[Tbugs]

Redwitch,

Very strange, you say, "Many of the developer's actions are not relevant to my day-to-day life but they are relevant to the overall scheme of TV and whether Morse is willing to make a profit at the cost of cheating others (mainly us). The poaching shows he is willing to skirt the law when it is convenient to him. It implies an arrogance I don't appreciate. The IRS issues also show he is arrogant enough to not listen when suggestions are made that things be changed. The entire Moffitt Center with its web of lies is just wrong to me. The settlement showed he was more than willing to cheat Villagers to line his own pocket."

You said Mark Morse is willing to cheat us, is willing to skirt the law when convient to him and is arrogant; the IRS issue shows him to be arrogant; the Moffitt Center is a web of lies; and he is more than willing to cheat Villagers in order to line his own pockets. AND YET you are willing to live in a community run by such a person? You had previously stated, "simply to help us decide if we want to risk our investment because the man running our development seems to be lacking morally.

I do not have any problem with the Morse family. Definitely, I believe that the "poaching" on his own property was a set-up. Lauren Richie is a muckracker with a vendetta against Morse and The Villages.

[eweissenbach]

Originally Posted by Tbugs

Redwitch,


You said Mark Morse is willing to cheat us, is willing to skirt the law when convient to him and is arrogant; the IRS issue shows him to be arrogant; the Moffitt Center is a web of lies; and he is more than willing to cheat Villagers in order to line his own pockets. AND YET you are willing to live in a community run by such a person? You had previously stated, "simply to help us decide if we want to risk our investment because the man running our development seems to be lacking morally.

I do not have any problem with the Morse family. Definitely, I believe that the "poaching" on his own property was a set-up. Lauren Richie is a muckracker with a vendetta against Morse and The Villages.

Each of us is entitled to decide whether we have a problem with the Morse family or do not. Each of us is entitled to express our opinion of the Morse family, or anyone else as long as we don't libel them. You "believe" that the "poaching" charge was a set-up. Others believe that they are warrented, and still others believe they are inadequate. We all live in a great country where we are free to "believe" whatever we choose and even express our opinion about it. I have lived in communities where I didn't like or have confidence in the leadership, but have never left a community because of it. Suggesting one should not avail themself of a service, product, or real estate because they find the ethics of the developer of same distasteful seems a bit radical to me. Refusing to acknowledge that someone who did things that you continue to enjoy, could also be lacking in other areas of thier life also seems a bit pollyanna to me. There are many examples of people throughout history who did important and wonderful things, who were less than stellar human beings in other aspects of their life, but we still benefit from the good things they did.

[Talk Host]

Originally Posted by Tbugs

Definitely, I believe that the "poaching" on his own property was a set-up. Lauren Richie is a muckracker with a vendetta against Morse and The Villages.

You're suggesting that Lauren Richie set him up? That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

[Tbugs]

No, I am not suggesting Mark Morse was set up by Lauren Richie. That came from Montana where they are just trying to make scapegoats of out-of-state big land holders. Go to some of their local papers and you can see what kind of attitudes they have against out-of-state property owners.

[Talk Host]

Originally Posted by Tbugs

No, I am not suggesting Mark Morse was set up by Lauren Richie. That came from Montana where they are just trying to make scapegoats of out-of-state big land holders. Go to some of their local papers and you can see what kind of attitudes they have against out-of-state property owners.

It's interesting that you would think that a state in our union would engage in felonious activity by trumping up charges to further their dislike for out of staters. If what you say is true, then there are some high ranking Montana officials who should go to jail. I think it's against the law to deliberately falsify charges against somebody. I could be wrong though. You might be right. But I don't think Lauren Ritichie was complicit in this set up and framing, maybe just the Montana State Government and it's wildlife officers.

It's a funny attitude for them to have since "out of state' hunting licenses is a huge business for them. Kinda like our local cops arresting snowbirds for speeding and crashing stop signs. Gotta keep busy.

[collie1228]

"Real" newspapers have firewalls between the business side, the news side and the editorial side. Do you think for one minute that the New York Times or Washington Post would not run a newsworthy story if it disclosed something unfavorable about its management? I'm no fan of the NYT's politics, but it is a "real" newspaper and I'm certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that its newsroom would always run such a story. Maybe it would be on page 46, but it would be run. The Sun is not a newspaper - it is the developer's tool to sell more property - and it can run whatever it wants. I just don't think anyone should call it a real newspaper.

[BobKat1]

Originally Posted by collie1228

"Real" newspapers have firewalls between the business side, the news side and the editorial side. Do you think for one minute that the New York Times or Washington Post would not run a newsworthy story if it disclosed something unfavorable about its management? I'm no fan of the NYT's politics, but it is a "real" newspaper and I'm certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that its newsroom would always run such a story. Maybe it would be on page 46, but it would be run. The Sun is not a newspaper - it is the developer's tool to sell more property - and it can run whatever it wants. I just don't think anyone should call it a real newspaper.

