[rockyhyder]

Seems to me this whole blame the “Developer” , be against the “Developer” effort has been misguided from the beginning. The developer is actually a business operation that is one of, if not the largest employer in Sumter County. This organization is NOT the enemy but rather a business whom’s success or failure will directly impact every citizen in this County. If you want to discuss the impact of growth, good and bad, then ask the County Commission for a comprehensive study on the impact of growth for the things we pay taxes for (I.e. roads, public safety, schools, public health,recreation, etc). Then develop a method to fund these programs based on the services existing property owners utilize and assess impact fees for cost associated with new homeowners. The truth of the matter is, Estep, Miller and Search were elected as a knee jerk reaction to a tax increase, they used words that tickled a vast majority of voters ears but had NO PLAN as to how to carry it out. County government is a complex operation and there are no simple answers like “we’ll just cut taxes and increase fees”. I just hope these new inexperienced Commissioners have enough character to admit they had no clue and proceed on a path of logical decision making.

[dewilson58]

Originally Posted by rockyhyder

The truth of the matter is, Estep, Miller and Search were elected as a knee jerk reaction to a tax increase, they used words that tickled a vast majority of voters ears but had NO PLAN as to how to carry it out.

Bingo!

[Fuzzy]

Numbers don’t lie.

[Fuzzy]

I thought the article was full of facts.

[Fuzzy]

Why do you envy the developers? Why do you care what they have? Are you jealous? This county was the poorest county if Florida before TV. Green with envy. 🤣

[Fuzzy]

And we will pay for this mistake.

[rogerk]

Originally Posted by Advogado

The head-line article in today's Daily Sun is the latest impact-fee bull shoveled by the Developer's Minister of Propaganda, David R. Corder. It nowhere mentions the decrease in property taxes that would match the increase in impact fees. Estep, Miller, and Search ran on a platform of reversing the 25% property-tax increase imposed by the Developer's puppet Commissioners to preserve the Developer's sweetheart impact fee.

Mr. Corder constantly describes the proposed impact-fee increase as a "tax increase". It would not be a tax increase. It would be a SHIFTING of taxes to pay for the Developer's county infrastructure (roads, police, fire, etc.) from the present residents to the Developer, who should be bearing such costs. The net result would be a tax decrease for current businesses and residents. New or existing businesses building a new structure would pay the impact fee once and then enjoy lower property taxes, amortizing and deducting the impact fee over the life of the building.

Again, this would be a tax break for existing, COVID-impacted businesses. Furthermore, expanding existing businesses filling up the many existing vacant premises would pay no impact fee and would enjoy the benefit of lower property taxes. Unfortunately, the issue is complicated and, for many residents, the Developer's newspaper is their only source of local news. These folks may well believe Mr. Corder's distortion of the facts.

The biggest beneficiary of a Property Tax decrease would be the developer. Second a reduction in new business coming into Sumter County would result in a longer-term reduction in the tax base. The county would get less revenue from impact fees and less property tax revenue. I see this as a lose lose proposal.

These new commissioners are only looking short term. The supposed benefits would be minimal but the longer term pact would be significantly greater.

[rogerk]

To fully appreciate the impact of the increase in impact fees, you must look beyond housing development inside The Villages. You need to look at industry moving into the county as well as non Villages, non-age restricted housing.

[Aloha1]

Originally Posted by Stu from NYC

It is remarkable how the paper continues to publish a very one sided view of this. Would have thought they would put in at least one person saying why they think the developer should be paying more but not what the paper is told to publish.

I have said it before and will say it again think there is ample room to compromise but since when does responsible journalism allow an editorial to be published as a news article.

Well, it appears to be the standard of every media outlet both print and television.

[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by Aloha1

Well, it appears to be the standard of every media outlet both print and television.

Most will have perhaps 10 comments to their point of view and sometimes 1 to the opposing point.

The Sun has no interest in the opposing view.

[Aloha1]

Originally Posted by Dr Winston O Boogie jr

I'm trying to understand why the developer "should" be bearing these costs. Aren't the residents the ones that benefit from these services. In every other type of government, the residents pay for these services through taxes.

The problem is there is a cadre of residents who haven't had a tax increase for several years unlike the other 2 counties wherein TV exists. They "think" the southern expansion has no benefit to them, they don't like the fact that TV is growing beyond what it was when they bought in. They do not want change. They get a $325 tax increase after several years and are incensed because "it has to be the evil developer who's causing this". So their answer is, "to heck with you and yours, we don't want any part of anything different than when we bought in". So sad and so selfish.

[Aloha1]

Originally Posted by Stu from NYC

Most will have perhaps 10 comments to their point of view and sometimes 1 to the opposing point.

The Sun has no interest in the opposing view.

I have rarely seen ANY comments in the Sun whether pro or con, so balanced commentary. I take the paper for what it is and enjoy reading the articles about life in TV. I know what the Sun is about and certainly do not look upon it as an expert in world affairs. Having said that, the articles posted in recent days contain much food for thought as to the impact of this ill thought out vendetta by the new Commissioners. And yes, they were Democrats who registered as Republicans for this election. Wonder why?

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by rogerk

The biggest beneficiary of a Property Tax decrease would be the developer. Second a reduction in new business coming into Sumter County would result in a longer-term reduction in the tax base. The county would get less revenue from impact fees and less property tax revenue. I see this as a lose lose proposal.

These new commissioners are only looking short term. The supposed benefits would be minimal but the longer term pact would be significantly greater.

Help me understand this. If the biggest beneficiary of a tax decrease would be the developer then wouldn't the one hurt most by a tax increase also be the developer? Yet it was the developer fighting for a tax increase. Did he/they really work against their best interests?

"The county would get less revenue from impact fees." Given that the county only receives 40% of what the impact really costs, wouldn't receiving less revenue from impact fees actually result in a 60% savings? (If you don't think so, then I'll buy $100 bills from you for $40 all day long, just let me know where we can meet)

[wisbad1]

Originally Posted by Advogado

The head-line article in today's Daily Sun is the latest impact-fee bull shoveled by the Developer's Minister of Propaganda, David R. Corder. It nowhere mentions the decrease in property taxes that would match the increase in impact fees. Estep, Miller, and Search ran on a platform of reversing the 25% property-tax increase imposed by the Developer's puppet Commissioners to preserve the Developer's sweetheart impact fee.

Mr. Corder constantly describes the proposed impact-fee increase as a "tax increase". It would not be a tax increase. It would be a SHIFTING of taxes to pay for the Developer's county infrastructure (roads, police, fire, etc.) from the present residents to the Developer, who should be bearing such costs. The net result would be a tax decrease for current businesses and residents. New or existing businesses building a new structure would pay the impact fee once and then enjoy lower property taxes, amortizing and deducting the impact fee over the life of the building.

Again, this would be a tax break for existing, COVID-impacted businesses. Furthermore, expanding existing businesses filling up the many existing vacant premises would pay no impact fee and would enjoy the benefit of lower property taxes. Unfortunately, the issue is complicated and, for many residents, the Developer's newspaper is their only source of local news. These folks may well believe Mr. Corder's distortion of the facts.

Stopped getting papers, still have month left. Same old stuff.

[Klatu]

The new commisioners are doing what liberals always do: claim they want to be fair and equitable while they try to stick it to businesses and developers, always in the name of fairness. If you look at the numbers from businesses impacted by these increases, you can see how crippling this approach is. And one more thing: why do other counties cut impact fees to attract businesses?

The Villages leadership has provided us with a clean, safe and wonderful community to live in. It's a shame when small minded folks try to "stick it to them" out of envy, liberal ideology and shameless extremism.