[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

That is because you have chosen not to look. Should you choose otherwise in the future, you might catch a glimpse or two of what most other people notice (whether they support what they notice or are against it are two different things).



A huge part of Sumter County was farmland, and wild hogs. Low employment because most people worked on their family's farm and were therefore not considered employees. Low income, because - family farm - no pay. The Villages bought out the farms, displaced the families, and razed all that farmland to develop homes for seniors - most of whom don't get a paycheck either because they're retired.



Yes, and I like chocolate ice cream, which I know for a fact that at least one member of the Morse Family also likes. It has nothing to do with the topic but hey - if it's good for you, it's good for me.



Yes, because in your world (as seen in the first paragraph of your post) - if you don't see it or think about it, it can't possibly exist.

I get that you don't like unpleasant things Gracie. I get that. I appreciate it. But not liking unpleasant things doesn't mean unpleasant things can't possibly exist if you choose to not pay attention to them.

Get back to me after living here for fifteen years and carefully observing. I have been here for a long time and still have the same screen name and I do still think it was the best choice to decide to move here. The people I have met and the safety of this place are only two reasons I love it here. People take good care of their stuff and most of them are rule followers. I never would have believed that something called a CDD could be really better run than a city with a mayor and councilmen.

Read this again. Take notes.

What Does The "Settlement" Mean With Regard To Recreation Facilities Management?

[Moderator]

The topic is the history of the POA. Please discuss the topic and not each other or the thread will be closed.

Moderator

[tophcfa]

POA should change the acronym to C&B, for checks and balances.

[manaboutown]

Thank God for the POA and the dedicated people who started and continue it to right wrongs. It attempts to assure the Developer keeps its obligations to maintain what it built even years ago and not focus primarily on new areas where it is building and selling new homes.

[biker1]

The Developer is not responsible for maintaining what it built years ago (I am assuming you were referring to the various amenities). The CDDs own the amenities, with the exception of those south of 44 that have not yet been turned over to the CDDs, and are responsible for maintaining them. The Developer does own the Championship Courses and the commercial property. I do agree that the POA does good work. I view them as responsible media.

Originally Posted by manaboutown

Thank God for the POA and the dedicated people who started and continue it to right wrongs. It attempts to assure the Developer keeps its obligations to maintain what it built even years ago and not focus primarily on new areas where it is building and selling new homes.

[twoplanekid]

Originally Posted by biker1

The Developer is not responsible for maintaining what it built years ago (I am assuming you were referring to the various amenities). The CDDs own the amenities, with the exception of those south of 44 that have not yet been turned over to the CDDs, and are responsible for maintaining them. The Developer does own the Championship courses and the commercial property. I do agree that the POA does good work. I view them as responsible media.

I believe that the amenities (recreational facilities) have to be purchased by the CDDs from the Developer. The system/procedure that is used to determine that value could be called into question. Is it fair to everyone?

[tophcfa]

I think that the list of the POA’s accomplishments is very misleading. Why, because the list does not include what could very well have happened if the POA did not exist.

[biker1]

Yes, the amenities are sold to the CDDs. A big chunk of your amenities fee goes to serving the debt from buying the amenities. Why do you think the "system/procedure that is used to determine the value could be called into question"? Do you have some reason to suspect something was not done equitably? I really done care for such speculations without some specific reason.

Originally Posted by twoplanekid

I believe that the amenities (recreational facilities) have to be purchased by the CDDs from the Developer. The system/procedure that is used to determine that value could be called into question. Is it fair to everyone?

[tophcfa]

Originally Posted by biker1

Yes, the amenities are sold to the CDDs. A big chunk of your amenities fee goes to serving the debt from buying the amenities. Why do you think the "system/procedure that is used to determine the value could be called into question"? Do you have some reason to suspect something was not done equitably? I really done care for such speculations without some specific reason.

Twoplanekid asked a reasonable question, there is no reason to attack anyone for wanting to understand the truth. Do you have any concrete facts to bring to the table to add clarity?

[Buffalo Jim]

If I am even half-correct in my observations it seems that the current low rate environment would lend itself to more creative financing for even some of the infrastructure projects which may have already been funded in the newly developed sections of the Community . As well as for those which will be required in the near future .

If the projects which drove the increase were properly financed in a more sophisticated construct it just might be possible to roll back much of the increase which has so many justifiably upset .

[biker1]

I wasn't the one attacking the fidelity of the process without providing any evidence. Add clarity to what? The fact that the CDDs purchase the amenities from the Developer? I think that is pretty clear. Anything else I can help you with?

