Originally Posted by Dr Winston O Boogie jr (Post 726648)

I think that we're talking about two different things. Public property is property that it owned and maintained by the public or the government. Public access property is property that is privately owned but open to the public.

I don't know in what category the bridge falls, but one does have to transverse private property on the eastern side to get to it. The owners of that property have the right to determine who my use that property and who may not. For example a store may have a parking lot "For Customer's Only".

My backyard is adjacent to another home's backyard. If I cut through their yard, I can get to our neighborhood pool. Otherwise, I have to go around the block to get to the pool. It would be up to the people that own that home to allow me to cut through their yard to get to the pool or not. My yard and his yard connect two public roads. That does not mean that the public has a right to access either of those roads by crossing over our properties.

Originally Posted by EdV (Post 726766)

Here’s a link to the info on the bridge.

Golf Cart Overpass To Be Link To Shopping - Orlando Sentinel

The roads in TV are open to the public because the CDD form of government is still a public municipality, not a private community. And the multi-modal paths are an integral part of that road system. And just because those paths are maintained by amenity fee does not allow it to be designated for resident use only any more than a city with a city tax can start designating certain roads for resident use only.

Originally Posted by Dr Winston O Boogie jr (Post 726339)

Whoever owns that property between the Aldi parking lot and Wal-Mart has every right to allow whomever they want to use it and every right to not allow anyone to use it. If the Stonecrest residents want to buy it and allow only Stonecrest residents through they would certainly have that right. I would bet that if Wal-Mart got wind of what was happening, they would outbid everyone who tries to buy that dirt road. Also the Villages residents would also be able to buy it and only allow Villages residents to use it.
What you have proposed here is, of course, ludicrous. The residents of Stonecrest would have absolutely nothing to gain by taking that action. It wouldn't prevent anyone from entering Stonecrest.
The golf cart gate in question is on Villages property. No one is buying it out of spite in order to prevent people from getting to a third unrelated site.
VHA stands for VILLAGES Homeowners Association. They represent the interests of the Villages residents. They have no obligation to do anything that is beneficial to anyone else.

I would have no problem with Stonecrest making any paths on their property, leading into their property for Stonecrest residents only. And I don't think that many of my fellow Villagers would have any problem with it either.

Originally Posted by linko38 (Post 726780)

We had a discussion in the pool today regarding the Duke Energy lot. We here in Stonecrest have been waiting months to see if Aldi's and Walmart can come to a solution. They have fenced it off once before and were flooded with angry phone calls. However the "Berlin Wall" could change everything. Mr. Brown could decide to stop allowing golf carts to pass through. Walmart could lose interest in the path and let it be closed to everyone. The lady at Bealls and other busineses have said they are hurting from lack of sales. Golf cart rental companies. Golf cart sales. Everything will be affected.

Originally Posted by graciegirl (Post 725694)

Read this morning's Daily Sun. Article from VHA president in Local. Resolution did take more than 48 hours. Pays to be patient.

Can someone take a picture of that article and post it here for people off campus? My camera battery just died.

Originally Posted by Peachie (Post 726481)

Donniemac, we've owned in The Villages since 2007 and rented here several years before that. We nor our guests have EVER been carded at the pools and we frequent the pools quite often.

Originally Posted by friartax (Post 727525)

It seems that the true heroes in this saga may be the building commissioner and the town manager who noted that no permit had been issued to build the wall and that, according to the 1998 resolution, it appears that the developer had no rights to the property, that it had belonged to the Leesburg RMC, and that the RMC had
vacated its rights to the Town for use as a golf cart path.

Originally Posted by friartax (Post 727525)

It seems that the true heroes in this saga may be the building commissioner and the town manager who noted that no permit had been issued to build the wall and that, according to the 1998 resolution, it appears that the developer had no rights to the property, that it had belonged to the Leesburg RMC, and that the RMC had
vacated its rights to the Town for use as a golf cart path.

Originally Posted by rp001 (Post 727529)

I find this to be far more feasible that any of the "facts" distributed by the propagandists representing the builder or his henchwoman

Originally Posted by graciegirl (Post 727531)

Where did you get this information please?

Leesburg isn't even close to that area.

What is a RMC?

Originally Posted by friartax (Post 727525)

It seems that the true heroes in this saga may be the building commissioner and the town manager who noted that no permit had been issued to build the wall and that, according to the 1998 resolution, it appears that the developer had no rights to the property, that it had belonged to the Leesburg RMC, and that the RMC had
vacated its rights to the Town for use as a golf cart path.

Originally Posted by JeffAVEWS (Post 727577)

Ah Duh, I get it now, Tri-County Medical Center is the owner of the property. It was given to them by the Town of Lady Lake . I don't know if this is one of the developers shell company's, but I can't think of a reason they would put a gate there.

Originally Posted by rp001 (Post 727529)

I find this to be far more feasible that any of the "facts" distributed by the propagandists representing the builder or his henchwoman

Originally Posted by PennBF (Post 727591)

Didn't I read In all of the notes, etc that the POA had hired an attorney to start looking at the wall and it's legality? Somewhere in all of the notes this was lost and somehow they lost credit for being the ones that actually took firm action to protect the residents. Typical of the POA and it's true concerns and working to protect the residents. How much of the corrective actions are the result of the POA stepping in will never be known nor will they get the credit they deserve but that is what makes the POA as valuable as it is. It does not rely on publicity but rather continues to demonstrate a true supporter of the residents. Thanks to the POA!!!:eclipsee_gold_cup:

Originally Posted by TraceyMooreRN (Post 727613)

So- a gate, not a wall? A gate to keep the outsiders "out". Without a gate key you cant get in? Hmm, guess they haven't tried to ride the tail of another cart? Anyone will be able to go out the gate--but going in--they will tailgate. Not a difficult task, or "they" will just make a way to go around the gate.
Feel sorry for that area--- regardless if it was a path maintained by whoever- it existed a source of travel to multiple businesses (without the real estate premium for the developer) but yes a need for the area residents and convenience.

Originally Posted by DonH57 (Post 727641)

I've tryed following this saga of the wall over the past few days and from what I've read the whole purpose of placing the wall by the developer was to keep stone crest and other outside community residents from the shopping, eating and entertainment venues in the villages by golf cart. So..... how do they plan to keep them from coming in automobiles to do the same at the squares?

Originally Posted by NoMoSno (Post 727639)

If Tri-County Medical Center is the owner, maybe they will decide a gate is not in the best interest of the community.