[ldovermiller]

Great OP!! I think it is time to stop talking, hire and attorney, file an injunction and go to court. This is the only way to handle the
situation.

[FromNY]

Just asking,did this overcrowded meeting mean no social distancing? Were masks worn by everyone?

[wamley]

I guess the sales office could be part of that apartment complex in LSL, since most of the sales could be handled in Brownwood and south of the turnpike.

[Travelhunter]

Originally Posted by rtrav711

This topic has popped up before...and I posted the following comments on the last one. As it states, the developer was required to put in writing how their property was developed...and how to was to be developed going forward. It would be difficult if not impossible for the developer, to rescind what he/she presented to a legal body such as a State. Going forward...it is also apparent their promises are in writing to those who depended on them when purchasing their home in The Villages. I am not an attorney....but I find it difficult to believe that those effected would not be able to sustain a Class Action suit.
The big problem...is no one will really sustain a real estate value loss until the developer has effected the changes. It should be kept in mind; just because a zoning commission, etc., approves a zoning or building change...doesn't eliminate one's written promise or written vision of how a piece of property is to be developed.
In addition...the developer may also be exposed to a punitive suit....which in many cases far exceeds the value of the compensatory damages.



Déjà vu…..what comes around-goes around.
Recently responded to several comments made re the changes at Hacienda CC.
To reinterate…it was necessary for the developer to file with various States a Property Report which stated on its’ face “The developer is responsible for the Accuracy and completeness of this report”.
The one filed with the State of Connecticut was a 34 page detailed document, revised in 2003.
My personal initiative to purchase in The Villages was partially dependent on this report ;(some would refer to this as "due diligence") which in writing promised a “vision” of how The Villages were developed to that point; and what the developer was to do in the future.
There have been hundreds, if not thousands of purchases in The Villages, by individuals who were led to believe what was presented to them in writing.
There is absolutely no problem for someone to revise a plan going forward in a new area…but there is a problem for one to significantly change what was a written promise and now proves detrimental to one who had depended in it.
Additionally…there has been many pieces of sales material handed out by the developer over a period of time that states the same objectives, etc..
E.g…..Under additional information on the Restated Report filed with the Connecticut authorities…..it states on page 32 ..”40. Describe type of building, such as high rise, cluster, garden, etc….The answer is “The Villages is currently developed in two sections as “units” and “villas”. This follows the previous remark “39. …..The units are intended for and restricted solely to single family home usage”. It does not say anywhere in the report, that apartments will be part of the Villages….nor does it say anywhere in the report that multiplex buildings will become part of the Villages…nor does
it say anywhere in the report, any reference to do with specifically with apartments at Spanish Springs or Sumter Landing.
No one should have any problem….going forward on new expansion areas of The Villages as to what is to be built....as it's going forward you are made aware of the plans.
It’s when you back up and take something away…or radically change what you have promised in writing…that causes a problem.
So what changes have been made against written promises on an Official document in this case filed with the State of Connecticut. The elimination of the pool, pro shop, tennis courts, dining facilities etc., of Hacienda CC which are specifically mentioned in the report, (eg..page 3 paragraph 3,page 20 under #17,page 21 under #18, and so on). This not only effects the adjacent homeowners….but also the greater area surrounding The HH CC …. For the hundreds of homes that considered this course their CC because
of their location to the course.
What other changes have/are occurring …… closing of the restaurant at Chula Vista; restaurant closing at El Santiago… the closing of Katie Belle’s which was a written promise of Resident Dining in a 2004 sales brochure given prospective property buyers….the proposed apartments at Katie Belles….proposed apartments on other Spanish Spring property…proposed apartments at Sumter Landing…and so on.
There has been talk of a Class Action Lawsuit by several groups, for compensatory Damages, on those several hundred homes that may be effected by the complex that is proposed at the HH CC location.
On speculation…say the developers are making 20% on a home…and they are averaging or have averaged about 5,000 homes a year…at about $300,000 a home sales price…the profit would roughly be $300,000,000. Again, this is speculative…and I have no basis for the profit margin…but just a guess. My point would be…that even if it’s half of that….to actually lose 5, 6 or even $700,000 on the promises they have made…. (restaurants…CC..etc)….would literally be nothing…and allow them to maintain what they promised in writing.
In addition to a compensatory Class Action suit…there is a question as to whether or not the developers would be exposed to a Punitive Damage count. Generally, punitive damage judgments involve a tort claim, or contract claim Eg… insurance policy. The problems here arise out of contractual purchases,
based on written promises.
Punitive Damages, or exemplary damages, are damages assessed in order to punish the defendant for outrageous conduct and/or to reform or deter the defendant and others from engaging in conduct similar to that which formed the basis of the lawsuit.
I am not an attorney…but have read about these substantial judgments. Given the importance… of filing a detailed property report with requiring official state entities…the content of these reports cannot be viewed lightly.
In this situation, if the breach of written promise is so egregious, to amount to a breach of the implied good faith and fair dealing; there may be a basis for a punitive damage award. Again….I am not an attorney…and what I have concluded may be all wet…but it might be a consideration for those directly effected by the developer’s actions.
We moved to the Villages many years ago...and will remain regardless of what changes will be made.
It still is a special place...but am disappointed that written promises that have been made are being
broken,

