The attorney's to be know much more than anyone without the info or knowledge of the legal aspects. But as a paralegal with some law school, it does not restrict gate or wall access, but it does restrict it to be used in any form other than golf cart access. I would need to see what Lady Lake approved prior, but regardless, the town of lady lake, if it is legally necessary, can just go ahead and approve the wall or a gate if they want to. They are not restricted in that way, but approval, if not obtained already, should probably be approved to satisfy everyone. But in no way does it say that a wall or gate could never be installed whatsoever, if that is what Gracie wants to know. Does anyone have a copy of the first approve plans from way back in 1998 or so to look at?

They have to call the person you said you are visiting to get their o.k.

I don't know about the restaurant or golf course. I think the pass may say


Restaurant.....or Golf course. You have to stick it on your dash near the window so people can see what you are up too.

I do not have a copy but I've been told the original engineering document submitted to Lady lake show it also as a designated golf cart path. I'm sure someone will have them at the meeting. Like I said good luck.

bkcunningham1 posted this link in another thread the other day - it is chock full of documents re the history of the paradise access point. after reviewing the agenda start @ pg 48 and keep scrolling higher for additional mtg agendas in years prior...even where it was once denied!

http://www.ladylake.org/wp-content/u...g-08-19-13.pdf


copy of plans start on page 63 i think - i had to reduce to get them to fit the page.

NJ, you are correct but that denial was one that occurred a couple of years before the 1998 was accepted if I'm not mistaken.

Let me know if you concur.

Ed

i do agree with you. it was a good read!

So ...this is even more puzzling and difficult.

First there was anger because the gate was closed.

Now there is anger about the gate being open and allowing outsiders in.

I still think I accept the wisdom of the folks behind the curtain.

Before I exit stage right or he does, I want to shake Gary Morse's hand.

Gracie, I agree with you. What many people fail to realize is there are very complicated legal and business aspects, contracts and ordinances involved that most of us will never know of or even understand. Unless someone has legal training and has access to ALL of the facts and circumstances, they cannot truly understand or comment on the exact nature of the circumstances or even what is right or fair for all involved. Since they have many sides looking into it for all involved, I think we need to all trust that a fair and equitable solution according to law will be forthcoming. I just hope that a metal detector is not needed at the meeting tommorrow considering some of the very angry posts about this subject by some very upset people.

Your CCW does not allow you to carry into a public meeting but you may want to hurry to your car and leave the area depending on the out come of the meeting. I'm sure the Lady Lake PD will be there in force.

Easement by Prescription
 

Since I have never used the path in question, I don't have a dog in this fight and since I am up north for the summer don't have all the facts. This being said, I haven't noticed, in the posts on this subject, a mention of the possibility that residents, if they have used the path for more than 20 years (I don't know if this is the case), may have already acquired what is called a prescriptive easement. For an explanation: FE108/FE108: Handbook of Florida Fence and Property Law: Easements and Rights of Way

It is something that the folks who are addressing this issue may want to consider. The fear of residents' acquiring, or maybe already having acquired, such an easement may have been one of the motivating factors causing the Developer to erect the wall.

I don't believe that would apply at all since the owner would have to specifically grant a "permanent easement", not just allow temporary access, for anyone to have any continuing rights to access a person's property.

I'm no lawyer, but what I see is that resolution 98-106 is simply the town giving clearance to build a cart path on that property. This kind of document is issued when someone wants to build something on their own land. It says that the town has no use for the land. It will never be needed for a roadway nor to round utility lines or water or sewage pipes through. I don't believe that the town will have anything to say about who the owner of that property can allow or not allow to transverse his property.

Iy does stipulate that the land cannot be used to build a road to be used by automobiles.

On the contrary, as is the case with acquiring title to property by adverse possession, for someone to obtain a prescriptive easement, the owner doesn't grant him anything. Instead, the owner just doesn't stop that person (who claims the right to use the easement) from using the easement for at least 20 years. But, as I indicated in my earlier post, I don't know how long people have been using the path and it may be less than 20 years. It does seem, however, that it was being used in 1998--which gets you 15 years right there.

Here is how the link that I included in my post describes a prescriptive easement:
"A prescriptive easement, similar to adverse possession, is designed to obtain rights less than full ownership to land based on long-term use or enjoyment rather than agreement or statutory methods. In order for a prescriptive easement to exist, a party must show all of the following:

Actual, continuous and uninterrupted use (not possession) for twenty years
Use, under a claim of right, in conflict with the landowner's use
Knowledge of the landowner or use so open, notorious, visible, and uninterrupted that knowledge is imputed to the landowner (Downing v. Bird, 100 So.2d 57 [Fla. 1958]; 2 Florida Jurisprudence 2d Adverse Possession section 60)"

Its like your next door neighbor's putting part of his driveway on your property. After it's there for 20 years, you are out of luck if you want him to move it.

Food for thought anyway.

