[Cedwards38]

This community, like all communities, will change over time. About that we can be sure. Some changes will be liked by some and disliked by others, but the change is inevitable. Generally speaking, that which does not make money disappears, or it finds a way to make money. That is neither good or bad, but is just simple economics. No matter what occurs in life, someone must pay for it.

[swrinfla]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

I believe that the some of the above posts are speculative and incorrect....at best.

It is not illegal, unethical or immoral to make money running a business.

I do not feel I have lost anything, only gained new things to do and see as we grow, and as we grow, some of our group activities may have to be rethought such as the parades filling the squares and leaving no room for people.


What do the ALWAYS ANONYMOUS naysayers have to gain, I constantly wonder. Do they not live here, and are jealous, do they work for competitive areas, or outside businesses? Do they just dislike the developers because they are successful and very rich?

It is not a sin to be rich.

Gracie:

As always, you state things in proper perspective. I only wish that all could do the same! :-)

This thread is becoming distressingly negative, I'm afraid. I earnestly hope that that does not portray an over-riding out-view! You and I have been here long enough to understand The Developer's Point-of-View, and endorse it wholeheartedly! Even with our occasional reservations!

I hope others will join us in our "pro" attitude! :-)

SWR

[rubicon]

As a marketing tool the Developer (entity) made a big deal about the free entertainment in town squares year after year after year. So it is no surprise that a number of residents feel betrayed because the practice did infer that this was going to be a part of the lifestyle.

A number of residents seem compelled no obsessed defending the Entity but they fail to recognize that those residents who raise legitimate concerns do so because they do not have representation here.

The Entity has so much power and control in Sumter County and all business is done behind closed doors. The way around the Sunshine Laws in Florida is to have "the meeting"and then a meeting for the record. Sumter One tied up the Commissioners for this entity. The Entity has strategically placed its syncophants in key roles in The Villlages on the Boards of Water District, etc.

The entity finances The Villages HomeOwner Association. The POA has good intentions but it has very limited credibility.

[Bogie Shooter]

Originally Posted by rubicon

A number of residents seem compelled no obsessed defending the Entity but they fail to recognize that those residents who raise legitimate concerns do so because they do not have representation here.

.

Gracie & swrinfl, I think you are being talked about.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by Bogie Shooter

Gracie & SWRinFl, I think you are being talked about.

I am in great company. Steve is one nice fella.

And for those who are thinking about moving here and having a say in government of this place, think and think again. This is a CDD form of government. Unlike anything you have probably experienced.

I think it is fine...but please don't come here and try to vote on anything, change anything, run anything. It is what it is..

And I of course like it a lot and so does Sweetie and Helene.

[Bogie Shooter]

I keep reading on this thread that we, the residents, have no say about what happens in our district. The following was copied from Village Community Development Districts and relates to District 6.
============
Now that you are generally familiar with the District concept, let's describe the election process and the Board of Supervisors who oversee the activities of the District. Initially, the Board of Supervisors, consisting of five members, is elected based on land ownership. The legislature, in creating Chapter 190, recognized that in order to maintain continuity of the facilities provided to the newly developing community, the developer, who then owns the majority of the land, should be granted the right to substantially complete the project as envisioned by the various land use and zoning approvals that were obtained as part of the development review process. However, the legislature also recognized that at the time control should transition to the residents. Tprescribed by statute, herefore, at the election held in 2006, three of the five Supervisors were elected by landowner vote (one vote per lot owned and/or one vote per acre owned). The same process will occur in 2008. In 2010, one supervisor will be elected by landowners and two supervisors will be elected by "qualified electors" (registered voters) residing in CDD No. 6. From that point forward, all elections will be qualified based elections. This election conversion format ensures that the residents ultimately control the level of service provided to the infrastructure facilities that the District maintains.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by Bogie Shooter

I keep reading on this thread that we, the residents, have no say about what happens in our district. The following was copied from Village Community Development Districts and relates to District 6.
============
Now that you are generally familiar with the District concept, let's describe the election process and the Board of Supervisors who oversee the activities of the District. Initially, the Board of Supervisors, consisting of five members, is elected based on land ownership. The legislature, in creating Chapter 190, recognized that in order to maintain continuity of the facilities provided to the newly developing community, the developer, who then owns the majority of the land, should be granted the right to substantially complete the project as envisioned by the various land use and zoning approvals that were obtained as part of the development review process. However, the legislature also recognized that at the time control should transition to the residents. Tprescribed by statute, herefore, at the election held in 2006, three of the five Supervisors were elected by landowner vote (one vote per lot owned and/or one vote per acre owned). The same process will occur in 2008. In 2010, one supervisor will be elected by landowners and two supervisors will be elected by "qualified electors" (registered voters) residing in CDD No. 6. From that point forward, all elections will be qualified based elections. This election conversion format ensures that the residents ultimately control the level of service provided to the infrastructure facilities that the District maintains.

I stand corrected by you Bogie Shooter, another nice fella who I highly respect.

[mickey100]

Originally Posted by Indydealmaker

Actually, the appraisals have passed more than one audit and are in accordance with generally accepted accounting practices. The valuations were for income streams as well as physical plants.

The appraisal firms that set the value of the properties were tools of the district who did what they were told. They were not independent appraisers, as the IRS requires.

At one point the IRS said it believed 2003 Village Center Community Development District bonds overpaid Morse for golf courses and other structures. The bonds paid Morse $60 million for amenities that only cost him $7.5 million to build. The district is trying to use the income stream argument, and, as we are all aware, the investigation is still ongoing, and these issues have not been resolved.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by mickey100

The appraisal firms that set the value of the properties were tools of the district who did what they were told. They were not independent appraisers, as the IRS requires.

