[ScottFenstermaker]

The VHA Recommendation. The misleadingly named Villages Homeowners Advocates (better known as The VHA) has now come out in support of a Yes vote on the proposed fire district. This should surprise no one. The new fire district is being supported by the Developer (note the cap on taxes on commercial property), the Developer's appointed officials, and the Developer's newspaper.

The VHA's History. The VHA was founded in collaboration with the Developer, as VHA's own website kind of admits. Details on the ties between the VHA and the Developer can be found here: POA Accomplishments | POA of The Villages In any event, I have lived here for 15 years. During that time, the VHA has always served as mouthpiece for the Developer and as the Developer's minor league team--whose directors, if they behave and toe the Developer's line, can, with the Developer's backing, move up to the big league of the County Commission.

Developer Ownership of “The VHA” Trademark. Residents who have been paying attention to local politics understand the above facts. But what most residents (including members of The VHA) do not understand is that “The VHA” is actually a trademark of the Developer. You can't make this stuff up! Here is a link to the trademark office search page: Search trademark database | USPTO Do a Basic Wordmark Search for “The VHA”.

The Platter of Platitudes in the VHA Voice. The VHA Voice serves up the usual platter of platitudes in its latest issue advocating a Yes vote on the fire district and glosses over all the reasons to vote NO. For example, it claims that “most residents will not see a significant increase in their tax bill.” What does “most” mean: 51%? What does “significant” mean? The truth is that there is no way of telling how much the initial unelected fire-district-board members (who, as a practical matter, will be designated by or acceptable to the Developer) will increase our taxes. One thing is clear, however, our taxes will increase! And for what???

Learn the Facts and Vote NO. One bit of advice that the VHA Voice does get right is: In researching the proposed fire district, “Always CONSIDER THE SOURCE”. By all means do so, and think about who owns The VHA trademark and the history of The VHA. Then read, or re-read, the October POA Bulletin ( https://www.poa4us.org/wp-content/up...0-Bulletin.pdf ), and, if you haven't already done so, reject the recommendation of the Developer's VHA and vote NO on the proposed fire district.

[Stu from NYC]

Interesting. Knew the vha usually voted for what the developer wanted but didnt know it was sort of owned by him.

[LuvtheVillages]

[ The new fire district is being supported by the Developer (note the cap on taxes on commercial property),


I agree - VOTE NO

To fund the fire district, there will be a millage rate tax on property UP TO A MAX VALUE OF $10 MILLION.

Look at any shopping plaza (they are all owned by the Developer). Look at Brownwood Hotel, or the Waterfront Hotel (owned by the Developer). Look at the new Brownwood Medical building (owned by the Developer.) If they are not each worth $10 million now, they soon will be. But the $10 million cap will stay $10 million forever.

And each of those buildings pay the same $124 per rooftop that you are paying because they have just one rooftop. Those apartment buildings at Brownwood, with dozens of units under one rooftop, also pay just $124 per building.

Why should the Developer's contribution to the fire department be capped artificially low and we have to pay full amount? Those commercial buildings and tall buildings require special equipment (which means larger firehouses).
He should be paying on the full value of his buildings, which he does now on the County property tax.

The proposed funding system is not fair.

[ScottFenstermaker]

Originally Posted by LuvtheVillages

[ The new fire district is being supported by the Developer (note the cap on taxes on commercial property),


I agree - VOTE NO

To fund the fire district, there will be a millage rate tax on property UP TO A MAX VALUE OF $10 MILLION.

Look at any shopping plaza (they are all owned by the Developer). Look at Brownwood Hotel, or the Waterfront Hotel (owned by the Developer). Look at the new Brownwood Medical building (owned by the Developer.) If they are not each worth $10 million now, they soon will be. But the $10 million cap will stay $10 million forever.

And each of those buildings pay the same $124 per rooftop that you are paying because they have just one rooftop. Those apartment buildings at Brownwood, with dozens of units under one rooftop, also pay just $124 per building.

Why should the Developer's contribution to the fire department be capped artificially low and we have to pay full amount? Those commercial buildings and tall buildings require special equipment (which means larger firehouses).
He should be paying on the full value of his buildings, which he does now on the County property tax.

The proposed funding system is not fair.

Exactly!

[ScottFenstermaker]

Originally Posted by Stu from NYC

Interesting. Knew the vha usually voted for what the developer wanted but didnt know it was sort of owned by him.

Stu, why do you say "usually"? If you can cite one instance where the VHA has not "voted for what the developer wanted", I would be glad to be educated.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by LuvtheVillages

[ The new fire district is being supported by the Developer (note the cap on taxes on commercial property),


I agree - VOTE NO

To fund the fire district, there will be a millage rate tax on property UP TO A MAX VALUE OF $10 MILLION.