I think you are correct. As long as one keeps that in mind and doesn't take the publication too seriously, it won't all short of expectations. I enjoy reading The Sun but for news I look elsewhere.

[Pturner]

Originally Posted by eweissenbach

The difference is that Joe Blow would be one of thousands of ordinary citizens who are charged with breaking the law every day. ... The news of anything happening to the Morse's, good or bad, is and should be a topic of interest in this area and on TOTV, not so that people can bash them, or praise them, but because they are among the most important people in influencing the lives of Villagers, and thus their actions are noteworthy.

As to the point that the Daily Sun should report these things, I would argue that they have no obligation to do so. The Daily Sun is not a newspaper in the traditional sense in my opinion. It is more like a house organ, like the ones produced by the two Fortune 500 companies I worked for, which is unlikely to break bad news about the employer. The Daily Sun is a good sourse of local news, local advertising, and activities in TV. It also offers some national coverage through wire service articles. If you expect them to hire the next Woodward and Bernstien to ferret out any scandalous behavior or unethical dealings of the developer family, you will be left wanting. JMHO

Originally Posted by eweissenbach

Each of us is entitled to decide whether we have a problem with the Morse family or do not. Each of us is entitled to express our opinion of the Morse family, or anyone else as long as we don't libel them. You "believe" that the "poaching" charge was a set-up. Others believe that they are warrented, and still others believe they are inadequate. We all live in a great country where we are free to "believe" whatever we choose and even express our opinion about it. I have lived in communities where I didn't like or have confidence in the leadership, but have never left a community because of it. Suggesting one should not avail themself of a service, product, or real estate because they find the ethics of the developer of same distasteful seems a bit radical to me. Refusing to acknowledge that someone who did things that you continue to enjoy, could also be lacking in other areas of thier life also seems a bit pollyanna to me. There are many examples of people throughout history who did important and wonderful things, who were less than stellar human beings in other aspects of their life, but we still benefit from the good things they did.

Ed, I agree with you on this issue. Your articulate and well-reasoned posts are always a breath of fresh air.

[Advogado]

Originally Posted by redwitch

Why is it that when someone does not like what the developer has done, the response is we can move if we don't like it? I love it here. I don't happen to love the developer, but I do appreciate what he has done with building this community. TV as a whole is a great tribute to Schwartz, Gary Morse, Mark Morse and the rest of the family. However, that doesn't mean that I don't want to know if he is ethical, honest, humane, kind to children and animals and so on. The Church on the Square and its entertainment and Morse's willingness to house the entertainers shows not only his business acumen, but his generosity to Villagers. The nature preserves are a thing of beauty and something I do appreciate on a daily basis. The fact that he gets a tax write-off for having them again shows good business acumen. The fact that they are actually well-maintained speaks well of the developer since that is not really necessary for the tax benefits.

Many of the developer's actions are not relevant to my day-to-day life but they are relevant to the overall scheme of TV and whether Morse is willing to make a profit at the cost of cheating others (mainly us). The poaching shows he is willing to skirt the law when it is convenient to him. It implies an arrogance I don't appreciate. The IRS issues also show he is arrogant enough to not listen when suggestions are made that things be changed. The entire Moffitt Center with its web of lies is just wrong to me. The settlement showed he was more than willing to cheat Villagers to line his own pocket. I do believe we need to be informed about these matters, whether from TOTV members, Ms. Ritchie, the Sun, the POA, our neighbors, etc. Yes, some may have an agenda just to besmirch the Morses but I really don't care so long as they get the word out. I'm intelligent enough and enough of an adult to make up my own mind (plus I'm willing to research things further once I hear of something).

As to not subscribing to the Sun, why wouldn't I? I just refuse to call it a newspaper. As was said, it is more of a trade rag for TV than anything else. I do want to know what events are happening in TV. I like reading the comics and Heloise and .... I like the feel of the paper in my hand in the morning. I just want a little more relevant local news. (But, then, I also want a piece of the moon, a Testarosa, enough money so that I never have to work again, to be in perfect health, peace around the world, no starvation or famine anywhere, disease to be eradicated ......)

I stand by that IF the Sun wants to be called a newspaper, then it should carry all of the news -- not just the pretty pieces. If Mark Morse or his wife is caught in bed with someone other than their spouse, I don't care (unless it was forced or a minor) and don't want to know. If Morse is charged with a misdemeanor, I don't care and don't want to know. If Morse is charged with a felony, that's news whether the Sun and Villagers like it or not and I do want to know. I find it comical that the initial arrest of Morse, et al. was finally written up weeks after it occurred while the Sentinel published the story two days after the charges were brought. Like it or not, it is news. If Morse does go to prison, how will it affect the way TV is run, if at all? I honestly have no idea.

Exactly.

