[SteveZ]

Originally Posted by cabo35

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 the developer has made some mistakes.

Thanks for posting your opinion.

And in the end, who could ask for a better neighbor....

[djl8412]

Well, Steve, many times I have taken issue with some of the content in your posts on this site but I give you credit and respect for this one. I think any of us that can get a handle on a legal worst and best case scenario on the outcome and wait until that day to make any necessary choices are good citizens.

[djl8412]

Originally Posted by SteveZ

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.

Sorry, Steve Z, but I meant to include your quoted comments in my earlier reply. Though I have taken issue with the contents of some of your posts on this issue, I give you respect for this one.