[SteveZ]

Originally Posted by Advogado

Reply to Katezbox:

I also wish the the initial Lauren Ritchie articles had been less sensationalized and contained fewer factual errors-- errors which she never has acknowledged. However, if you read the IRS documents, you will see that, unfortunately, each of the excerpts that you cite in your post as being "sensationalized" are, indeed, factually correct. It is really too bad that the Developer-owned Daily Sun suppressed this major story rather than reporting it in a balanced matter. If you want to attack any newspaper regarding this story, I would suggest it be the Sun, not the Sentinel.

In terms of the attacks by yourself and others on the "speculation" in this thread, I haven't seen speculation in the posts here. I have only seen an attempt by concerned residents to understand the implications for Villagers (and what action they should take) if the rosy outlook painted by Janet Tutt and some posters to this tread turns out to be wrong.

Then for those who want to understand a technical, legal and contested situation - and don't want to take on face value the VCCDD position voiced by Ms. Tutt - what to do that is to seek a professional and objective review of the matter by competent legal/financial counsel. So far, what has appeared in this forum hardly qualifies as professional or objective.

Forums like TOTV are great in many ways, but do not replace seasoned legal/financial professionals reviewing all of information - including what has NOT been made public, and there always is some - pertinent to the matter. As has been demonstrated on this board, there is bias - pro and con - with some showing obvious distrust regarding the VCCDD folk and the developer. A good example of such biased innuendo and opinion is referring to Ms. Tutt's comments as "rosy," while at the same time lauding what appeared in the Sentinel as factually correct, and insinuating that the Sentinel was "balanced" in its publications.

I can agree that since the VCCDD is involved, and the VCCDD is indeed our "local government," that it should provide its constituency with continuous updates on the matter to the extent that such updates do not compromise negotiations and any possible litigation.

The VCCDD isn't perfect, but what is? No matter what its faults or mistakes may be, compared to anywhere else I have ever lived: 1) its' safer here; 2) the streets are cleaner and better maintained; 3) the common area beautification (flowers, bushes, painting, etc) is top-notch; 4) the availability of services specifically meeting the needs of seasoned citizens is very must greater here; and 5) a "local government" officials are more visible and available.

If we are looking for "fair and balanced" information, it won't come from the Fourth Estate - whether that is from the Sentinel, the Daily Sun, or a town crier. If we want to estimate the outcome of a tax dispute, then the only true estimate would be to look at precedent cases (if they exist) to see how they came out and compare to this bond matter. That's what professional legal/financial counsel would do. Other than that, it's just a guessing game.

While the TV residents certainly have an interest in this issue, I still contend that the developer, who profited to some extent by the VCCDD's use of tax-free financing to purchase the assets, has as much or more financial risk as the residents. Also, in order for tax-free bonds to be sold, there is a bond counsel (lawyer) that gives a professional opinion (for a fee) that the bonds are legally issued and qualify as tax-free to the purchasers for federal income tax purposes. The bond counsel also has a financial risk if the bonds are later deemed to be taxable. The bond underwriters may also have exposure. Its just my opinion, but I believe that these parties will bear the majority of any ultimate additional liability, before any of the liability flows to the TV residents - current or future. Of course, placement of liability, should there be any, would likely require litigation, which the VCCDD board would be duty bound to pursue. Hopefully, it will not come to this, but the point is, there is a lengthy process before the residents would ever be saddled with any of the cost. Hopefully, this will be somehow communicated by responsible and credible sources, so that current and potential future residents don't get too anxious about a large future cost that likely will not accrue to them.

[Hadleyite]

It is questionable as to whether the developer has any exposure to the IRS issue, in spite of the fact he profited immensely from the transactions.

The bonds were issue by the VCCDD, not the developer. They are two completely separate entities, although the lack of arms length between the two is questionable.

The tax exempt status of the bonds is the issue in question, so the issuing authority, the VCCDD, is the target of the IRS investigation.


Janet Tutt's responses are essentially a wish list of the VCDD's hopes in the case. Obviously she is not an impartial party when stating her points.

Although Lauren Ritchie's article may sensationalize the issue, it does reflect much of what the IRS agent stated in his written evaluation and response to the Villages.

[katezbox]

Originally Posted by Advogado

Reply to Katezbox:

I also wish the the initial Lauren Ritchie articles had been less sensationalized and contained fewer factual errors-- errors which she never has acknowledged. However, if you read the IRS documents, you will see that, unfortunately, each of the excerpts that you cite in your post as being "sensationalized" are, indeed, factually correct. It is really too bad that the Developer-owned Daily Sun suppressed this major story rather than reporting it in a balanced matter. If you want to attack any newspaper regarding this story, I would suggest it be the Sun, not the Sentinel.

