Once again, the VHA shows itself to be nothing more than a puppet of the developer. School systems throughout the country run adult education programs despite the existence of the ADA and the possibility of nuisance lawsuits by obnoxious deaf plaintiffs.

The closure of the LLLC is the result of a decision by the developer to screw over the residents. Without the involvement of the developer-controlled charter school, there is no possibility for an adult ed program in The Villages comparable to the one we have right now.

Consequences
 

It appears that 32 residents caused, for whatever reason 18,000 residents to lose their education and 200 to lose their employment. The question is whether there should be consequences for the 32 that caused such a terrible result for so many? Regardless of the charges by the 32 their actions caused an extraordinary penalty to many who did not know of the charges and could not participate in a solution that would protect their jobs, etc. Was or is there no requirement that when the 32 filed that they also ensured the ones being hurt would be aware of their actions? It is apparent a sunshine law was not in effect as it is alleged that all 18,000 residents and 200 employees were "surprised" by the suit and the actions. It would make sense to have some qualified attorneys look at this whole mess and see if by having a secret suit and action the 18,000 residents and 200 employees were not seriously harmed by the 32 who created the suit?:bowdown:

Read the quoted text 3 times...what does this mean? Maybe I need more coffee...

You are right. The VHA is spouting absolute nonsense. To keep a meaningful adult education program in The Villages, the developer has to change his mind about closing the LLLC and continue to fight the pending lawsuit.

Bitching on this website is not putting pressure on anybody. Posters need to be contacting the parties involved if they want to accomplish anything.

Agree the VHA is feckless under fire. But it's a distraction to keep blaming the Developer. He's not the tooth fairy or Santa Claus who must always "give" us stuff because we want it. Plus it takes our focus off the genuine source of the problem and the community's unity to seek solutions going forward.

POA now needs to take the lead

Rode by the lead plaintiffs house this morning two modest cars and two golf carts in the garage/driveway--IMHO-- the man is on a $$$ hunt

Why didn't you talk to him about the dropping the lawsuit?

I love my privacy--and I don't want to get sued, because this person may start looking out for stalkers

I'm afraid that the only practical solution is for the developer to change his mind and keep the LLLC open.

A lot of comments and questions on his Facebook page. He is not responding. That says a lot.

I read somewhere that the lead plaintiff has a history of other lawsuits involving ADA. If you read the judgement, all plaintiff motions were ruled in favor of the defendant, except one; the suit for damages. The judge left that one for future litigation. Thus, the developer said "no mas". I read that the plaintiffs would not except any remedy other than certified signers.

A lot of assumptions going around The Villages - could someone give us the facts?

Next time throw some Q tips in his yard [emoji12]

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

Some "facts"...it seems you might have read over some of facts posted (or did not read anything and want a summary to catch up) like post #457? Like the 2011 thread? Like the VHA statement?



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk