That was never said.

It was insinuated, wasn't it, Steve?

Decision is made, maybe this thread can close very soon.

This is exactly why I said that we all (people on both sides of the coin) needed to know all the facts and legal aspects of the issues. As quoted in the article referred to by Gracie: "Documents unearthed last week during the height of fury over the wall showed that originally the site had been designated as a cart path that was to include a gate.
Commissioners this evening indicated that they feel compelled to follow the original intent of the plan as it was laid out in 1998."

I hope this brings a satisfactory solution and peace for everyone

I believe it does. There is nothing more to comment on.

You have no idea what it insinuated. Like I said there are no monsters around every corner.

Not much of an explanation there. I'd like to hear what the decision was based on.

or maybe it was just assumed?

Possible prescriptive easement
 

A prescriptive easement has nothing to do with a deed date nor does it require "permission". In fact, permission might negate a prescriptive easement. Since originally raising this issue, I have seen several references to the path's having been used by residents for decades. If so, the people cut off by the wall may well have met the twenty-year-use requirement and should certainly explore the possibility that they have already obtained a prescriptive easement by such use. IF they have, then the Developer's erection of the wall was an improper interference with such easement. Some big "ifs", I know, but the affected residents shouldn't overlook this possible arrow in their quiver.

By whom?

243rd verse.
Same chorus.
:sigh:

Not since it was quit claimed in 1998, and thus the 20 years begin then for any possible but not probable prescriptive easement because ownership changed. Therefore, it has not been 20 years so it does not apply. The decision has already been made.

In most part it was based on the following which is quoted in the article gracie referred to: "Documents unearthed last week during the height of fury over the wall showed that originally the site had been designated as a cart path that was to include a gate.
Commissioners this evening indicated that they feel compelled to follow the original intent of the plan as it was laid out in 1998."

Good luck to all you Villagers I hope this ends this for you. Time will now tell if this satisfies the entity that originally tried to close this permanently or maybe this was the out come they planned to trigger in the first place. Seems like it would have been easier to just erect a new gate since it was in the original agreement. Again good luck and happy trails.

I would think that, based on the way The Villages has done things in the past, if they develop a dairy farm and build homes for 4,000 people, they will also include commercial properties within that development so that the residents don't have to leave and can spent their money inside the development.

Do you really think that an expansion of The Villages would mean 4,000 more people shopping in the Colony Publix?

Light Bulb alert! OMG people, He put up a wall, not a gate! His intention was to keep people in, not to keep them out! All of our 80 thousand plus post all missed the mark!

According to EdV the original documents showed no plan for a gate.

The drawings do not. But the transcript indicates a gate just like the ones used for the streets. (I'm sure that will be interpreted differently). Its there black and white in nice print. The ruling today by Lady Lake is exactly what they needed to do.

not you! ;)

I know. I'm glad you got it.............Have a nice evening. I believe this will work itself out now.

The Lady Lake mayor seems like a personable chap...................so mad he was going to take the law into his own hands and knock that wall down.

i'd vote for him if i lived there! he's my kinda mayor if he thinks that way! :)

His wife works for the district government. I wonder what she does?

What I find interesting:

This has been somehow turned into a heated discussion between two neighborhoods and each attacking the other.

Somehow the original owner of this problem has remained unscathed, Whomever that is.

That person who created this mess has never came forward and actually spoke up, thus taking ownership of the issue, the closing, which seems absolutely COWARDLY to me.

People choose to fight among themselves in lieu of coming together to really get to the heart of the matter, who, why?

Not that it matters, but at this point it would be a cold day in Hell before I'd shake Gary Morse's hand.

With all due respect, I doubt anyone will lose any sleep over whether you'd shake Gary's hand. With almost no concrete facts, I doubt I'd feel comfortable passing judgment at this point. I think that a card activated gate is a good security move.

Xavier

Days ago Janet Tutt said the wall was put up for security and liability reasons, and she stated she runs things in TV. Last night at the commission meeting when asked the first time why was the wall put up she walked away from the microphone and did not respond to the question. Later the question was asked again, “why was the wall put up and by who” she returned to the mike and answered, “I do not know”.

In Michigan we would say she is lying.

Not sure how you come to that conclusion. How do you know the developers intentions?

Criminals usually avoid the gates...

Now this is the simplest yet smartest statement yet!!!! If people feel more secure because of a single armed gate than they are sadly mistaken. This will be just a sad case of locking the back door but leaving the front door wide open!!!! I always say locks were only made to keep honest people out!!!!

I agree. We really have no idea why the wall was put up nor who did it. I would guess that it was someone in the developers offices as the developer owns the land. But, having known some people that head up huge organizations, what I've seen is that they were very removed from the day to day operations such as a little wall being put up.

