[Michigandress]

Originally Posted by Bogie Shooter

Two people don't make a movement!

You are quite right. The chances of any kind of a political movement taking root in The Villages, unless something goes disastorously wrong, are between nothing and zero, and I don't think any posters in this thread have advocated starting one. Bottom line: Gracie Girl has nothing to be "terrified" about.

[Polar Bear]

It's not wrong.

A CDD is a unique form of governing body. But it does not change the fact that TV is a privately controlled development. We could argue this point all day long. It could come down to semantics or a bit of a gray area. But TV would not exist if a private developer didn't build it and agree to forming a governing body of a certain sort...over which he still maintains great control.

To somebody deciding whether or not to come here, it's very little different from a subdivision (a huge one for sure...heheh) with deed restrictions. There is some similarity (very little imo) to a city government. No comparison at all to a county/state/federal government.

Originally Posted by Michigandress

Wrong.

The Villages is not a private development. True, it has been built by one Developer, but it is supposedly governed by Community Development Districts. Community Development Districts (as the Developer argues when confronted by the IRS) are, or are supposed to be, governmental units and not part of the Developer's private fiefdom.

[Advogado]

Originally Posted by Polar Bear

It's not wrong.

A CDD is a unique form of governing body. But it does not change the fact that TV is a privately controlled development. We could argue this point all day long. It could come down to semantics or a bit of a gray area. But TV would not exist if a private developer didn't build it and agree to forming a governing body of a certain sort...over which he still maintains great control.

To somebody deciding whether or not to come here, it's very little different from a subdivision (a huge one for sure...heheh) with deed restrictions. There is some similarity (very little imo) to a city government. No comparison at all to a county/state/federal government.

You are making the same argument that the IRS is making in its tax-exempt-bond investigation. I hope for all our sakes that your argument does not prevail in that process. If it does, we have a problem.

[Polar Bear]

Originally Posted by Advogado

You are making the same argument that the IRS is making in its tax-exempt-bond investigation...

That's your opinion. I respectfully disagree.

[PennBF]

Graciegirl, you asked if I ever served on a Community Board. After seeing the terrible abuse you have taken for exposing personal information there is no way I would put myself in that bullseye. My words speak for themselves !! My private life and history is mine. I am sorry you were attacked and although I have great differences with your position on a number of issues I continue to respect your right to voice them.

[dillywho]

Originally Posted by PennBF

Graciegirl, you asked if I ever served on a Community Board. After seeing the terrible abuse you have taken for exposing personal information there is no way I would put myself in that bullseye. My words speak for themselves !! My private life and history is mine. I am sorry you were attacked and although I have great differences with your position on a number of issues I continue to respect your right to voice them.

Excellent post! We should each respect one another's right to voice our opinions. You are spot on. Thank you. We don't have to agree with one another but respect is due everyone.

[Warren Kiefer]

Originally Posted by cquick

when The Villages is "built out" the developer will probably hand over the governing of the development to a board. The board will probably be elected by the residents. but we will still need a "city manager" who is in charge of the staff at the office.

yOU JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND THE VCDD AND SLCDD MAKE UP... THE CENTRAL BOARD THAT IS PRESENTLY ELECTED BY THE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THAT DISTRICT. THE VCDD BOUNDARIES ENCOMPASS THE SPANISH SPRINGS "DOWNTOWN AREA" AND THERE IS NOT A SINGLE RESIDENT THAT LIVES WITHIN THOSE BOUNDARIES AND NEVER WILL. IF THE DEVELOPER WOULD CHOOSE TO SELL THAT PROPERTY TO PERHAPS A INVESTMENT GROUP, THEY THEN WOULD HAVE THE ONLY VOTE OF WHO WOULD SERVE ON THE VCDD BOARD. THIS IS WHERE I BECOME A LITTLE UNEASY, OUR GOVERNING BODY ( THE VCDD) COULD IN FACT BECOME UNDER THE CONTROL OF ANY LARGE OF INVESTMENT ORGANIZATION.

[Warren Kiefer]

Originally Posted by mikeod

warren -there's nothing in your post that's inaccurate from my perspective. But i remember an incident several years ago that i think involved a failed retention pond liner that was on or near a golf course. The developer wanted the local ccd to cover the cost to repair the liner. Janet tutt was able to convince the developer that the cost should be his since the pond was on a championship course he owned. So, i have seen her successfully oppose the developer where money was involved. This doesn't mean she will always do that, but it shows she does not automatically defer to the developer's opinion.

the truth here is that the poa was the driving force to get the money refunded from the developer. The developer had no defence, the residents were charged for a liner that was on the developers private property. Actually it was a savvy resident that caught the error. Why the residents were charged for the liner in the first place is still a puzzle to me.

[rubicon]

Originally Posted by Advogado

Re your point 6. We are entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts. On what basis do you say the settlement terms were sealed? The court summary is here: The Villages, FL - Class Action Settlement Notice - www.thevillagesfl.us
That "Notice of Settlement" clearly states that all records related to the case may be inspected at the courthouse.