Look at any shopping plaza (they are all owned by the Developer). Look at Brownwood Hotel, or the Waterfront Hotel (owned by the Developer). Look at the new Brownwood Medical building (owned by the Developer.) If they are not each worth $10 million now, they soon will be. But the $10 million cap will stay $10 million forever.

And each of those buildings pay the same $124 per rooftop that you are paying because they have just one rooftop. Those apartment buildings at Brownwood, with dozens of units under one rooftop, also pay just $124 per building.

Why should the Developer's contribution to the fire department be capped artificially low and we have to pay full amount? Those commercial buildings and tall buildings require special equipment (which means larger firehouses).
He should be paying on the full value of his buildings, which he does now on the County property tax.

The proposed funding system is not fair.

Just because you don't understand it does not mean it is not fair.

Do the research - I found 17 properties that will benefit from the $10M cap. Not hundreds, not dozens, just 17 and not all of them are owned by the Villages.

The rest of the 2000+ properties clearly owned by the Villages will have the same increase that you do. Well, not exactly the same: yours will be maybe $100. Theirs will range from $100 to at least $750.

AND FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME: YOU ARE PAYING MUCH MORE THAN $124 TODAY!

[Papa_lecki]

Originally Posted by ScottFenstermaker

[B][B]

Developer Ownership of “The VHA” Trademark. Residents who have been paying attention to local politics understand the above facts. But what most residents (including members of The VHA) do not understand is that “The VHA” is actually a trademark of the Developer. You can't make this stuff up! Here is a link to the trademark office search page: Search trademark database | USPTO Do a Basic Wordmark Search for “The VHA”.

That EVIL developer, who built a community that is so nice, we all chose to move here.

Are you sure the VHA doesn’t pay a royalty to the developer to use the trademark or at least has a use agreement.
I am glad the developer trademarked it early on, prevented another organization from using the name.

[LuvtheVillages]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Just because you don't understand it does not mean it is not fair.

Do the research - I found six (6) properties that will benefit from the $10M cap. Not hundreds, not dozens, just six and not all of them are owned by the Villages.

The rest of the 100 or so properties clearly owned by the Villages will have the same increase that you do. Well, not exactly the same: yours will be maybe $100. Theirs will range from $100 to at least $750.

AND FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME: YOU ARE PAYING MUCH MORE THAN $124 TODAY!

Ok, yes, six properties benefit from the cap today. As property values rise, how many will benefit from the cap 10 years from today? And why should there be any cap at all? What is the rationale?

And yes, I know we are paying more than $124 today. I would like to see that portion of the funding eliminated entirely, and the cost be fully put onto the millage rate tax, with NO cap. I think that would be more fair.

[Kenswing]

Hmmmm. Who to support? A group who is supported by the Developer or a lawyer who hates the Developer? Don’t care much for lawyers to begin with. But when ALL of said lawyer’s posts on this site are anti-Developer all I can conclude is that this lawyer is blinded by his hatred. Sad life to live.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by LuvtheVillages

Ok, yes, six properties benefit from the cap today. As property values rise, how many will benefit from the cap 10 years from today? And why should there be any cap at all? What is the rationale?

And yes, I know we are paying more than $124 today. I would like to see that portion of the funding eliminated entirely, and the cost be fully put onto the millage rate tax, with NO cap. I think that would be more fair.

NOTE: I updated my numbers. 17 properties benefit from the cap, not all owned by The Vilages, and over 2000 properties apparently owned by The Villages do NOT benefit from the cap in any way.

You still don't seem to understand. The VPSD today is funded with the $124 plus about 0.71 mils of your millage rate today, with NO cap. And with no limit on the millage rate, that 0.71 today could be much higher next year. I believe the $124 is separated from the ad-valorem so that properties that would otherwise be exempt from ad-valorem due to exemptions will still pay something towards fire protection. Roll the $124 into the ad-valorem and some portion of those fees will no longer be collected.

Those who are against the IFD aren't going to point out that that there are several caps on the IFD funding. Yes, there is the $10M cap that benefits those 17 properties but there is also a cap on the 0.75mils and on the 1mil that benefit all of us. Increasing the 0.75mils is difficult and increasing the 1mil is impossible without another referendum. Compare that with the system in place today where the BoCC controls the millage and just three years ago increased it by 33%.

How many will benefit from the cap 10 years from now? There is no way of knowing. Perhaps only five if the economy has a downturn and assessments drop. Or maybe assessments keep climbing and more benefit. But remember, the $10M cap only applies to the 0.75mil portion, it does not apply to the 0-1mil ad-valorem piece and any increase in value will result in an increase in IFD fees for those properties as well.

[LuvtheVillages]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

NOTE: I updated my numbers. 17 properties benefit from the cap, not all owned by The Vilages, and over 2000 properties apparently owned by The Villages do NOT benefit from the cap in any way.

