Originally Posted by PennBF (Post 832378)

Darn, I was going to just stay out of this now and move on to other things in my life but it is hard to ignore distortions. The facts of the settlement are well documented and after hearing all the "Facts" the court ruled. That is the American way of life. I don't think anyone who moved to The Villages suggests they want to leave but that does not remove the right to representative government which is the "foundation" of the American system and what many have fought and died for. Does anyone really believe it is the right system to give the Developer (a good or bad one) a life time ability to rule over 100,000 residents without a solid check and balance. Our fore fathers thought a check and balance system was significant enough to establish the American form of government which is based on a Judicial, Executive and Legistative form of government. What makes the governing of the Villages any different in terms of control for the best interests of the residents. Some have given the Developer a sort of "King" form of government. That ultimately failed in England, etc. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Lets all pray that those who feel it is in the best interest to give one person the ability to rule their lives comes to their senses and recognize the folly in that form of governing.:ohdear:

Originally Posted by Advogado (Post 832353)

…...

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.

Originally Posted by PennBF (Post 832378)

Darn, I was going to just stay out of this now and move on to other things in my life but it is hard to ignore distortions. The facts of the settlement are well documented and after hearing all the "Facts" the court ruled. That is the American way of life. I don't think anyone who moved to The Villages suggests they want to leave but that does not remove the right to representative government which is the "foundation" of the American system and what many have fought and died for. Does anyone really believe it is the right system to give the Developer (a good or bad one) a life time ability to rule over 100,000 residents without a solid check and balance. Our fore fathers thought a check and balance system was significant enough to establish the American form of government which is based on a Judicial, Executive and Legistative form of government. What makes the governing of the Villages any different in terms of control for the best interests of the residents. Some have given the Developer a sort of "King" form of government. That ultimately failed in England, etc. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Lets all pray that those who feel it is in the best interest to give one person the ability to rule their lives comes to their senses and recognize the folly in that form of governing.:ohdear:

Originally Posted by Advogado (Post 832353)

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.

Originally Posted by PennBF (Post 832378)

...Does anyone really believe it is the right system to give the Developer (a good or bad one) a life time ability to rule over 100,000 residents without a solid check and balance. Our fore fathers thought a check and balance system was significant enough to establish the American form of government which is based on a Judicial, Executive and Legistative form of government. What makes the governing of the Villages any different in terms of control for the best interests of the residents...

Originally Posted by Polar Bear (Post 832423)

I don't necessarily disagree with some of your thoughts, but there is one HUGE difference...

The Villages is a PRIVATE development. Residents have chosen to move here, knowing the rules and organization beforehand.

(And please don't use the lame argument that citizen's have chosen to live in the US. Obviously that's apples and oranges.)

Originally Posted by Michigandress (Post 832430)

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.

Originally Posted by graciegirl (Post 832434)

The CDD form of government is unique to Florida. There are almost 600 other CDD's, but none nearly as successful.


I sense a movement to try to change this place and frankly I am terrified.


The IRS is challenging the MUNICIPAL bonds being tax exempt. Please remember that. If that was a slam dunk, the points would be on the scoreboard.

Originally Posted by Bogie Shooter (Post 832453)

Two people don't make a movement!

Originally Posted by Bogie Shooter (Post 832453)

Two people don't make a movement!

Originally Posted by Michigandress (Post 832430)

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.

Originally Posted by Polar Bear (Post 832502)

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 Advogado (Post 832509)

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

Originally Posted by PennBF (Post 832612)

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. ;)

Originally Posted by cquick (Post 831323)

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.

Originally Posted by mikeod (Post 831567)

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.

Originally Posted by Advogado (Post 832353)

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.

Originally Posted by bogie shooter (Post 831661)

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

Originally Posted by cfrance (Post 832126)

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?

Originally Posted by Warren Kiefer (Post 832761)

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 ???

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna (Post 832775)

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.

Originally Posted by rubicon (Post 832749)

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

Originally Posted by Advogado (Post 832796)

...
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.

Originally Posted by Bogie Shooter (Post 832783)

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

Originally Posted by Bogie Shooter (Post 832783)

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

Originally Posted by Bogie Shooter (Post 832783)

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

Originally Posted by dillywho (Post 833085)

Anybody see the independent audit results in today's paper? Sounds like somebody's doing something right. Just sayin'.

