Originally Posted by Carl in Tampa (Post 895503)

Well, no. I gave the reference to the Florida Statute in my post. You might want to read it. I would hate for you to mistakenly rely on what I posted, which was not legal advice, and get in trouble.

A no trespassing sign or personal notice is not required to forbid unauthorized access to the property if it is protected by posting, fencing, or cultivation. If you drive through the gate you can be regarded as a trespasser.

You also face the possibility of arrest and presumption of guilt of having violated the prohibition of bypassing fencing (the gate) if it demonstrable that there is no legal access to the area from the outside.

You might also be on video gaining illegal access to the area, either at the gate or illegally crossing the highway. There are cameras everywhere.



------------------

Perhaps you have driven through the development and seen the signs that say, "Speed Limit 20 mph unless otherwise posted." This generic sign could easily be duplicated to say "No trespassing on multi-modal paths." It wouldn't be necessary to post every individual path.

I have also noticed some sentiment in the postings for TV registration of golf carts, with an identifying sticker. A notice could be posted to prohibit any unregistered golf cart in TV.

Or alternatively a sign could be posted to prohibit use of the MMPs by anyone who is not a resident or guest of a resident of TV.

There are several methods of identifying and apprehending trespassers.

All the Developer needs is motivation; the technology exists.

Originally Posted by Steve9930 (Post 895521)

No sign is necessary to be considered trespassing in Florida. It is also not necessary to have anything that restricts access to the property to be trespassing . Under definition of the trespassing law in Florida the act of crossing or abiding on private property is trespassing. Under that definition crossing Mr. Browns's property is trespassing. To be convicted it must be proved you entered said property with intent to trespass. Those that would circumnavigate the gate would be doing such an act. Your better off without the no trespassing sign because if you use signage at the entrance you will have to prove the sign conformed to regulations defining the signage.

You could not post a sign at the gate and cover the entire villages. The other cravat is all I need to have is permission from a friend in the villages to enter and I would not be trespassing because I have permission from an owner. You should look at the regulations when you have multiple property owners. This is one reason you could never enforce any trespassing on the paths.

Anyway enough said about trespassing. If you do not change the way the gate operates it will be broken again.

Originally Posted by DonH57 (Post 895539)

Some posters have mentioned a Mr. Brown and his property during the gate discussion. Where exactly is this property?

Originally Posted by Carl in Tampa (Post 895543)

Steve, I'm afraid you haven't really digested the content of the statute.

1. Rather than quoting and disproving your assertions, I'll simply append this note with the principal elements of the law.

2. Individual homeowners in TV do not have the authority to authorize or deny outsiders access to the private property controlled by the Community Development Districts. They do not own the property; the property is funded by taxes that they were charged by the CDD, Florida CDD law specifically states that CDDs may own real and personal property. (Real = real estate.)

Each CDD is administered by a Board of Supervisors that controls the areas funded by taxes on the residents in the CDD. Under Florida law CDDs exist for the purpose of funding and managing the infrastructure of the community.

------------------------------

810.09 Trespass on property other than structure or conveyance.—
(1)(a) A person who, without being authorized, licensed, or invited, willfully enters upon or remains in any property other than a structure or conveyance:
1. As to which notice against entering or remaining is given, either by actual communication to the offender or by posting, fencing, or cultivation as described in s. 810.011; or
2. If the property is the unenclosed curtilage of a dwelling and the offender enters or remains with the intent to commit an offense thereon, other than the offense of trespass,


.

Originally Posted by NoMoSno (Post 895565)

It will be interesting to see what will become of Mr.Browns path.
Heavy equipment, used to build the assisted living center, would keep it smooth, until the wall/gate was erected.
Now that heavy equipment is gone. The path is deteriorating quickly.
Mr Brown shouldn't foot bill for repairs. Mr. Morse could care less about that path.
Within a couple years that path will become nearly impassible.
Maybe the advertiser, along the path could contribute?

Originally Posted by Steve9930 (Post 895567)

I do not see either path ever being improved. Once you would construct some sort of good path way you would open up a liability issue. So everyone is just turning a blind eye. I know one thing if Duke ever gets a bill for cart damage you can kiss the access by cart to Wal-Mart goodbye.

Originally Posted by Steve9930 (Post 895558)

Read this. Florida Crimes: Trespass on Property

Home owners would have the authority to grant access to TV to their friends.

Originally Posted by Carl in Tampa (Post 895571)

Sorry Steve, a reference about trespass defenses from a defense attorney soliciting business doesn't pass muster. You can reach out and find similar ads from lawyers who will claim they can get you off from a DUI under certain circumstances.

Homeowner's friends don't need permission to have access to The Villages. It is an open community. However, the CDDs own and manage the infrastructure and homeowners do not have the authority to contradict the management of the CDDs.

Homeowners don't own the infrastructure. They just pay the taxes to allow the CDD Board of Supervisors to own and maintain it.

Originally Posted by TVMayor (Post 895572)

Oh boy, 143 post, sooo much information, let me see if I understand. The gate was damaged it will be fixed and nothing will change. That’s my understanding of the information posted.

Originally Posted by mickey100 (Post 894264)

My guess would be that you have maybe hundreds who use the gate, not thousands. A drop in the bucket when you consider the combined number of residents living in all three communities. I still don't see the big deal. Yes, The Villages has the legal right to close off access, but morally, I think the Villages is being a bad neighbor in this situation.

Originally Posted by graciegirl (Post 894265)

In the light that there have been 13 deaths from golf cart accidents in the last four years within our borders...and the potential for a couple thousand MORE golf carts on our paths from the residents of those communities, I think it is a wise and prudent decision. But as you know I am annoying usually FOR The Villages and the developer. He appears to know how to make wise decisions.

Originally Posted by mickey100 (Post 894269)

Another attack for simply stating one's opinion. How tiresome and petty. Because one does not agree with a decision by the Developer, does not mean one is "against" The Villages. Such logic. Not.

Originally Posted by CFrance (Post 895582)

Actually, I don't see Gracie's post as an attack at all. You stated your opinion, she stated hers. You both prefaced it with "I think." In light of that, your last post is out of line, and I would consider that to be the only attack of the three posts.

I'll add my opinion. "I think" that those of us who pay for the construction and maintenance of the paths should be the only ones allowed to use it. Everybody else made their choice when they bought their homes.