[Sable99]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

I really don't think the plaintiff's main motivation was money. Their "leader" has been characterized as an "activist"--ie: fanatic. He has determined his "rights" and wants to cram them down everyone else's throat, regardless of collateral damage. It's all about me and my cause, and screw everyone else, as long as I get my way. He bears the same relationship to reasonable advocates for the hearing impaired as ISIS does to mainstream Islam or the KKK does to conservative policy.

However, it really isn't important to satisfy this lunatic. The LLLC needed to satisfy the JUDGE, which apparently they failed to do. I wish we all knew the dollar cost of satisfying the judge. I also wonder if the judge could order binding arbitration in this matter.

I agree with your thoughts.

[dewilson58]

Originally Posted by Buffalo Jim

And in order to be " fair " we should shut down all radio stations until a way is found for the deaf to enjoy them .

Nightly town square music.

[twoplanekid]

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."

[villagetinker]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

VCDD Board of Supervisors

I hope people will make their voices heard on other places than TOTV. Write your community leaders in your District and elsewhere. Just start pestering about this closing. Activism can work for good too.

Especially coming from the teachers at the Lifelong Learning Center and their many many students.

Village Community Development Districts

And copy and paste this thread onto Facebook. Will get more notice.

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

[Bonnevie]

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.

[Advogado]

Originally Posted by Advogado

Let's be practical:

Unless the Developer immediately changes course, before the infrastructure of the LLLC is dismantled, the LLLC is permanently closed and, as a practical matter, no substitute will ever be established. Therefore, I would appeal to the plaintiffs, many of whom are undoubtedly following this thread:

Please recognize the immense harm that your lawsuit has done to our community. Instruct your law firm to immediately contact the Developer and make one last effort to work out a settlement that would both address your reasonable objectives and result in the LLLC's remaining open.

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.

[Lark7]

Originally Posted by Bonnevie

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.

Well said Bonnevie, well said.

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by villagetinker

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

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.

[alwann]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

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.

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?

[village dreamer]

why not make it a private club ??

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by Codysmom

So very disappointed to read in today's paper about the Learning Center shutting its door because of a lawsuit. Big loss for many of us.

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

[TexaninVA]

Originally Posted by Advogado

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.

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.

[Advogado]

Originally Posted by TexaninVA

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.

[TexaninVA]

Originally Posted by Advogado

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.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Advogado

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.

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.