I agree, Winston. After reading it, I also said there are no restrictions other than to have the golf cart path approved, which was done long ago. The lawyers to be will know better, but I don't see how they can prevent a gate or wall either as it is not restricted in the deed.

what deed, spicycajunpugs - and where can that be found? thanx

I apologize, but I failed to state that because it hasn't been 20 years since the deed was granted, it wouldn't apply unless specific written permission were granted. I have been accused of being long winded when I write so I guess I didn't make myself clear...sorry

Resolution 98-106 which was just attached earlier in this thread is a form of quit claim deed.

advogado - i don't believe that it has been shown that use has been continuous [not to mention used for 20 years] - there was one post indicating that the access has been closed for one day per year for all of these years - however many they are!

oh, my, my, spicy! i always thought that a quit claim deed did nothing more than indicate that the grantor is freely and willingly transferring any and all rights they have in the real estate being transferred...and that a quit claim did not specify any kind of restriction...that it is merely giving up one's interest in said property.

in all of my days in municipal govt and city planning and vacating streets and wierd pieces of property like unbuildable triangular lots, i cannot recall one instance where there was any kind of restriction or requirement attached.

do you have an example from your days as a paralegal? thanx

Did you look at the copy of the resolution? And maybe you misunderstood my posts. I did not say there were any restrictions...just the opposite. Please read the resolution where it says the county quit claims all rights to the property, just like I said. Winston and I have said in this thread that it does not appear that the owner has any restrictions on putting a wall, fence, etc., but the powers to be (mainly the attorney's) have control.

ok - i'm with ya up to that point - the town has vacated its interest in the land - i was reading that you might have expected a restriction re use to be in the quit claim! maybe it is just getting too late for me! ;)

Good laugh this am. So true.

Villagers beware - maurading bands of Stonecrest seniors are invading our land in their golf carts, plundering and pillaging our amenities armed with dogs full of poop! Heavens to Betsy, what will we do??? We tried a wall, that didn't work so let's go get us some barbed wire and armed security - yeah, that's the ticket!

Sad part is, some people who have posted won't recognize that as sarcastic. I think some have figured this out and it has nothing to do with Stonecrest but everything to do with Harbor Chase and golf cart access for them. That new facility is the ony thing different along the way and if what is being spoon-fed is true (liability and security issues), why didn't they "protect" us a lot sooner? Stonecrest has had this access for as long as I have been here (10 years) and I can only assume it was well before that.

Has anyone else noticed that a golf cart only lane is being installed at Belvedere and there is a new assisted living facility being built by the developer a block away? It's all about money, people - it always is. Fruitland Park, are you paying attention?

I for one am not angry about outsiders coming in. I don't think that a few golf carts from Stonecrest are going to impact the Villages.

I don't really care one way or another. I'm simply trying to understand the issue here. I'm not real happy about the government, any government, telling people what they can do with their private property beyond protecting the general public.

I have a personal reason for the gate to be open to myself and my fellow Villages residents. But other than that I don't much one way or the other.

Having said that, I think that it has become apparent that someone doesn't want outsiders coming in through that gate in their golf carts. I have posted some ideas that I have regarding what the reasons for that might be. They are only speculation and I hope that I have made that clear. I don't think that anyone knows exactly what the motivation behind this whole thing is and I don't know if we'll ever know.

From what I can understand, it seems to me that this lot at 1957 Paradise Drive is privately owned. I don't understand the whole deeding it to the VCDD deal so that they can install a one way gate but I'm wondering if property owned by the VCCD is still considered private property.

Anyroad, please note that I am very happy that it is open, I was very sad when it was closed and I will be happy if it stays open to Villages residents. I have no problem if it is also open to Stomecrest residents.

Put all the half truths, and misleading information to bed, at the Town of Lady Lake Commission meeting at 6 pm tonight

Um...for profit business is a good thing.

Making money is not sinful. It is economics one oh one.

Big business employes people who pay taxes who fund all the stuff that people who don't like big business use.

I did have some trouble with the 8 point agenda driven manifesto that started this thread. I found the points we are supposed to rally behind shallow and contrived, but, that's just me. Oops.....did I just put my thoughts on the 8 point topic in a "gigantic paragraph"?

Can Lady Lake claim eminent domain and keep the public access golf cart gate open forever?

The VHA and Daily Sun
 

Interesting article on the role of these two Developer-front organizations in this controversy: "Proposed" Solution to The Wall

OK.
Live near the wall...use the gate.
No problem with the few...if any...Stone Crest people using the gate.
The wall went up because of Harbor Chase advertising.
The powers that be didn't expect the huge reaction and the power of the social media.
I do not begrudge the fact that the developer makes a ton of money...only that he belittled us.
The wall came down because of us, the POA, and especially Lady Lake saying " wait just a darn minute ".
Lets move on to bigger problems a leave us our little hole in the wall.