In earlier posts, I have suggested that those critics who think that the class action against the Developer was unjustified can cleanse their consciences by refunding, to the Developer, their prorata share of the settlement proceeds. To the best of my knowledge, none of the critics has done so.

Hi Avogado: I believe you might dig a little deeper because the plaintiff attorney signed a confidentially agreement with the Developer. what you are referring to was the lawsuit filed with the causes of actions not this agreement and its this agreement many are interested in reading because it contains some covenants

Personal Best Regards

[Warren Kiefer]

Originally Posted by bogie shooter

you make it sound like we have a problem with the way she performs her job right now. I don't believe we do.

I don't have a problem with anything. I am simply making a point for everyone to consider. Janet tutt is hired by a board that is 100% under the control of the developer. The developer does not pay her salary, the residents actually provide the funds. If a situation arose where the developer was at severe odds with the residents, perhaps a huge law suit, do you actually think janet tutt would do battle for the residents against the developer ??? And if she did , how long do you think she would have her present job ???

[Villages Kahuna]

The answers to this question can be a bit confusing. There are actually different kinds of development districts--the residential ones like Districts 1 thru 9, or what ever it's up to now. And the development districts which govern the affairs of the commercial districts like Spanish Springs, Lake Sumter Landing and Brownwood, the Central Development Districts. Janet Tutt actually serves at the pleasure ('elected', if you will) of the property owners of those commercial districts, which happens to be the Developer of The Villages.

What she governs are the affairs and operation of those commercial districts. Each of the residential districts after they are established for a number of years, are governed by residents who are elected to fill the roles of district commisioners. It's a little more complicated than that in that the number of residents on the residential district boards increase over time from one to five as the Developer withdraws from the management of those districts.

By the way, I think Ms.Tutt does a helluva good job of executing her responsibilities.

[Warren Kiefer]

Originally Posted by cfrance

i hesitate to weigh in here, but isn't the point of a manager to work for the owner and keep his "company" well oiled and running smoothly? Take over the day-to-day ops and free him up to work on bigger things?

you have a misunderstanding of the vcdd and slcdd as it pertains to janet tutt. Let me explain once again. Janet tutt does not work work for the developer period !!!!! She works as a manager and in the interest of the residents who actually fund her salary thru the vcdd and slcdd. Now for the possible conflict of interest, these central board members are elected by a single landowner, that being the developer. These two boards being under the control of the developer hire janet tutt and pay her with resident money..

[Bogie Shooter]

Originally Posted by Warren Kiefer

i don't have a problem with anything. I am simply making a point for everyone to consider. Janet tutt is hired by a board that is 100% under the control of the developer. The developer does not pay her salary, the residents actually provide the funds. If a situation arose where the developer was at severe odds with the residents, perhaps a huge law suit, do you actually think janet tutt would do battle for the residents against the developer ??? And if she did , how long do you think she would have her present job ???

This sounds like a broken record...................................

[Bogie Shooter]

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

The answers to this question can be a bit confusing. There are actually different kinds of development districts--the residential ones like Districts 1 thru 9, or what ever it's up to now. And the development districts which govern the affairs of the commercial districts like Spanish Springs, Lake Sumter Landing and Brownwood, the Central Development Districts. Janet Tutt actually serves at the pleasure ('elected', if you will) of the property owners of those commercial districts, which happens to be the Developer of The Villages.

What she governs are the affairs and operation of those commercial districts. Each of the residential districts after they are established for a number of years, are governed by residents who are elected to fill the roles of district commisioners. It's a little more complicated than that in that the number of residents on the residential district boards increase over time from one to five as the Developer withdraws from the management of those districts.

By the way, I think Ms.Tutt does a helluva good job of executing her responsibilities.

You are soon to get a - yes, but............reply.

[Advogado]

Originally Posted by rubicon

Hi Avogado: I believe you might dig a little deeper because the plaintiff attorney signed a confidentially agreement with the Developer. what you are referring to was the lawsuit filed with the causes of actions not this agreement and its this agreement many are interested in reading because it contains some covenants

Personal Best Regards

I am always willing to be educated, but it is inconceivable to me that the terms of a settlement in a class-action suit could ever be kept confidential from the members of the class (i.e., all the residents north of 466), but that is what you are alleging. Could you clarify for me exactly what confidentiality agreement you are referring to? I am relatively familiar with the class action, and a this is the first time that I have heard of it.

By the way, I personally know most of the plaintiffs in the class action and I have a lot of respect for them and for what they did for all of us. If you have any questions about the settlement, I am sure that they would be glad to answer them. Furthermore, if you have any concerns that the plaintiffs were motivated by anything other than protecting the rights of the Villagers, which at the time were being abused by the Developer, I can assure you that you are barking up the wrong tree.

My only concern about the settlement is that maybe the $43,000,000 might turn out not to be enough (if, for example we get a huge increase in the minimum wage or the IRS investigation turns out badly), but we will have to deal with that if and when a problem arises.