Originally Posted by tophcfa

Twoplanekid asked a reasonable question, there is no reason to attack anyone for wanting to understand the truth. Do you have any concrete facts to bring to the table to add clarity?

[biker1]

I think you wanted to say "...because the list DOES INCLUDE what ..." ??? Presumably you meant that items credited to the POA would have happened regardless ??

Originally Posted by tophcfa

I think that the list of the POA’s accomplishments is very misleading. Why, because the list does not include what could very well have happened if the POA did not exist.

[Advogado]

Originally Posted by biker1

The Developer is not responsible for maintaining what it built years ago (I am assuming you were referring to the various amenities). The CDDs own the amenities, with the exception of those south of 44 that have not yet been turned over to the CDDs, and are responsible for maintaining them. The Developer does own the Championship Courses and the commercial property. I do agree that the POA does good work. I view them as responsible media.

You seem to imply that the resident-controlled CDDs own the amenities. That is not the case and never has been. The three Developer-controlled commercial CDDs own most of the amenities, having bought them from the Developer. The Developer has not yet sold his CDDs the amenities in the newest areas. Due to the class-action lawsuit settlement, residents have a degree of control over operation of the amenities.

Until the IRS cracked down on the Developer's abuse and ordered it stopped, the Developer had been having his CDDs issue purportedly tax-exempt bonds to raise cash to pay himself. This scam forced the US taxpayer to subsidize his business operations. Fortunately for the residents and for the Developer, the IRS did not impose its order retroactively and tax interest on the bonds already issued or our whole amenity system could have gone down the tubes.

(The Developer-controlled CDDs now have to issue taxable bonds to raise the cash, so we, as US taxpayers, are no longer subsidizing the Developer's business. However, we continue to subsidize it as Sumter County property-taxpayers as we pay for his county infrastructure though our 25% tax increase.)

During the multi-year IRS investigation of the Developer's abuse of tax-exempt bonds, the POA kept residents informed about what was going on. The VHA (a shill for the Developer) and the Daily Sun (owned by the Developer) downplayed the potential severity of the situation and spun the facts.

In addition, the POA wrote the IRS asking that any adverse ruling only be applied prospectively because of the disastrous impact that a retroactive ruling would have on our amenity system and life style. We will never know if the POA's letter affected final IRS non-retroactive ruling, but the episode is just one more example of the volunteers in the POA trying to look out for the interests of the residents.

The IRS incident is extremely complicated; so I won't get into further details, but if you didn't live here and follow the story as it was unfolding, you can read about it in archived POA Bulletins.

[biker1]

No, I never implied that. I did not go into the distinction between the commercial (VCCDD, SLCDD, BCDD) and residential CDDs. I did state that the amenities south of 44 have not been turned over yet. I was responding to the post regarding the Developer maintaining the amenities. That, as I posted, is not correct as the Developer does not own or maintain the amenities, the CDDs do. One of the main purposes of CDDs is to provide a form of "Government" with state regulated fiduciary responsibilities for the maintenance of amenities after the Developer has left.

Originally Posted by Advogado

You seem to imply that the resident-controlled CDDs own the amenities. That is not the case and never has been. The three Developer-controlled commercial CDDs own most of the amenities, having bought them from the Developer. The Developer has not yet sold his CDDs the amenities in the newest areas.

[PennBF]

To clear some of the air regarding the POA. I am familiar with the inter workings of the POA and to clarify the accusation that it is in anyway committed to a specific party
or organization is just plain wrong. If an official(s) is/are directing an action that is not in the best interest in the residents of The Villages then of course it will be addressed but not with intent of supporting a party/group but rather challenging the act that would have a negative impact for the residents. There have been a number of missteps by some that control the directions of the Villages. Did they go to "0" base budgeting, no. That may have helped them to remove some of the contamination in their spending. To accuse members of the Board of the POA of violating the original intent of the Organization would indicate a basic lack of understanding its historical and fundamental mission. I am not a current Board Member of the POA but make it my objective to understand their mission and results. I would be the first to say that in some instances I may not be in favor of a particular action allegedly supported by the POA, (e.g. not pressing hard enough for reflectors on all cart paths to help night driving, etc) but because of one or 2 opinions it would not justify missing the more serious questions being addressed by the POA and it's board!! We are lucky this Organization exists and truly adds a check and balance for the Residence. With a $10 a year fee it is the best buy in The Villages. Also, no one to my knowledge is turned down at the door to attend monthly meetings or to raise questions.You can always catch up with the paper
that is sent to each home in the Villages on a monthly basis!