[SteveZ]

Originally Posted by Advogado

Graciegirl, I too wish people wouldn't worry about this matter.

It sure would make a lot of us feel better if the Morse family would issue a public statement to the effect that:

No matter what the outcome of the IRS controversy, the Morse family members, personally will protect their family legacy and guarantee the continuation of the amenities.

When you find me the business - anywhere, any industry, any owner, any stockholder - willing to do this, let me know. Otherwise:

"The only sure thing in life is death and taxes." - Benjamin Franklin

[Advogado]

Originally Posted by Bogie Shooter

That would be foolish inlight of the negotiations that are just beginning.

Bogie Shooter:
I understand your point. However, I am not too sure that reassurance from the Morse family at this point would be foolish, as opposed to a vote of confidence in the VCCDD's position. Personal reassurance is certainly something that, one would think, the Morse family will have to consider if the existing controversy negatively impacts the sale of houses. It doesn't seem to me that the latest Tutt statement should comfort anyone.

[Bogie Shooter]

Originally Posted by Advogado

Bogie Shooter:
I understand your point. However, I am not too sure that reassurance from the Morse family at this point would be foolish, as opposed to a vote of confidence in the VCCDD's position. Personal reassurance is certainly something that, one would think, the Morse family will have to consider if the existing controversy negatively impacts the sale of houses. It doesn't seem to me that the latest Tutt statement should comfort anyone.

I guess if one did not read all the doom and gloom on the subject on TOTV they would not need comforting.

[SteveZ]

Originally Posted by Advogado

Bogie Shooter:
I understand your point. However, I am not too sure that reassurance from the Morse family at this point would be foolish, as opposed to a vote of confidence in the VCCDD's position. Personal reassurance is certainly something that, one would think, the Morse family will have to consider if the existing controversy negatively impacts the sale of houses. It doesn't seem to me that the latest Tutt statement should comfort anyone.

Far be it for me to give the Morse family any marketing advice. They seem to be doing rather well, and this IRS matter seems to have had little (if any) impact, based on the all of the construction new starts south of 466.

I'm not sure what constitutes "comfort," or who needs it? "Stuff" happens all the time in business, especially when regulatory or other agencies get involved, and business people deal with it. It's part of the cost and fact of doing any kind of business.

One thing is for sure: negotiating anything in a fishbowl environment rarely (if ever) works well, to include negotiation by presentation of one side's position in the press. The POA should realize this, especially after it's previous experience.

[Muncle]

Originally Posted by downeaster

Good question. It may be a gray area but a licensed agent or broker probably should as they are required to disclose anything that could effect the value of the property with few exceptions.

I can't speak for developer's employees who sell only developer"s property. I believe they are not required to be licensed.

As a Florida licensed real estate broker I would interpret the law as requiring me to disclose this problem. If I didn't I would be afraid it could come back and bite me.

Exactly what would you disclose? What facts do you know that should be conveyed to potential buyers?



`

[Advogado]

Originally Posted by SteveZ

Far be it for me to give the Morse family any marketing advice. They seem to be doing rather well, and this IRS matter seems to have had little (if any) impact, based on the all of the construction new starts south of 466.

I'm not sure what constitutes "comfort," or who needs it? "Stuff" happens all the time in business, especially when regulatory or other agencies get involved, and business people deal with it. It's part of the cost and fact of doing any kind of business.

One thing is for sure: negotiating anything in a fishbowl environment rarely (if ever) works well, to include negotiation by presentation of one side's position in the press. The POA should realize this, especially after it's previous experience.

:

Steve Z:

Let's remember that the TOTV, if you look at numbers (most views are repeats) has a relatively small audience. Furthermore, I really have seen more realism, as opposed to doom and gloom, by the people concerned about the potential severity of this situation.

I, of course, am aware that "stuff" happens all the time in business. However, "stuff" of this potential magnitude does not happen all the time.

Yes, you are right, this matter has probably NOT YET significantly impacted the sale of houses. The impact will probably come when real estate agents start to really focus on the situation and feel compelled to disclose the facts to potential buyers, in order to avoid potential liability if this controversy turns out badly.