Well said:
You state that you are not a lawyer. The path forward you describe seems to be a well thought out and winning strategy If you had pursued the law you would have been a great one
To all, this is the way to initiate change

[wamley]

Easy to turn 27 hole course into 18 and build on the vacated 9 holes.

[joseppe]

I get why everyone's upset over this, but I don't understand the thinking that complaining, arguing or fighting it is going to change it. Those promises of a perceived lifestyle were never put in writing and are not defensible. I'd say the only reasonable option you have is to either accept its going to happen or leave the Villages before your property values and lifestyle are infringed upon. Those are the things you can change, the coming of apartments you probably cannot change.

[npwalters]

Originally Posted by FromNY

Just asking,did this overcrowded meeting mean no social distancing? Were masks worn by everyone?

The meeting room was socially distanced (not overcrowded). There were many more residents that tried to attend than the venue could support. All wore masks except when speaking.

[72lions]

Originally Posted by vintageogauge

Over the years I went to many meetings/hearings such as this where residents were invited to speak their mind. Not once were there changes made based on the input from local residents. Similar to these "officials" at your meeting, in many cases never went to the site being discussed. I figured that I wasted about 100 hours of my life at these meetings/hearings and vowed never to get involved again as it is simply a waste of time. After the last meeting I attended where they were planning to build, and did build homes in a swamp not far from my property line, I sold my home and left town, I was not going to take a chance on having my property flooded when that swamp was built upon. In one way or another many of these "officials" have been bought and paid for. It's best just to let them go and enjoy life as it is.

Your property never flooded, did it?

[npwalters]

Originally Posted by Laker14

actually Jimbo, I agree with you. However, it seems that they ARE getting away with doing whatever they want. Some of the same people who claim that the developers SHOULD be able to do whatever they want are the same people who think it's unthinkable that they would do it again with the other CCs. They know how to get what they want, and they usually do. I don't think it's unthinkable at all that if the current plan for apartments proves profitable, they wouldn't do it again, and again.

This is what Mr. Holly said in an unscripted moment. I'm paraphrasing this from memory .Speaking about the 8 acre Hacieida Hills site "after all the developer owns that land. They can do whatever they want with it. They could have placed a 100,000 ft retail store on that site and the traffic would be much worse".

Yes, the chief staff member of Planning and Zoning for Sumter County said this. This was after the period for public comment so no citizen had the opportunity to ask him if a retail store was actually an approved use at that site.

[Scorpyo]

Originally Posted by dewilson58

Sarcasm Sheldon, sarcasm.

That was utterly cruel Leonard. Do you know how incompressible your statement is to the non fan? Go drink a glass of milk.

[caseycasebeer]

Excellent comments and strategy suggestions. As mentioned, no doubt there is some enterprising attorney drafting an injunction as we ‘speak. If nothing else an injunction should permit newly elected commissioners to deal with the situation in a more dispassionate manner.

A SIX HOUR public meeting ... Yeoww! I got there about 5:30, couldn’t be seated (“...tickets? What tickets??”) so I waited with the herd outside the official meeting room. After about a half hour I decided to leave (I have a hearing problem [my problem, not their’s] so I left at 6:35. Thank Goodness ... SIX HOURS, Yeoww!

[Worldseries27]

Originally Posted by npwalters

the meeting room was socially distanced (not overcrowded). There were many more residents that tried to attend than the venue could support. All wore masks except when speaking.

therapy fee

[Worldseries27]

Great answer to bb

[Rzepecki]

Originally Posted by Stu from NYC

Very interesting. Wonder if the special master is bought and paid for?

Where the meeting was held is rather revealing.

The BOCC meetings are regularly held at the Everglades Regional Recreation Center.

Since the BOCC Works for the entire county and not just TV, this location is more convenient for the entire county.

[islandtiempo]

OP, thank you for your informed opinion and effort to educate us.