At one point the IRS said it believed 2003 Village Center Community Development District bonds overpaid Morse for golf courses and other structures. The bonds paid Morse $60 million for amenities that only cost him $7.5 million to build. The district is trying to use the income stream argument, and, as we are all aware, the investigation is still ongoing, and these issues have not been resolved.

I believe that it your opinion.

I don't remember reading anything about what the IRS "believed".

If I were as unhappy and disappointed about this place and the developer as you appear to be...well...

Houses are easy to sell here..without loss.

[Bucco]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

I believe that it your opinion.

I don't remember reading anything about what the IRS "believed".

If I were as unhappy and disappointed about this place and the developer as you appear to be...well...

Houses are easy to sell here..without loss.

Ahhh,,,,,,GRACIE......I am so with you.

I came here in 1999....took classes with Pete Wahl to find out about the "government" here (not sure if that is offered any longer)...have seen good and things I didnt agree with totally. I have learned over the years a few things...first , nobody is perfect as so many on here seem to hold as the standard for the family who has been running The Villages. Secondly, that nobody owes me or anyone anything. Do not recall anyone being tied up, told nothing and made to sign papers.

That family is selling off segments of the community and you will never find it to be as wonderful as when they were "running the show" !!

I agree with you Gracie....with all the complaining on here about The Villages and the family, with the ease of selling here and low rates in other places.....suggest that those folks go to that better place.

I have been happy here, not IDEAL or perfect...have not found that yet.....do not feel anyone owes me one single thing !!!!!

[English Ivy]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

I believe that it your opinion.

I don't remember reading anything about what the IRS "believed".

If I were as unhappy and disappointed about this place and the developer as you appear to be...well...

Houses are easy to sell here..without loss.

Gracie, you are a very nice person and I think it is great that you and your family are so happy in The Villages.

You tell Mickey100 you "believe that it(sic) your opinion" regarding the appraisal valuation for the ammenities sold to the VCCDD. From all the reading I've done on the subject I believe Mickey is correct, but maybe I'm wrong.

However, I take exception with your statement that "houses are easy to sell here..without loss". That may be your opinion and experience from selling your first home in Hadley, but I know from my experience that it's probably the exception to the rule. Yes, you can sell a home in The Villages, but not without loss. You have stated this many times in your 10,000+ posts and I think you do a disservice to potential residents by giving them the impression that if it doesn't work out for whatever reason they will be able to sell and recoup their investment. Occasionally yes, all the time no.

I apologize if I've offended you but I felt it important to state this.

[janmcn]

Originally Posted by mickey100

The appraisal firms that set the value of the properties were tools of the district who did what they were told. They were not independent appraisers, as the IRS requires.

At one point the IRS said it believed 2003 Village Center Community Development District bonds overpaid Morse for golf courses and other structures. The bonds paid Morse $60 million for amenities that only cost him $7.5 million to build. The district is trying to use the income stream argument, and, as we are all aware, the investigation is still ongoing, and these issues have not been resolved.

I was living here when Gary Morse was paid $60 million for amenities that only cost him $7.5 million to build. Where I come from that is called a scam. People that complain about being scammed are told to move along, nothing to see here.

[Warren Kiefer]

Originally Posted by swrinfla

Sorry, but I have one or two major issues with this thread! Among them:

1. The Vescos reportedly do not even live here. Why is this statement undocumented? On what authority is that statement thrown out?

2. Mr. Morse is reportedly a billionaire. Why is this statement undocumented? On what authority is this statement thrown out?

3. It's all the Vesco's personal bottom line. Why is this statement undocumented? On what authority is this statement thrown out?

Granted, if the parades are indeed cancelled due to a personal bottom line, then that is A Bad Thing. But, throwing out "factual statements" such as these without backing them up, that bothers me no end!

SWR

If you will check a recent Bloomberg report on Gary Morse you will get your authority. This report might interest you.

[Warren Kiefer]

Originally Posted by janmcn

I was living here when Gary Morse was paid $60 million for amenities that only cost him $7.5 million to build. Where I come from that is called a scam. People that complain about being scammed are told to move along, nothing to see here.

Check out the sale of the Savannah Center. I cannot remember the exact figures but recall the build cost was 8 million blus and sold to the Villagers for over 80 million. The SDavannah Center is a major part of the IRS investigation into the past business practices of the Developer.

[Warren Kiefer]

Originally Posted by Bogie Shooter

I keep reading on this thread that we, the residents, have no say about what happens in our district. The following was copied from Village Community Development Districts and relates to District 6.
============
Now that you are generally familiar with the District concept, let's describe the election process and the Board of Supervisors who oversee the activities of the District. Initially, the Board of Supervisors, consisting of five members, is elected based on land ownership. The legislature, in creating Chapter 190, recognized that in order to maintain continuity of the facilities provided to the newly developing community, the developer, who then owns the majority of the land, should be granted the right to substantially complete the project as envisioned by the various land use and zoning approvals that were obtained as part of the development review process. However, the legislature also recognized that at the time control should transition to the residents. Tprescribed by statute, herefore, at the election held in 2006, three of the five Supervisors were elected by landowner vote (one vote per lot owned and/or one vote per acre owned). The same process will occur in 2008. In 2010, one supervisor will be elected by landowners and two supervisors will be elected by "qualified electors" (registered voters) residing in CDD No. 6. From that point forward, all elections will be qualified based elections. This election conversion format ensures that the residents ultimately control the level of service provided to the infrastructure facilities that the District maintains.

If one would make a sincere check of the facts, they would find that most of the Rec centers, etc are sold to the Villagers before the districts come under the control of the full board of supervisors are elected by the residents.