The Developer has created an absolutely wonderful retirement community and deserves credit for that. However, the structure of the Villages and the great wealth of the Developer gives the Developer huge power over local politics and the lives of the residents. With great wealth and power comes the obligation to act responsibly. (To head off the silly "You're just jealous" criticisms that I have received, I don't begrudge the fact that the Developer has made a lot of money-- I just have concerns about some his actions.)

Some of the Developer's practices (read the details of the IRS allegations and consider the financial fallout of an IRS victory) potentially put the future of this place at risk. Other practices involve the use the Developer's wealth and power in order to abuse the rights of the homeowners (consider, for example, the Developer's establishment and continued subsidization of the Home Owners' Association in order to counter the Property Owners' Association because of the latter's criticism of the Developer).

To those posters who say love everything about The Villages, and shut up if you don't, or leave it, I say: I don't recall anything in my purchase agreement requiring me to turn a blind eye to improper or abusive actions by the Developer.

[Taj44]

Advogado - well said!

[Xavier]

Originally Posted by Advogado

Exactly.

The Developer has created an absolutely wonderful retirement community and deserves credit for that. However, the structure of the Villages and the great wealth of the Developer gives the Developer huge power over local politics and the lives of the residents. With great wealth and power comes the obligation to act responsibly. (To head off the silly "You're just jealous" criticisms that I have received, I don't begrudge the fact that the Developer has made a lot of money-- I just have concerns about some his actions.)

Some of the Developer's practices (read the details of the IRS allegations and consider the financial fallout of an IRS victory) potentially put the future of this place at risk. Other practices involve the use the Developer's wealth and power in order to abuse the rights of the homeowners (consider, for example, the Developer's establishment and continued subsidization of the Home Owners' Association in order to counter the Property Owners' Association because of the latter's criticism of the Developer).

To those posters who say love everything about The Villages, and shut up if you don't, or leave it, I say: I don't recall anything in my purchase agreement requiring me to turn a blind eye to improper or abusive actions by the Developer.

Advogado,

At this time has the developer been convicted of any wrong doing with the IRS? Is there anything legally or morally wrong with his supporting VHA? I personally like having two viewpoints available to us - POA and VHA. Has he been convicted of any crime in Montana? Where is it written that with great wealth and power comes the obligation to act in a particular way? How does that make him different than you or me. WHAT are the improper and abusive actions that the Developer has committed? Is this all factual or a perception? Being charged with something doesn't necessarily make anyone guilty. Generally we let the law take care of that. Why are you treating him differently?

With all due respect, I certainly would be scared to death if you were on a jury of any sort. You obviously are letting your own opinions allow you to make the gigantic leap that you have.

Xavier

[Advogado]

Originally Posted by Xavier

Advogado,



With all due respect, I certainly would be scared to death if you were on a jury of any sort. You obviously are letting your own opinions allow you to make the gigantic leap that you have.

Xavier

Xavier,

I have tried to limit my posts to discussions of the issues and not of the posters themselves, but, "with all due respect" as you put it, I feel that I really have to reply to your latest personal attack.

If I were guilty, I sure would love to have you on my jury.

However, if I were innocent, I would be praying that neither you, nor anybody else with your unique analytical ability, was on my jury.

[redwitch]

As Gracie would say, "Boy, howdy!"

[cabo35]

Originally Posted by Advogado

Exactly.

I say: I don't recall anything in my purchase agreement requiring me to turn a blind eye to improper or abusive actions by the Developer.

Perhaps you will share with us direct, factual evidence of the "improper or abusive actions".... that you tacitly infer.... the developer has actually perpetrated. That way, we can weigh it against the specifics of the lifestyle he has created, the jobs he has created, his contributions to medical care and education in The Villages, his impact overall on the area's economy and the general safety and security we enjoy in comparison to say......Orlando...you know, the Orlando that is home to that other paper embraced by developer critics.

When you submit your list, we can, on balance, make individual comparisons and assessments based on our own experience, biases and prejudices and determine if he has quantitatively done more good then bad as opposed to qualitative and largely subjective opinions that undermine him and the investments of many property owners. My perception, subjective at best, suggests his critics overstate and contrive their bashing of the man and his family for reasons best known themselves.

For the record, I have on occasion been a critic of certain positions the developer has taken but never would classify them, absent facts to the contrary, as "improper and abusive" regarding his stewardship in the management of the Villages.

I hope you take the time to back up your accusations with direct evidence and facts and quantifiable data to support your rather harsh insinuation.

[Xavier]

Originally Posted by Advogado

Xavier,

I have tried to limit my posts to discussions of the issues and not of the posters themselves, but, "with all due respect" as you put it, I feel that I really have to reply to your latest personal attack.

If I were guilty, I sure would love to have you on my jury.

However, if I were innocent, I would be praying that neither you, nor anybody else with your unique analytical ability, was on my jury.

You forgot to answer any of my inquiries. Maybe the answers didn't fit the indictment.

Peace,
Xavier