and take a bow, .

[samhass]

I think most people would assume it would never stay a buff pasture. jbsmom.. you still haven't had that cat coiffed??
Peachie, thanks..sometimes it gets scary taking a stand. People get very passionate about these issues.

Originally Posted by jbsmom

We purchased in 2006. Asked at that time what would go across from Barnes & Noble where the buffalo were at that time. (We actually assumed it would NEVER stay a buffalo pasture.) We were told it was zoned for future buildout. Just my humble input to this bashing of the developer.

[Peachie]

You're right, Sam, but many people read this forum and it's so important to present the "other side of the coin". Working together to build up vs tearing down or defaming our community reaps greater rewards. One may want to inform their friends of upcoming changes but that doesn't require blackening the community eye. I think the hardest principle for some people to grasp is perhaps the developer is doing what developers do and not trying to ruin what they have created. (Now don't prove me wrong, Mr. Morse.....)

[downeaster]

It seems every last son-of-a-gun wants to be the last son-of-a-gun to move to Florida.
Or, as submariners say, Close the hatch and take her down, I'm aboard.

DC

[billethkid]

Let's see, the developer has been dong this successfully for almost 40 years. The very obvious results over the years and to date is they do it better and better and better.
I know of no developer who would go to the masses to test for reaction....see what they want next....can you imagine the multiple inputs....multiple interests...LACK OF PROGRESS!!!!
The Villages I suspect attains approval by residents of 90%++. And of course like everything else, the naysayers (minority) seem to be louder than those of us who are happy and satisfied.
Makes one wonder why they bought here in the first place.
I believe the developer does an outstanding job of providing what the market wants in housing and amenities. There is a different critical mass here now than when the built things like bowling alleys and Katie Bells. The critical mass has worked wonders in attracting national brands of all sorts.
The more they develop, the better it continues to get for us property owners including retaining property values. And in that process the developer et al are getting rich(er).
Aren't we blessed? Because if they weren't, then there would be cause for concern.

We loved it here 5 years ago and like it more each year.

BTK

[renielarson]

The Villages is no different than anywhere else. The developer can do whatever he wants with the land as long as the plan follows zoning ordinances. Of course, not everyone is going to agree with every plan. That's human nature. However, if the developer has not violated any ordinances then he has the privilege of carrying out his plan regardless of what you or I may think.

amgoldho: I am confused by the statement you made of "I would be less angry and hurt, if the developer said to us, "there is open land which we could develop in the near future. This would either be residential or commercial." They would probably get more suggestions as to what to do with the open land then go behind the back." Please explain how Mr. Morse supposedly (by your claim) went behind anyone's back? What do you base that belief?

Mr. Morse is doing his job of developing the land he owns of which he has every right to do. I don't know of any place that requires a developer to ask for citizen input.