I would think that Gary Morse is much more involved in financing and getting permits for expansion. He probably has people who take of the small things like this.

What Liability?
 

One last thing as far as liability goes. People often have mentioned that Mr Morse or whomever built the wall did it because of a fear of liability. One would assume that he is thinking that those crossing the property that he owns would cause some liability. It would seem to me that the liability would be for those from the Villages crossing too since that plot is not owned by them. Seems to me that all that cross it would cause liability. Just my thought!!!

Can't Make it Up
 

You can't make this stuff up. The one person a person wants to shake hands with before they go is "Morse". Forget all the great people. Morse is the one most important in their life. Another community insists that visitors must state if they want to enter for a Restaurant or Golf before they can enter but propose there be no questions or restrictions to enter The Villages, In another case the Village Manager and President of the VHAs propose a solution to the wall problem to Morse but insists they have no idea who was responsible for it being put up? I swear you can't make this stuff up and there are some who actually either believe this stuff or expect the general public/residents to accept the outrages statements/positions. These only make it more difficult to separate the shaft from the wheat. :loco:

Seems like your quiver of arrows belongs in Michigan . I suggest that Tutt is a lady and does not need to answer questions that have been already answered. But then people of integrity expect to be believed and when they're not they let time prove them right.

If ANYONE is expecting Gary Morse to explain his actions or appear in public over a gate or wall think again.

There have been public figures visit The Villages and are welcomed by various staff members and PROBABLY entertained in the Morse home but Gary Morse never appears in public or makes public comment or releases a press release. The public figures have included a president of the United States.

Janet Tutt is doing what a lot of CEO's do and sometimes her job is mighty tough.

If anyone has been in business it is a little easier to understand and maybe it isn't right to you or perfect to you but if you step back and look at this place that we live and compare it to the places we used to live, most of us would say it is run far better and smoother. Apparently we have a lot of wannabe civic planners, and folks who think they know what would be a better way to do things and know what the motivation is of the Morses who NO one I know has EVER met.

I didn't move here to be part of civic government and I don't really care how the decisions are made as long as things run smoothly and I don't have to PAY anymore than I have budgeted for.

The Morses have learned from a LOT of bad decisions and you can see as The Villages grew south that the cart paths were not placed along large thoroughfares and the processes became smoother and the building teams became more efficient and generally they learned how to do better what they do and make a LOT of money in the process. I am shocked to learn that people are furious about the money being made. I think those people do not understand how things work.

The Morses do not act like elected officials, thank Gawd because they are builders. The rest of it they learned along the way and there are probably roadblocks with some of the surrounding municipalities and county governments in how well they work or don't work with big builder business.

You cannot get blood out of a turnip. They aren't ever going to be transparent and for the most part it works.

Very well put, Gracie.

As to Ms. Tutt, I still have confidence in her ability to manage our community. She was put a very difficult position in this affair. To coin a phrase, she was between a rack and a hard place.

Gary Morse is retired. He is out sailing on his beautiful yacht. Mark Morse and his sisters are running TV.

I don't live in the Villages just too expensive for us, the price of homes that is. I think that the gate going into Paradise Drive should be just for Village golf carts. We were seriously looking into buying in Stonecrest for the price of homes and still have golf cart access to the Villages, a big plus, best of both worlds. Last year had the chance to buy a stucco home with a pool there for 114K, still regret not buying it, I think, but now possibly wouldn't have access to the Villages with a golf cart anyway. It was a good decision for the gate especially if they open up Spruce Creek access also. If they do allow access for Spruce Creek you can expect the prices to skyrocket for homes there, might be a good place to invest in a home for resale. Just thinking.....

You know I always listen when you speak Duffy's mom, but HOW would you know this?

Do you have the same cleaning lady? ;)

I say we don't know who does what or why.:p

Or Who is on first.:024:

I'm sure you are very close to being correct. Someone made a poor decision, it appears resolved. Without the participation of so many this would not have had such a good outcome.

She Works for Us
 

I was not at the meeting but "IF" Janet Tutt made the statement that SHE doesn't know who erected the wall, I would have serious concerns about her honesty. She might be using that old "avoid the question" method and in fact she might not know WHO the exact people who erected the wall but only a stooge would believe she doesn't know who DIRECTED the wall to be erected. It bothers me that she is paid by we the Residents, yet has direct ties to the developer. You state SHE does not need to answer questions that have neen already anwered. Did Ms Tutt ever tell anyone who had the wall erected??? If as you state that question has been answered, who then was it that had the wall erected ??? Lastly, of course she should answer the questions, she is our employee, we pay her salary !!!

I totally agree. What jumped out at me the most from last night's meeting was Janet Tutt saying she didn't know who ordered the wall erected. Last week she knew it was erected because of safety and liability concerns. How can she know why it was erected, but not who ordered it erected?