[BJinTX]

Thank you for all the info. We still want to move.
Just need to work on the health insurance issue. Have even e-mailed senators.
My husband is a big time golfer. We were there last May and liked everything we saw. Like I said in my profie, we have family in Clermont.
I am sure i will have more questions as time goes on.
Thank you for being so kind. BJ

[downeaster]

Originally Posted by Muncle

Exactly what would you disclose? What facts do you know that should be conveyed to potential buyers?`

As I am inactive at the moment (currently licensed)I have not really addressed this problem and it is not that simple. The home owner is also required to reveal pertinent facts so I would probably put together information including the IRS input together with a copy of Janet Tutt's article. This could also be part of the seller's disclosure as well. One way or another I would make sure the buyer was aware by finding out from me and the seller up front and not from his neighbor the day he moves in. (Or from reading about it on this forum).
I would guess this subject has been a big part of sales meetings in real estate brokers offices. I know we covered a lot of similar subjects including a murder in the home, potential land fill around the corner, AIDS patient (and that is a subject of it's own) etc.
If you remember Talk Host started what turned into a long thread based on the fact his agent did not reveal the existence of a very active and noisy railroad track nearby. Had I been his agent I would have revealed that.

[SteveZ]

Originally Posted by Advogado

:

Steve Z:

Let's remember that the TOTV, if you look at numbers (most views are repeats) has a relatively small audience. Furthermore, I really have seen more realism, as opposed to doom and gloom, by the people concerned about the potential severity of this situation.

I, of course, am aware that "stuff" happens all the time in business. However, "stuff" of this potential magnitude does not happen all the time.

Yes, you are right, this matter has probably NOT YET significantly impacted the sale of houses. The impact will probably come when real estate agents start to really focus on the situation and feel compelled to disclose the facts to potential buyers, in order to avoid potential liability if this controversy turns out badly.

I'm not sure I agree with the "not yet" potential impact, and seriously doubt there will ever be any impact, no more than there was in the "Dreidame" suit and settlement.

The "stuff" in business is real, and the number of zeros in any business situation is relative to the number of zeros in the entire transaction. Suffice to say, what may seem astronomical to a single homeowner is not necessarily the same when dealing at the scale of this development. And how often it happens is indeed relative to the experience of people in transactions this size.

As far as a real estate agent's disclosure requirement, again, to disclose what? The fact that the local government entity is involved in a regulatory dispute with the federal government? If that were true, then each real estate agent would have to get a list from the state, county, city (as in Lady Lake), and CDD of every ongoing dispute and lawsuit (e.g., slip and fall, auto accident, police brutality claim, false arrest, employee harassment, etc.) and receive from counsel from each side the potential liability faced by each party, as taxes, insurance rates, etc. for them may fluctuate due to the litigation. I don't know of a single agent or broker who has ever solicited or received such a list from any civil entity of all of its potential or pending litigation, and disclosed to any client that the results may have some downstream fiscal (or other) impact on the client.

So, what we still seem to have here is a sort of "cry wolf" scenario, with no one able to quantify in any manner what, if any, impact may occur on any buyer, seller or current property owner. There's a lot of "what if" going on, but most of it isn't even "best guess."

If the intent of the "what if" guesses is to scare the developer into reacting in some panicked fashion for fear of lost sales, somehow I doubt that will happen. They seem too professional to fall into that trap. If the intent is to scare elderly people with claims that there may be unexpected major hits on fixed-income personal finances, or that they may not be able to sell a house, then shame on those who act that way.

If once the matter is cleared by the parties directly involved, that any property owner or group of property owners believe they have suffered any sort of reimbursable loss, the method to seek such compensation is known to all. Until then, the line between "seeking/sharing knowledge" and "rumor spreading" should be recognized and respected.

[JimJoe]

Originally Posted by Muncle

Exactly what would you disclose? What facts do you know that should be conveyed to potential buyers?



`

I would tell the buyer that the IRS has issued a preliminary opinion that might affect the villages tax free bonds. I challenge anyone to say if their brother or sister or best friend were looking to buy a house here right now that they would NOT tell them. I would and I believe all or you would also. Whether a Realtor is required to, I don't know, but they should.

[cabo35]

Steve, your thesis by installment in the Bond threads is brilliant. Cabo has taken the liberty of adding a third class to his categories of posters on this vexing topic. To the existing Optimist, Pessimist classifications, I have added Articulate Pragmatist. You are the inspiration for this extension.

Your tempered, intelligent, even handed, consistent cool under fire presentations deserve a category of their own.

Thank you for bringing reason and logic to the unsettling disinformation that permeates the thread.

BTW ...I'm still working on a possible fourth classification for the reliable old sage of TOTV....Muncle.

[SUNNYMARYANN]

I would hope the realtors would disclose any and all issues. This whole thing has me doing some second thinking.

