I agree with your thoughts.

Nightly town square music.


:shocked:

Read the Districtgov.org positon on ADA compliance - > Americans with Disabilities Act Information

"The ADA does not require the VCDD to take any action that would fundamentally alter the nature of its programs or services, or impose an undue financial or administrative burden."

My letter to all of the district 9 supervisors and Jane Tutt went out this morning.

read the online story. I don't buy it. I admire the man for being an advocate but his lawsuit closed the LLC because they asked for an injunction and compensatory damages. Why not just a specific motion requiring the LLC to provide the interpreters? I would love to be able to read the depositions.

I worked for a Federal agency for many years. It once was a happy place to work. Then EEO (employee equal opportunity) took hold. If an employee didn't like a review, off they trotted to the office to file a complaint for hostile work environment. So many complaints were filed. and often, if you knew the plaintiffs involved and the real story, they should not have won. One case were some doctors claiming they weren't promoted because they were women. Actually, they were crappy doctors. But because some out of context remarks were overheard, and only some things are admissible in court, they won. Same thing for a pharmacist complaining of religious discrimination. This person wanted the flexibility to come and go as she pleased on a daily basis rather than give any kind of a schedule. She was allowed to take tons of leave without pay. She wanted to take leave without pay for a religious holiday and our supervisors said she had to use her leave and suddenly she's being discriminated against. If administration sees too much leave without pay given, they begin to question the need for the employee so it becomes a risk to lose a fte (full time employee) slot. She had the same law firm as the doctors. There was some technicality that came into pay and she won. One doctor was fired because he took his computer and threw it on the floor. He was known for being one of those aloof doctors. So he was fired for destroying government property. He (using the same lawyer) filed for age discrimination and won. Again, the spirit of the law vs the letter of the law.
Perhaps the plaintiff will enlighten us as to what actions he took? did he go to the POA and ask for help? Did he go to the newspaper (and here he could have gone to Orlando--they are only too willing to write such articles?) We aren't privy to anything that really went on. All we know is that the majority will suffer and unfortunately, where once the deaf community would have found support for their cause, now they are experiencing resentment and anger.

I would like to know why the LLC couldn't provide the interpreters. was there something else that made it prohibitive. With a population of over 110,000, only 18,000 were enrolled for the next semester. the same percentage applied to the 32 plaintiffs would mean maybe 5 would want to take courses. Surely that could be accommodated. I'd also like to hear what specific courses some of them are interested in but unable to take and the times and dates when they asked the college to provide an interpreter in the past.

Crabbing about the closure in this forum, with its limited readership, is not going to accomplish what all of us want: reversal of the Developer's decision to close the LLLC.

That reversal is going to require the plaintiffs to reopen negotiations with the Developer and work out a settlement that results in the LLLC's remaining open. Any such settlement has to be worked out NOW-- before the infrastructure of the LLLC has been dismantled.

Therefore, if any readers know any of the plaintiffs, please talk to them about the situation and try to convince them to instruct their attorneys to IMMEDIATELY make one more effort to settle this matter in a way that results in the LLLC's remaining open. Otherwise the LLLC will be permanently doomed and our quality of life here in The Villages significantly diminished.

Well said Bonnevie, well said.

Thanks villagetinker. We make get something like the street parades at the Polo Fields or the Sharon Morse Performing Arts Center rather than the pretty Church on the Square or the new and "improved" Katie Belle's but it would be something anyway.

Llc
 

Thanks for sending the letters. If you also a copy to the other website, perhaps your letter will get published and reach a wider audience.

If we had real news media here (neither the Daily Sun nor the other site qualify in my opinion), a smart journalist would have made calls by now to the developer asking: WTF?

why not make it a private club ??

Link to the "Villages Daily Sun" article.
 

Here is a link to the Villages Daily Sun article about the closing of the Lifelong Learning College.

Lawsuit Forces Closure of Lifelong Learning College - The Villages Daily Sun: In Todays Daily Sun

Most people on this forum fully support reasonable ADA accommodations. After all, seniors recognize each of us is only “temporarily abled” and, at some point, everyone becomes disabled.

However, the reality is 32 people have, even if unintentionally, inflicted significant economic harm upon the other 120,000 people who live here. The adage “if you break it, you bought it” applies. I fully agree the plaintiffs have the reasonability to take action immediately to at least attempt to undo what they did.

Their actions have caused the demise of the LLLC, degraded the quality of TV lifestyle, and added significant uncertainty about “what next” given their attempted actions against resident clubs etc. The net result of their actions impacts the market value of our homes, in ways yet to be determined, for EVERYONE who lives in TV.

I again encourage the President / Boards of HOA and POA to step up to the plate. Yes, they may largely be social clubs but they also have very capable leadership. The key mission of HOA / POA, when all is said and done, is to preserve our quality of life and value of our homes.

As I have noted in earlier posts, the problem here is one of timing. Unless the developer reverses his position BEFORE dismantling of the LLLC's infrastructure, such reversal seems highly unlikely. Without efforts on the part of the plaintiffs to reach a prompt settlement, it is hard to imagine that the developer will reverse his postion any time soon.

I agree with you regarding a need for efforts by the plaintiffs ... that's what I just said.

Possibly true. But does anyone know just what the relationship between "the developer" and the LLLC is? "The developer" is not a defendant in the lawsuit, the VCS is.