In terms of the attacks by yourself and others on the "speculation" in this thread, I haven't seen speculation in the posts here. I have only seen an attempt by concerned residents to understand the implications for Villagers (and what action they should take) if the rosy outlook painted by Janet Tutt and some posters to this tread turns out to be wrong.

AV,

OK - let me be more specific - Below are the same quotes from the Sun - the portions I see as sensationalized are in red.

Also, I don't believe I am attacking anyone - just saying that the endless speculation is causing FUD (fear, doubt and uncertainty) which clouds one's ability to make a clear decision. I, too, have been an auditor. I understand the position of the IRS.

"in fact, virtually everything but the 38,000 houses in "America's Friendliest Hometown" -- have been financed by various tax-free bonds.

If a deal isn't reached, the IRS has threatened to look into eight similar loans obtained through bond sales. That could expose the governments to millions more in tax liability.

"If I was a resident of The Villages, I would be outraged by the transaction," IRS Agent Dominick Servadio Jr. wrote in a letter to the Village Center.

Villages residents are watching the investigation unfold, mostly with bewilderment. The sale prices were set by two appraisers using a complicated method that the IRS contends was incorrectly calculated.

"It (is) obvious that the residents' amenity fees could be much lower, or there would be a lot more of the fees available for maintenance of the facilities if these were arm's length transactions"

[Advogado]

Originally Posted by SNOK

While the TV residents certainly have an interest in this issue, I still contend that the developer, who profited to some extent by the VCCDD's use of tax-free financing to purchase the assets, has as much or more financial risk as the residents. Also, in order for tax-free bonds to be sold, there is a bond counsel (lawyer) that gives a professional opinion (for a fee) that the bonds are legally issued and qualify as tax-free to the purchasers for federal income tax purposes. The bond counsel also has a financial risk if the bonds are later deemed to be taxable. The bond underwriters may also have exposure. Its just my opinion, but I believe that these parties will bear the majority of any ultimate additional liability, before any of the liability flows to the TV residents - current or future. Of course, placement of liability, should there be any, would likely require litigation, which the VCCDD board would be duty bound to pursue. Hopefully, it will not come to this, but the point is, there is a lengthy process before the residents would ever be saddled with any of the cost. Hopefully, this will be somehow communicated by responsible and credible sources, so that current and potential future residents don't get too anxious about a large future cost that likely will not accrue to them.

SNOK:

I fully agree with your analysis as to where the costs (if any-- for, as SteveZ points out, we can only speculate at this point as to the outcome and costs) SHOULD ultimately lie-- with one caveat. Since the VCCDD board members are nominees of the Developer, it is unlikely they will voluntarily pursue remedies against him. A similar situation arose in the past when the VCCDD was left with insufficient funds for amenities because of transactions with the Developer. Unfortunately it took a class action against the Developer, the VCCDD, and Gary Morse to convince the Developer to return the necessary funds ($40 million). In the meantime, our amenity fees are being used to pay the VCCDD's attorneys to defend the transactions between the Developer and the VCCDD.

In my view, if the "speculation", which several posters condemn, causes residents to think about what is transpiring here, about the need to stay informed, and about the possible need to someday take action, then "speculation" is probably a good thing. Since very few people actually read our posts here, I think that the best way for residents to stay informed is through the Property Owners' Association, which has been watching the situation and furnishing objective updates in its monthly Bulletins and at its monthly meetings. Unfortunately, the Villages Homeowners' Association has continued to ignore the whole thing.

[rshoffer]

Originally Posted by Advogado

SNOK:

I fully agree with your analysis as to where the costs (if any-- for, as SteveZ points out, we can only speculate at this point as to the outcome and costs) SHOULD ultimately lie-- with one caveat. Since the VCCDD board members are nominees of the Developer, it is unlikely they will voluntarily pursue remedies against him. A similar situation arose in the past when the VCCDD was left with insufficient funds for amenities because of transactions with the Developer. Unfortunately it took a class action against the Developer, the VCCDD, and Gary Morse to convince the Developer to return the necessary funds ($40 million). In the meantime, our amenity fees are being used to pay the VCCDD's attorneys to defend the transactions between the Developer and the VCCDD.

In my view, if the "speculation", which several posters condemn, causes residents to think about what is transpiring here, about the need to stay informed, and about the possible need to someday take action, then "speculation" is probably a good thing. Since very few people actually read our posts here, I think that the best way for residents to stay informed is through the Property Owners' Association, which has been watching the situation and furnishing objective updates in its monthly Bulletins and at its monthly meetings. Unfortunately, the Villages Homeowners' Association has continued to ignore the whole thing.

Who or what initiated the class action suit that you referred to above which resulted in a finding of 40 million against the developer? What became of the 40 million?