You still don't seem to understand. The VPSD today is funded with the $124 plus about 0.71 mils of your millage rate today, with NO cap. And with no limit on the millage rate, that 0.71 today could be much higher next year. I believe the $124 is separated from the ad-valorem so that properties that would otherwise be exempt from ad-valorem due to exemptions will still pay something towards fire protection. Roll the $124 into the ad-valorem and some portion of those fees will no longer be collected.

Those who are against the IFD aren't going to point out that that there are several caps on the IFD funding. Yes, there is the $10M cap that benefits those 17 properties but there is also a cap on the 0.75mils and on the 1mil that benefit all of us. Increasing the 0.75mils is difficult and increasing the 1mil is impossible without another referendum. Compare that with the system in place today where the BoCC controls the millage and just three years ago increased it by 33%.

How many will benefit from the cap 10 years from now? There is no way of knowing. Perhaps only five if the economy has a downturn and assessments drop. Or maybe assessments keep climbing and more benefit. But remember, the $10M cap only applies to the 0.75mil portion, it does not apply to the 0-1mil ad-valorem piece and any increase in value will result in an increase in IFD fees for those properties as well.

Yes, I understand all that perfectly. Just because I disagree with you does not mean I don't understand. I believe that having the fire dept cost on the county property tax, with no caps, will be more fair. Should County Commissioners abuse our trust again, they will also lose the next election.

You prefer this new method.

I guess we have to let everyone read our reasoning and decide for themselves.

[ScottFenstermaker]

Originally Posted by Papa_lecki

That EVIL developer, who built a community that is so nice, we all chose to move here.

Are you sure the VHA doesn’t pay a royalty to the developer to use the trademark or at least has a use agreement.
I am glad the developer trademarked it early on, prevented another organization from using the name.

So you are seriously suggesting that the VHA is paying a royalty to the Developer? Wow, the would be news and even worse than a royalty-free use. Do you understand that a trademark owner who licenses a mark, in order to protect his registration, has to monitor the quality of the product or service that uses the trademark? How do you think that it that is done in the case of "The VHA" mark? I don't know, but the relationship has an odor to it. Developer ownership of "The VHA" mark certainly shows the influence that the Developer has over The Villages Homeowners Advocates organization.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

I live in Lake County and therefore don't have a dog in this fight. As an observer from the outside, here's my input on the fire district situation.

From a purely capitalistic point of view, it's in the Developer's best interest to contain the district under their umbrella. In this way, they reap the rewards. They own the "company" (the fire department) and can charge the county, the CDD, whoever - whatever they want for the service. They don't have to put the service out to bid, they don't require that anyone vote on it. You might have to pay extra tax dollars, imposed by the county. That's to pay the company (the fire department) for their services. Services that will cost whatever they tell you they cost, since they OWN them and you voted to GIVE them that authority.

For that reason, I'm against giving the ownership of the fire district to the Villages. While the service is under the authority of the county, it answers to the taxpayers. While the service is under the authority of the Villages, it answers to no one.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

I live in Lake County and therefore don't have a dog in this fight. As an observer from the outside, here's my input on the fire district situation.

From a purely capitalistic point of view, it's in the Developer's best interest to contain the district under their umbrella. In this way, they reap the rewards. They own the "company" (the fire department) and can charge the county, the CDD, whoever - whatever they want for the service. They don't have to put the service out to bid, they don't require that anyone vote on it. You might have to pay extra tax dollars, imposed by the county. That's to pay the company (the fire department) for their services. Services that will cost whatever they tell you they cost, since they OWN them and you voted to GIVE them that authority.

For that reason, I'm against giving the ownership of the fire district to the Villages. While the service is under the authority of the county, it answers to the taxpayers. While the service is under the authority of the Villages, it answers to no one.

What you describe in your middle paragraph is what we have today. The VCCDD "owns" the VPSD. The VCCDD tells the BoCC what is needed to provide the service and the BoCC passes it along to all of us as ad-valorem taxes.

If the IFD passes then the "ownership" of the VPSD passes from the VCCDD to the IFD board elected by the residents.

[tophcfa]

I am very concerned about the cost of the proposed fire district. The voters are basically being asked to approve writing a blank check. Come back to the voters when you have hard cost information and can report to voters with transparency what the are being asked to approve. And besides, this whole thing is putting the cart in front of the horse. Improved response time is not nearly as important an issue as the fact that medical patients will be dumped at a horribly incompetent hospital. What good is faster response time when the ultimate outcome is that one will get dumped off at a hell hole so they can hurry up and wait for absolutely terrible health care. Based on my (and many others) experience with the Villages hospital, I would rather die at home than be brought to that nightmare.