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.

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.

That's your opinion. I respectfully disagree.

Responding
 

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. ;)

Thank You
 

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.

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.

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.

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 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 ???

Confusing Answers
 

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 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..

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

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

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.