[mickey100]

Originally Posted by Dr Winston O Boogie jr

City Managers are usually not voted into office. They are usually hired by a city council.

But, yes, we do not vote for those who control the Villages and as much as I am in favor of a representative republic, this seems to work out very well.

Sometimes people who know what they're doing, appointing people who know what they are doing works better than the unknowing, impressionable masses voting for people who make a good impression on them.

Unknowing, impressionable masses? That makes the residents sound like a bunch of dummies. There are a lot of well educated, successful people here. I feel confidant that the residents could hire or elect proper representation.

[Abby10]

Originally Posted by mickey100

Unknowing, impressionable masses? That makes the residents sound like a bunch of dummies. There are a lot of well educated, successful people here. I feel confidant that the residents could hire or elect proper representation.

Since I responded to Dr O Boogie's post with an "Amen to that!", I will respond to this too. I think the good Dr was speaking somewhat in generalities about how things often work in this world of ours and I was agreeing with that generality. The part that I agree with YOU about is that there does seem to be a lot of educated, successful people in TV and so with confidence I would consider moving there knowing where the transition of power may eventually go in the future. However, for now, why fix what is not broken? Although, I do not know Janet Tutt personally, or much about her really, she must be doing a darn good job considering all she has to handle. TV, in my very humble opinion and with limited knowledge of TV compared to many of you, seems to run like a well oiled machine. Much different than what I experience in the world outside "the bubble".

[mickey100]

As I said previously, My preference would be to have a manager that reports to the residents. Why - ? In most cases, the interests of the Developer and the residents coincide. From time to time, however, the Developer has acted in his own interests in a way that is detrimental to Villagers. As in the $40 million lawsuit. No one ever said Janet Tutt was not doing a good job. My concern has always been the Developer. For those of you who trust the Developer, all is fine and good. We will agree to disagree.

[Mikeod]

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.

That's not the way I understand it. The VCCDD and SLCDD will control the community. North of 466 essentially shows how it will work at build-out. I expect there will be either a second AAC or an expanded AAC that will administer amenity related funds beyond what is needed to service the bonds used to purchase the amenities from the developer. A position like Ms. Tutt's will remain and will remain appointed/hired by the central districts.

[dillywho]

Originally Posted by mickey100

As I said previously, My preference would be to have a manager that reports to the residents. Why - ? In most cases, the interests of the Developer and the residents coincide. From time to time, however, the Developer has acted in his own interests in a way that is detrimental to Villagers. As in the $40 million lawsuit. No one ever said Janet Tutt was not doing a good job. My concern has always been the Developer. For those of you who trust the Developer, all is fine and good. We will agree to disagree.

I live north of 466 where the ACC exists and is elected. I, for one, have not always agreed with or thought that they were doing things in the best interest for ALL the residents. Sometimes it seems like it is for only a select segment, regardless of what the others have had to say. Sometimes, I have felt that they operate more in the interests of the Board, but that might just be me. Like the Developer, they are not perfect but when they won the lawsuit, this board is what they got. The whole thing started with the issue of the cart paths and went from there. I have nothing that has to do with the RV storage lot, some do, and some of all the money went for lighting or some such something there. Some things have been really good; some not so much. Sometimes, it's wise to 'be careful what you wish for because you just might get it'.

The "wall" might have seemed like a good idea at the time, but apparently wasn't thought through as thoroughly as it could/should have been. I'm not even close to the area and never used that route, but I took it as an effort to protect the Villagers and their interests. It had some unintended consequences and was soon changed, albeit not to the satisfaction of all. It will always be virtually impossible to please everyone, no matter whose in charge.

Agreeing to disagree is always good. Thank God for allowing us to live in a country where we are free to do just that. Few on this planet are so fortunate.

[DougB]

Originally Posted by mickey100

Unknowing, impressionable masses? That makes the residents sound like a bunch of dummies. There are a lot of well educated, successful people here. I feel confidant that the residents could hire or elect proper representation.

You have a lot more confidence than me. I think I will go with the dummy theory.

[Indydealmaker]

Originally Posted by TVMayor

I witnessed Queen Tutt in person, when asked why and who put up the Berlin wall she replied, I do not know, that impressed me and that will always be the standard I judge her by.

Apparently, you know for a fact that she lied. That acknowledgement means that you and Mrs. Tutt were the only two people at the meeting with that knowledge. I would say that it was incumbent upon you to speak up at that time since you have such intimate insight.

[Warren Kiefer]

Originally Posted by Bogie Shooter

The POA on many occasions has said that very thing, "she works for the residents best interest".

The bottom line in these comments is the fact that Janet Tutt owes her job to the developer. The following are the simple facts, the central district boards employ Janet Tutt. The central district board members are elected by a single property owner, that being the only property owner, the developer. The operating funds of the central districts come from from the residents. Janet Tutt is paid from these funds. Janet Tutt receives her salary from the Residents, she owes her employment to the central district boards who are 100% controlled by the developer. If push comes to shove, do you think Janet tutt would take a adversary role opposing the developer?? You make up your own mind if this is a healthy arrangement for the residents ????