Did you listen to this guy's video? What he is, basically is an agent representing all of the non-Villages agents selling in the Villages. The first thing that he does is explain all the disadvantages of buying new while "gently" persuading you to buy resale property. Then he explains how 35%-40% of the resales are not handled by the Villages agents.
He does give us a disclaimer in the end, explaining that he is a licensed agent but no longer actively sells. what he does is refers people to other agents and will get a referral fee if you buy from that agent.
I have no problem with anyone making money through any type of legitimate business and this guy does explain exactly what he does in the very end of his video presentation. But, the rest of his website and book make it look like he is simply trying to help us all out by giving us all the options available.
He appears, to me, to be very anti developer and, of course, is simply out to make a buck. Again, nothing wrong with that, but I find his method to be a bit deceptive at the very least.
For those of us who have lived here even for a little while, we sort of understand what's going on. But people who have never been here will see this as an objective book on life in Villages. It is anything but objective.

And I think you are well aware of the fact that when you purchased your home in a Community Development District, that it is not a private gated community. As such, all of the roadways and multi-modal cart paths are open to the public.

There are more than 500 golf carts in Stonecrest. Some people are disabled and cannot drive a car. Their doctor offices, physical therapists, testing done at Sharon Morse Building, going into the Hospital. People shop at local businesses via the golf cart path. Driving cars into the Villages will certainly cause congestion and lack of parking. Ignorance is Bliss!

You as a Villager has access to Aldi, Walmart, Cracker Barrel, etc. on the golf cart. You can go even further across the front of Stonecrest to Allstate Insurance, Curves, Napa Auto, etc. The streets in Stonecrest are private. They are not maintained by the county. That is the difference. Unfortunately, many doctor offices and testing labs are located within the Villages and that is what the residents of Stonecrest want to access, plus the public stores that are located on public streets in the Villages. We don't want to use amenities. We want to access public establishments. Thank you.

This is my solution? You have twisted the fact, EdV, that even though YOU believe our cart paths are public, the fact is non-Villagers do not have access to these blacktopped golf cart paths unless they cross the private property of The Villages or come in on their street legals. Can you verify with certainty that the Morse's went after tax-free bonds to pour that small area of concrete cart path between the houses by Paradise Dr.?

If Stonecresters are able to open up golf cart access to The Villages on this golf cart path, a precedent is set. Golf cart access would have to be permitted to all adjacent residential areas. The Villages was not built with this intent. That precedent would create an impact to The Villages which would be far reaching... more crowded paths, a loss in safety and less security that we now enjoy, more trash and vandalism, (you can't discriminate against children driving carts) and upkeep.

If the Morse's are unable to stem the general public from accessing The Villages at any point on a golf cart, they may as well forget about developing anymore land. Who would buy in The Villages when they could buy in a cheaper place like Stonecrest, sneak in and use The Villages maintained properties and not pay the piper? How about a $5. entry charge each time a non-Villages cart wants to use our cart paths and that would fulfill my earlier statement, "if you want to play with us, you pay with us".

Perhaps some Stonecresters should look at moving into The Villages so they could use their golf carts for EVERYTHING and not have difficulties getting to needed facilities from their limited community.

So, EdV, I would be careful what you wish for, if you create a way to trash The Villages lifestyle, you have to live next to it in Stonecrest.

But you think it's perfectly ok for Villagers to drive their carts across the electric company's property to get to Walmart even though they have made it clear that they don't want them to and that they are trespassing. Of course, you've never done that, right?

You want facts, here you go. The Villages district government site defines a CDD as follows

Community Development Districts (CDD’s) are widely used throughout the United States to provide for certain service delivery infrastructure such as water management and control (drainage), fire control, road and bridge construction and maintenance, park and recreational facilities, mosquito control, port and inlet districts, water and sewer systems, sidewalks, streetlights similar infrastructure that is required to provide urban services….

A Community Development District is a public non-profit unit of local government with the special purpose of providing the services described above. As a unit of local government, the District is subject to many of the same State Statutes that regulate cities and counties..

The multi-modal paths in TV were built along with the roads as part of the infrastructure that was paid for with federal tax free municipal bonds. Those multi-modal paths are for transportation, not recreation. You cannot use federal tax free municipal bonds to build private roadways whether they are for cars, trucks, golf carts or tricycles.

The argument that Villagers make to justify their belief that the multi-modal cart paths are private is that they are being maintained with amenity funds. Yet thousands of cities and towns across this nation have streets that are maintained with local taxes. Can you sit there with a straight face and say that those cities should then be allowed to prevent you from using those streets? Of course not. If that were allowed, the entire transportation system of this country would fall apart.

ive driven thru there and I can tell you there is trash everywhere!

nuff said!

I understand the roads are open to the public. The multi-modal cart paths are maintained by our fees----but anybody can use them. Am I missing something here? :gc:

Ed, this is from an earlier post of mine on "The golf cart path" thread. Perhaps you missed it:

"And to the people in the historic section, should one of the property owner block access to land which that path crosses to give you cart accessibility to the shopping complexes on 27/441 after the gate is installed, SO BE IT! It is private property, get over the entitlement mentality which many of you harbor even though you knew this could happen when you designed your life around the illegal path."

Peace, Ed, I'll await the actions that take place tonight at 6:00 PM. It's not that I want to block Stonecresters out, it's that I want to maintain the integrity of The Villages itself.