Originally Posted by graciegirl (Post 477561)

Makes sense Billy. I may have to "occupy" that park. Not. Don't like politics and don't like inflaming the masses. One can't clearly see the issues anymore.

I don't know a dingy damn thing about it first hand. I feel that with all I have seen here and how things are handled, it will be alright.

Life is too short for this to cause my knickers to get all in a twist.

Originally Posted by JoeC1947 (Post 477622)

Sorry Gracie but I have to disagree with you. If you "don't know a dingy damn thing about it first hand" then you should find out rather than trust that the correct decision for the residents will be made.

Life may be too short for you, but I plan on living awhile and am on a limited budget. I don't want to pay for anything that I don't have to.

Originally Posted by salpal (Post 477601)

1. Residents wanted a dog park. Recreation Dept made it happen three times and was paid for via amenity fees, including ongoing maintenance.

2. Residents wanted improvement to Paradise Park (which was transferred to VCDDD) in the 1996 amenity transfer. The Rec Dept is working with an engineering firm to move this project along. ALL expenses are being paid via amenity fees.

3. The golf cart wayside park along Morse Bridge was transferred as an amenity facility from the Developer. It is now maintained via SLCDD with amenity fees.

Now, Live Oaks Park has been built on land donated to the SLCDD by the Developer, but now it is proposed that the $130,000 cost should be financed by your maintenance assessments instead of your amenity fees. Although a one-time may not be a big deal, it could set a precedent for all future improvements. This approach has a potential to cause annual maintenance assessments to go up for residents with NO limit to the increases. More parks south of 466 are being planned and will be paid for with this approach unless we stand against this.

VCDDD = Villages Central Community Development District

SLCDD = Sumpter Landing Community Development District which covers districts: 5 - 9.

Originally Posted by bike42 (Post 477371)

I think the POA is way off base on this one. Live Oaks Park is a small landscaped open space that has a path and a deck overlooking the wetlands. It is similar to Sunset Park (on the bridge on Morse Blvd), or the landscaped area south of Lake Sumter Landing at Canal and Stillwater, or the landscaped area near the cart path where Stillwater turns into Buena Vista, or some of the ponds where people can sit on a bench or fish. These are not recreation facilities -- no ball courts, pools, etc. -- why would you want your amenity fees to pay for them?

TV has very few peaceful green spaces that are open to humans; most of the open spaces are designated "preserve", fenced off with no access permitted. If people make a big stink about Live Oaks Park, we can be sure that no more beautiful spaces like this one will be planned for the new areas.

Originally Posted by zcaveman (Post 477663)

I don't live south of 466 but I have read the article in the POA news and I have to agree with bike42. This is a specific park that was built in a certain CDD district and should be covered by the maintenance fees in that district.

If that park had been designed and built when the area was developed it would have been part of the maintenance fees for that CDD. However, it that park was built after the fact, which I think it was based on a request from someone, the proposal should have gone before the members of that CDD at a CDD meeting where it should have been voted yea or nay to even build the park. It seems to me that it is a Missions of Haciendas Hills specific park.

Just my two cents.

Z

Originally Posted by graciegirl (Post 477646)

I am satisfied with how things are done, BUT I would be far more interested in getting all upset if I had not read what Bike42 had to say.

Janet Tutt should weigh in soon. Bogie? Why don't you send her a note?

But if the angel Gabriel came and talked to some people here they would still believe in a conspiracy. I Don't...and I plan on outliving you JoeC. ;)

Originally Posted by graciegirl (Post 477646)

I am satisfied with how things are done, BUT I would be far more interested in getting all upset if I had not read what Bike42 had to say.

Janet Tutt should weigh in soon. Bogie? Why don't you send her a note?

But if the angel Gabriel came and talked to some people here they would still believe in a conspiracy. I Don't...and I plan on outliving you JoeC. ;)

Originally Posted by zcaveman (Post 477663)

I don't live south of 466 but I have read the article in the POA news and I have to agree with bike42. This is a specific park that was built in a certain CDD district and should be covered by the maintenance fees in that district.

If that park had been designed and built when the area was developed it would have been part of the maintenance fees for that CDD. However, it that park was built after the fact, which I think it was based on a request from someone, the proposal should have gone before the members of that CDD at a CDD meeting where it should have been voted yea or nay to even build the park. It seems to me that it is a Missions of Haciendas Hills specific park.

Just my two cents.

Z

Originally Posted by JoeC1947 (Post 477714)

Then you can't use it and, we're going to put up a toll booth on that section of cart path!

Originally Posted by PennBF (Post 477642)

I am not sure why Janet is so invested in pushing this throuogh. At the last
SLCDD meeting the supervisors were asked to approve it BEFORE the CDD's voted and that was strange since if even one CDD objected it was over. One Supervisor asked the question as to why should they vote before the CDD's and there was no answer as to the procedure being requested and Janet was at the meeting. The Supervisors denied her request to vote then and said they should wait to see if the CDD"s were going to approve. Janet is usually logical so it is a loss to understand why she was trying to "push" this through? Who is behind it and WHY?
There is no question the Park is lovely and good for the residents. The question is paying for it! I will make an assumption. Lets assume the funding ultimately comes from Project Wide. Then a host of these could be built,
plus a number of other projects and there would be NO OVERSIGHT CONTORLS OF SPENDING. You will end up paying in your year end tax bill and they could spend as much as they want. It would be nice for Janet to get a request to spend money and not have to answer to anyone or have any controls over how much. Why would anyone want to give up a control in favor of no control. Does not make any sense. WHY??:read:

Originally Posted by rubicon (Post 477729)

PennBf:

PennBF: Janet's reasons are no mystery. You know why and you know how. Its politically correct name is "the long invisible hand."