[Mikeod]

Originally Posted by Warren Kiefer

The bottom line in these comments is the fact that Janet Tutt owes her job to the developer. The following are the simple facts, the central district boards employ Janet Tutt. The central district board members are elected by a single property owner, that being the only property owner, the developer. The operating funds of the central districts come from from the residents. Janet Tutt is paid from these funds. Janet Tutt receives her salary from the Residents, she owes her employment to the central district boards who are 100% controlled by the developer. If push comes to shove, do you think Janet tutt would take a adversary role opposing the developer?? You make up your own mind if this is a healthy arrangement for the residents ????

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.

[Advogado]

Originally Posted by Warren Kiefer

The bottom line in these comments is the fact that Janet Tutt owes her job to the developer. The following are the simple facts, the central district boards employ Janet Tutt. The central district board members are elected by a single property owner, that being the only property owner, the developer. The operating funds of the central districts come from from the residents. Janet Tutt is paid from these funds. Janet Tutt receives her salary from the Residents, she owes her employment to the central district boards who are 100% controlled by the developer. If push comes to shove, do you think Janet Tutt would take a adversary role opposing the developer?? You make up your own mind if this is a healthy arrangement for the residents ????

Everything you say is clearly correct, and it is not a healthy arrangement for the residents.

However, to her credit, Ms. Tutt has probably done as well as anybody could in coping with the inherent conflicts of interest that arise from time to time in her job. But she can never cross the developer. Again, thank goodness for the POA since we have no official who will represent our interests when they conflict with those of the Developer, as they have from time to time in the past and will probably from time to time do so in the future.

[graciegirl]

I am 74 years old and I have lived in many wonderful areas in my life but nothing has even come close to the way The Villages is run. I cringe to think of any change where the residents would make the decisions about this place. We would become a town like all of the ones we left, with elected mayors and too many projects where money is squandered and the amenity fees would have to go up. up. up. Everyone would get every little thing they want, we would have ten indoor pools, ten dog parks, an enormous performance center and we would be changing the street signs from hind side too and back again and there would be discussions about painting murals inside the tunnels and having five star chefs at McDonalds and pay a thousand dollars a month in amenities. We would keep changing contracts on the roadside landscaping and soon the mulch would disappear and weeds appear and the roundabouts would be changed to signs that say, every man for himself. We would squabble over speed limits and age limits and fences.


HORRORS.

[CFrance]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

I am 74 years old and I have lived in many wonderful areas in my life but nothing has even come close to the way The Villages is run. I cringe to think of any change where the residents would make the decisions about this place. We would become a town like all of the ones we left, with elected mayors and too many projects where money is squandered and the amenity fees would have to go up. up. up. Everyone would get every little thing they want, we would have ten indoor pools, ten dog parks, and enormous performance center and we would be changing the street signs from hind side too and back again and there would be discussions about painting murals inside the tunnels and having five star chefs at McDonalds and pay a thousand dollars a month in amenities. We would keep changing contracts on the roadside landscaping and soon the mulch would disappear and weeds appear and the roundabouts would be changed to signs that say, every man for himself. We would squabble over speed limits and age limits and fences.


HORRORS.

Thanks for reminding me! We just left a town like that, making many poor choices with our tax dollars.

[mickey100]

Originally Posted by Advogado

Everything you say is clearly correct, and it is not a healthy arrangement for the residents.

However, to her credit, Ms. Tutt has probably done as well as anybody could in coping with the inherent conflicts of interest that arise from time to time in her job. But she can never cross the developer. Again, thank goodness for the POA since we have no official who will represent our interests when they conflict with those of the Developer, as they have from time to time in the past and will probably from time to time do so in the future.

Great post.

[jhrc4]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

I am 74 years old and I have lived in many wonderful areas in my life but nothing has even come close to the way The Villages is run. I cringe to think of any change where the residents would make the decisions about this place. We would become a town like all of the ones we left, with elected mayors and too many projects where money is squandered and the amenity fees would have to go up. up. up. Everyone would get every little thing they want, we would have ten indoor pools, ten dog parks, an enormous performance center and we would be changing the street signs from hind side too and back again and there would be discussions about painting murals inside the tunnels and having five star chefs at McDonalds and pay a thousand dollars a month in amenities. We would keep changing contracts on the roadside landscaping and soon the mulch would disappear and weeds appear and the roundabouts would be changed to signs that say, every man for himself. We would squabble over speed limits and age limits and fences.


HORRORS.

A lot of thought went into what Gracie just wrote a lot ... Please take a second or two and think about what Gracie wrote. I have an opinion that as we all grow older we really do not get any smarter but... we all hopefully get so much Wiser . Well put Gracie, well put.

[mickey100]

Originally Posted by Warren Kiefer

The bottom line in these comments is the fact that Janet Tutt owes her job to the developer. The following are the simple facts, the central district boards employ Janet Tutt. The central district board members are elected by a single property owner, that being the only property owner, the developer. The operating funds of the central districts come from from the residents. Janet Tutt is paid from these funds. Janet Tutt receives her salary from the Residents, she owes her employment to the central district boards who are 100% controlled by the developer. If push comes to shove, do you think Janet tutt would take a adversary role opposing the developer?? You make up your own mind if this is a healthy arrangement for the residents ????

Well said. And this has nothing to do with Janet Tutt personally. From the sounds of it, she does a fine job, given the situation. Just can't imagine how this could be a healthy situation for the residents.