[Advogado]

Originally Posted by rshoffer

Who or what initiated the class action suit that you referred to above which resulted in a finding of 40 million against the developer? What became of the 40 million?

rshoffer:
For information on the class action lawsuit, which was settled, go to http://www.poa4us.org/
Then click on "Lawsuit Settlement"

[rshoffer]

Originally Posted by Advogado

rshoffer:
For information on the class action lawsuit, which was settled, go to http://www.poa4us.org/
Then click on "Lawsuit Settlement"

Wow... an amazing story!

[Advogado]

Originally Posted by rshoffer

Wow... an amazing story!

Yeah, it is.

[katezbox]

...according to the American Heritage Dictionary -

1.
a. Contemplation or consideration of a subject; meditation.
b. A conclusion, opinion, or theory reached by conjecture.
c. Reasoning based on inconclusive evidence; conjecture or supposition.
2.
a. Engagement in risky business transactions on the chance of quick or considerable profit.
b. A commercial or financial transaction involving speculation.

I think the definition of speculation applies to this thread is the first one. If this topic was being discussed by a group of present (or retired) tax accountants or attorneys, I feel that the speculation would be of tremendous value in that the opinions would be of experts in that area.

On this forum we have varying degrees of understanding of this issue. That's OK. But when we speculate that this will all be the responsibility of the developer or this will reduce home prices or this will cost us each $50,000 - and at the same time we say we really don't understand why bonds are used or how this is related to the bond on their home that is paid off - that is dangerous. It is basically gossip that can cause fear and worry, prevent people from enjoying the years they have worked hard for etc.

I am all for The Sentinel reporting this - but as I used to tell my daughter when she was younger - go upstairs to your room and come back down for a discussion when you are willing to leave the "attitude" behind. The Sentinel doesn't just have a point of view - it has a 'tude that prevents fair reporting.

[tanbcu]

am i missing something the cdd rate @7% does this go to the morse familia?tax free.

[coach]

Yes, you are missing something. The investors, hedge funds, etc. that purchased the bonds get tax free interest. Please try to understand the CDD bonds. The mean, greedy developer who is out to take advantage of you can't be blamed for everything.

Before you comment, my remarks are satirical.(sp)

[Advogado]

Originally Posted by tanbcu

am i missing something the cdd rate @7% does this go to the morse familia?tax free.

Tanbcu,
Unfortunately, based on your question, and as Coach has indicated, you are missing something. Here is a pretty good summary of the present situation:
http://www.bondbuyer.com/article.htm...090601HPCWB64J

Check the Property Owners' Association monthly Bulletin and meetings for updates.

Hope this helps you understand the situation.

[kencam]

Originally Posted by djl8412

My goodness, will you please document your accusation of the "obvious" grudge against the developer. If this is true, the Sentinel staff must have a grudge against every business, government and individual they dare criticize in their columns. Yes, rumors spread as a result of readers' misinterpretation of articles or their own slant on what they THINK they've read but you have to better than careless inuendos about the writers.

We've lived in TV for 10 years now, and have NEVER read anything positive about TV in the Sentinnel. But, there have been many articles over the years that attempted to smear (my opinion) the Developer and TV. They couldn't even publish anything positive about the Developer's awesome response through contractors to the cleanup from the '07 tornado, which in my opinion again, was absolutely HUGE. Ask any of the victims, I'm sure they will support that opinion. In order to prove the obvious grudge I'd have to dig back through 10 years of old Orlando Sentinnels....sorry, not worth it and I'm going to be late for my tee time........

[cabo35]

Originally Posted by kencam

We've lived in TV for 10 years now, and have NEVER read anything positive about TV in the Sentinel. But, there have been many articles over the years that attempted to smear (my opinion) the Developer and TV. They couldn't even publish anything positive about the Developer's awesome response through contractors to the cleanup from the '07 tornado, which in my opinion again, was absolutely HUGE. Ask any of the victims, I'm sure they will support that opinion. In order to prove the obvious grudge I'd have to dig back through 10 years of old Orlando Sentinnels....sorry, not worth it and I'm going to be late for my tee time........

kencam...you are absolutely right. It is my opinion as well that the Sentinel has been inordinately negative on the developer and The Villages for years. It could be a number of issues such as the developer not advertising enough or at all with them. Perhaps other Orlando area developers have paid the "tipping" fee to the Sentinel and a bonus is a Sentinel that bashes the competition.

I also witnessed first hand the phenomenal recovery effort put forth by the developer after the tornado as it passed just blocks from our home. I have seen what he has done with the charter schools and the hospital. Beyond all that, the lifestyle and amenities he has given Villagers cannot be matched anywhere.

Those that are eager to criticize you for your "slant", question your understanding of the English language and your "careless innuendos" need to lighten up and respect opinions that conflict with their own.

It is also my intransient opinion...that the Sentinel has an ax to grind with The Villager developer. This coming from someone who on occasion has opined that the developer has made some mistakes.

Thanks for posting your opinion.