Originally Posted by PennBF (Post 833035)

In a number of cases the person(s) commenting bring up "Personalities" and how terrific someone in authority of The Villages Management is. The important and critical item is the "Governing System" in place and not the "Personality/Person". I know a lot admire the Developer and tout him to the point of being blind. He is a "Billionaire". He runs The Villages and continues to build his personal wealth based on income from The Village residents. Is that wrong? Only if he is gaining that income from abuses because of his authority. What is important is for TV's to have a governing system which prevents abuses and that does not exist. That is a fact and cannot be argued. Although Janet Tutt may be doing a good job it should not be forgotton nor lost that she is in the position/appointed by a series of actions that allegedly lead back to the Developer. Is that a healthy system, heck no. It is only as good as the person and the residents deserve better than that. Do I love the Villages? As I have said many times ..You betcha.Do I plan to stay and enjoy the community, You betcha. Do I think it is open to abuse because of the system of Personality vs Governing law, You betcha. What ever happened to those that have studied history and understand what I am saying? I am sure not that many cut those classes in school/college. :confused::

Originally Posted by dillywho (Post 832301)

First, let me say thank you for taking the time to respond to my post. Let's get one thing out of the way first. Please read my post again because I stated that I am not telling anyone to leave. Quite the contrary. I merely asked why someone would stay if they were so unhappy, dissatisfied, and bothered by what they signed on for. Some, if not most, of the issues that have been brought out are old and general knowledge, so do people not do any research beforehand? There are no bones made about how The Villages operates.

What I'm about to say is and isn't along the same lines, so please don't be offended. I am noticing more and more that people are moving here and then immediately want to start changing things to what "they are accustomed to back home". They don't like this, they don't like that, etc. Once again, do they not check it out first? Everything is not about what I like/don't like, you like/don't like, etc. That's why there is so much here....something for everyone. We knew when we moved here that there are no fences, no hedges above a certain height allowed, pet limits, etc., and accepted it.

Don't know who remembers, but Sumter One came about because our county taxes were being used everywhere in the county but here, because there was no representation for our part of the county. I don't see that being the case with the Developer because we do benefit from our own monies and always have. Maybe not like some would prefer, but we do reap the benefits.

I agree with your question about whether this is still a retirement community or more a vacation destination. I have seen it evolving since I've been here into more of a vacation spot for people who have no family or friends here. I don't like that. Maybe the hope is that they will like it and move here, but I don't really see that happening because so many are young families.

This is already too long, but as to the lawsuit, I agree with a lot of what you were saying about the lack of transparency. I don't agree with some getting personal settlements, either. I don't agree with some of the decisions made by the "Board (AAC)", but some good has come out of all of it. They were not refused by the Developer to do anything about the cart paths, but patches only were in the offing. Once the AAC was established, new paths were constructed. Much better.

As for the IRS, if their case were as strong as they would have others believe, it would not still be a lingering issue. This is only the 3rd or 4th time for this fight.

Thanks again for engaging me. We may not see completely eye-to-eye, but you and I both have some valid points. I do love discussions.

Originally Posted by Advogado (Post 832796)

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.

Originally Posted by rubicon (Post 833124)

Hi dillywho: we do agree on most things concerning this topic. However as to my comments regarding if you don't like it....what I am trying to say is disagreement is not disloyalty I may not like something or some event going on in TV but it does not mean I do not like TV or want to live here.

As to Sumter One I get concerned that 5 county commissioners being so close aligned with TV. It is always prudent and good business that there never be even" the appearance of impropriety and or a conflict of interest"

As to the multi modal cart paths I do not know if theACC attempted to have the Developer re-do them on his dime because in my view they were improperly designed (width) and the Developer should have at minimum thrown in some of his own money

Nothing goes quickly with the government except taxpayers monies so I am not surprised by the lengthy IRS battle and I don't see it as a sign that either side has lost or won

I also love a good discussion but unfortunately the climate of our time makes the impossible because there are far too many overseers who shut down any worthwhile debate. I long for the days of Bill Buckley debates where extreme opinions met fought and then celebrated in friendships forged owing to mutual respect.

Personal Best Regards