[Advogado]

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?

Yes, but the job of a government official is to represent the interests of her constituents. That is very hard for anybody in Janet Tutt's position to do in cases where the interests of the Developer conflict with those of her constituents and the Developer can fire her at any time. From what I have seen, Ms. Tutt does a reasonably good job of dealing with the situation. But residents should be aware of the fact that she can never cross the Developer when his interests are at odds with those of the residents.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by PennBF

If anyone is interested in knowing how a community, whether it be a Condo or HOA/Villages, etc. should be controlled they should familiarize themselves with Florida Law 718 which is the law Condo's and Condo Boards must follow and the limitations of the Developer. It controls the Developer from continuing to rule the community once the homes/condos have been built and places very tough laws for the Boards to follow. It is amazing the difference in the way the developer is controlled and the prevention of "Developer Abuses". In addition there is pretty a long schedule of fines for violating the rules. Somehow it has been possible for a group to convince the Florida State Reps. to allow almost unlimited abuses by the Developer when they call it an HOA? It is clear that under 718 there would not be an IRS abuse as is the case with The Villages. It would be checked at the very start of the practice! Boards are not only held accountable to the residents but the Government and both fines and criminal charges can be brought forward if there are certain violations. There is no accountability to the "Board" in The Villages as the "Psedo"Board" is the Developer. Checks and balances do not exist. The developer is a business and too many want to give a business a "soul". A business is a "profit making organization" and does not have a soul no matter how many want to pretend it does.

I said I was done. But we are a CDD not a condo or an HOA.
http://activerain.com/blogsview/2401...pment-district

[PennBF]

The purpose was to point out that both cover communities and both should have the objective to do what is best for the resident consumer. One prevents abuses of the consumer resident by law and fines and criminal charges the other avoids protection of the consumer resident in favor of the Deverloper. These are facts and not arguable. CDD's are protections of the resident only to the degree the developer wants to support the CDD. They are in the main totally influenced by the Villages manager who has the power to constrain/direct their behavior. It is possible to cloud the facts and over look reality. It is a shame to do that since it is unfair to the residents who need protection. In today's world the POA is the only one which the resident have to protect them from abuse. There should be laws on the books which do that and not ask the POA to carry that burden.

[dillywho]

Originally Posted by rubicon

Hi dillywho: Let me preface my remarks by explaining that to me to suggest that if someone doesn't like it they should move is not a cogent argument, its an emotional reaction. Secondly, I am perplex by people who seem to defend the reputation of the Developer. Now going down your list:

1) do we have a retirement community or has it turned into a vacation destination?

2) As to its history you would have to apply the "What did they know"and "when did they know it". so it depends on when someone moved here and what transpired before they arrived?

3) you don't see a problem with the Developer paying the check for the one person who has the responsibility for protecting our interest? I mean you don't see this as a "conflict of interests"?

4) I strongly suggest that you read the Notice of Proposed Issue #1, #2, #3 filed by the IRS .

5) The ACC was a result of the Amenity settlement that was suppose to give residents freedom to decide on how to spend amenities. Janet Tutt and others aligned with the developer sit on that council. I am not saying it is right or wrong, in fact I believe some of the decision coming from the ACC are not well thought out. But I won't manage from beneath because I do not know what they are dealing with

6) This lawsuit was settled but why was it sealed and why didn't the residents north of 466 have an opportunity to hear the proposals before they settled. It was styled a class action and residents were told the suit was going to be settled and if they want to opt out they had to file on their own behalf. Did the plaintiff lawyers settle this suit too quickly? Ask yourself why would the developer make an offer only after 15 months? As to precedent how can we ever have one because the settlement was settled for that reason among others. Had the plaintiffs in this case made it more difficult for the POA or residents in the future t bring suit against the Developer? We simply don't know

7) You know my feeling about telling people to move. What are we not getting. I suggest residents begin with understanding the financial statements and follow through with daily transactions. I mean we don't know what we don't know.

I have a good feeling about Janet Tutt but business is business and far too many residents ignore the business goings on here


Personal Best Regards

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.

[Advogado]

Originally Posted by rubicon

Hi dillywho: Let me preface my remarks by explaining that to me to suggest that if someone doesn't like it they should move is not a cogent argument, its an emotional reaction. Secondly, I am perplex by people who seem to defend the reputation of the Developer. Now going down your list:

1) do we have a retirement community or has it turned into a vacation destination?

2) As to its history you would have to apply the "What did they know"and "when did they know it". so it depends on when someone moved here and what transpired before they arrived?

3) you don't see a problem with the Developer paying the check for the one person who has the responsibility for protecting our interest? I mean you don't see this as a "conflict of interests"?

4) I strongly suggest that you read the Notice of Proposed Issue #1, #2, #3 filed by the IRS .

5) The ACC was a result of the Amenity settlement that was suppose to give residents freedom to decide on how to spend amenities. Janet Tutt and others aligned with the developer sit on that council. I am not saying it is right or wrong, in fact I believe some of the decision coming from the ACC are not well thought out. But I won't manage from beneath because I do not know what they are dealing with

6) This lawsuit was settled but why was it sealed and why didn't the residents north of 466 have an opportunity to hear the proposals before they settled. It was styled a class action and residents were told the suit was going to be settled and if they want to opt out they had to file on their own behalf. Did the plaintiff lawyers settle this suit too quickly? Ask yourself why would the developer make an offer only after 15 months? As to precedent how can we ever have one because the settlement was settled for that reason among others. Had the plaintiffs in this case made it more difficult for the POA or residents in the future t bring suit against the Developer? We simply don't know

7) You know my feeling about telling people to move. What are we not getting. I suggest residents begin with understanding the financial statements and follow through with daily transactions. I mean we don't know what we don't know.

I have a good feeling about Janet Tutt but business is business and far too many residents ignore the business goings on here


Personal Best Regards

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.

[PennBF]

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.

[mickey100]

Originally Posted by PennBF

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.

Well said!

[mickey100]

Originally Posted by Advogado

�...

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.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by PennBF

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.

I moved here because this place is unique and well run. If there is a movement to change it and it works, I will be out of here. I want to ask you PennBF and I want you to answer honestly. Have you ever served on a homeowners association? If so where and how long? How big was the community?

[graciegirl]

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.

I am of the belief that this place would be just as good if not better without this lawsuit. I see that as this place has grown, it gets better, as the knowledge of just what is best is presented, it is added. If the developers were greedy we would see evidence of it. I personally think this is an impossible situation that is working wonderfully well and I am hoping the developers will stay and build until I die for that very reason.


And I say that some of this attitude against the developer is somewhat politically motivated because of his large contributions to one of the political parties. One of the posters very involved in this discussion has placed a notice of local meeting for the political party that was not given the large contributions.

[Polar Bear]

Originally Posted by PennBF

...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...

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.)

[Michigandress]

Originally Posted by Polar Bear

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.)

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.

[graciegirl]

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.

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.

[Bogie Shooter]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

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.

Two people don't make a movement!

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by Bogie Shooter

Two people don't make a movement!

You are right Bogie. Sorry.