[Advogado]

I think that it is important to keep one thing in mind: We are all Villagers-- neighbors. I think that we all like living in The Villages and want The Villages lifestyle to continue. I am a little disappointed in the sharp edge to some of the comments being posted here.

[Advogado]

Originally Posted by SteveZ

I'm not sure I agree with the "not yet" potential impact, and seriously doubt there will ever be any impact, no more than there was in the "Dreidame" suit and settlement.

The "stuff" in business is real, and the number of zeros in any business situation is relative to the number of zeros in the entire transaction. Suffice to say, what may seem astronomical to a single homeowner is not necessarily the same when dealing at the scale of this development. And how often it happens is indeed relative to the experience of people in transactions this size.

As far as a real estate agent's disclosure requirement, again, to disclose what? The fact that the local government entity is involved in a regulatory dispute with the federal government? If that were true, then each real estate agent would have to get a list from the state, county, city (as in Lady Lake), and CDD of every ongoing dispute and lawsuit (e.g., slip and fall, auto accident, police brutality claim, false arrest, employee harassment, etc.) and receive from counsel from each side the potential liability faced by each party, as taxes, insurance rates, etc. for them may fluctuate due to the litigation. I don't know of a single agent or broker who has ever solicited or received such a list from any civil entity of all of its potential or pending litigation, and disclosed to any client that the results may have some downstream fiscal (or other) impact on the client.

So, what we still seem to have here is a sort of "cry wolf" scenario, with no one able to quantify in any manner what, if any, impact may occur on any buyer, seller or current property owner. There's a lot of "what if" going on, but most of it isn't even "best guess."

If the intent of the "what if" guesses is to scare the developer into reacting in some panicked fashion for fear of lost sales, somehow I doubt that will happen. They seem too professional to fall into that trap. If the intent is to scare elderly people with claims that there may be unexpected major hits on fixed-income personal finances, or that they may not be able to sell a house, then shame on those who act that way.

If once the matter is cleared by the parties directly involved, that any property owner or group of property owners believe they have suffered any sort of reimbursable loss, the method to seek such compensation is known to all. Until then, the line between "seeking/sharing knowledge" and "rumor spreading" should be recognized and respected.

SteveZ: I think that the question here is materiality. At issue is such a large potential liability for the VCCDD that it could jeopardize the future of our amenities. This is not a routine "slip and fall, auto accident, police brutality claim, false arrest, employee harassment, etc." case. It is the potential magnitude of the VCCDD liability, and the real possibility of its being incurred, that in my view should be a concern to all of us.

I have never seen any government document containing the kind of scathing language in the IRS letter to the VCCDD. Have you read the letter from the IRS to the VCCDD? Something extraordinary is going on here, and I don't like where it seems to be heading.

[Muncle]

Originally Posted by Advogado

I have never seen any government document containing the kind of scathing language in the IRS letter to the VCCDD. Have you read the letter from the IRS to the VCCDD? Something extraordinary is going on here, and I don't like where it seems to be heading.

Which demonstrates the unprofessionalism of the agent involved. When one party stoops to manhood-measuring contests, you can be sure their positions have some shaky foundations.

Originally Posted by JimJoe

I would tell the buyer that the IRS has issued a preliminary opinion that might affect the villages tax free bonds. I challenge anyone to say if their brother or sister or best friend were looking to buy a house here right now that they would NOT tell them. I would and I believe all or you would also. Whether a Realtor is required to, I don't know, but they should.

Oh, most assuredly, if my brother were thinking of moving to TV, I'd provide all the information I had to him. I would show him via TOTV that there were some folks who were panic stricken, fearful that there grandchildren would be forced to sell their GM and Chrysler stock to pay off the IRS. That there was much weeping and gnashing of teeth with clothes being torn asunder. But I would assure him that the sensible people were taking a more restrained approach, that there was no need to panic. I'd make sure he reread the articles from Janet Tutt and point out a few of the more rational posts on TOTV from folks like SteveZ and Kate.

Regardless of the IRS situation, I think it would be very valuable for any potential buyer to scan TOTV. It's important that he know that there are so many residents, potential residents, locals, and others who act like Chicken Little at the slightest provocation. And it's even more important that he know that there's a vocal group of Antis who claim to love TV but hate everything about the developer and live in fear that the Morse clan will sneak into their homes at night and steal their gold fillings. It doesn't matter the issue, be it a restaurant closing or non-resident using amenities, they will pitch a bitch and blame it all on developer greed. The Chicken Littles and the Antis can hurt property values as much or more than an IRS inquiry.




`