[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by Advogado

I insist that how I view this issue is correct. Please send the Developer $860 to refund your share of the class-action settlement.

And your real name sir is? Or madam?

And may I see your Villages card?

You may be an illegal alien. How do I know? Do you live in Top of the World?

Does this include the amount recovered by the lawyers for themselves? Do I get a credit on that part? Maybe the Orlando Sentinel's article isn't correct. I didn't live here then. I have to rely on rumor and hearsay. I was gonna say gossip but I watch Judge Judy so I know that it is supposed to be called hearsay.


WE are both going to be thrown off this forum for hopelessly sidetracking an important thread that Nitehawk did for us and got all these nice people to vote.

[nitehawk]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

And your real name sir is? Or madam?

And may I see your Villages card?

You may be an illegal alien. How do I know?

?????????

[Moderator]

Back on topic, please....

[Peachie]

Originally Posted by Advogado

You are certainly wrong this time. I am a registered Republican. I will point out, however, the hypocrisy of the the Developer's donating to conservative causes while accepting tens of millions of dollars in corporate welfare by using tax-exempt bonds (which are, in effect, subsidized by the U.S. taxpayer) to finance his development of The Villages.

By the way, are you or are you not, going to send the Developer your check for $860 to refund your share of the class-action-lawsuit settlement that you have so vehemently criticized in several posts?

This response is exactly why we prefer not to align ourselves with the POA. The POA may have good intentions but the back-handed slaps at the Morse family are always being provided by many of the POA followers.

When a developer is competing in the real estate development corporate world, they need to compete on level ground in the area in which they develop. It's my understanding this development is not the only one in Florida that used these tax-exempt bonds for financing. Should the Morse family not use the tax-exempt bonds for financing if other developers are using them? Equal financial footing is critical to be successful in property development.

This is from the 2007 letter to the residents from the Developer:

Villages‘ residents seem to divide up into 3 basic groups:

Group 1 is the silent group. They love
living here. They don‘t want to bother
with anything. They just want to enjoy the
golden years of their retirement.

Group 2 wants to help. They love living
here and believe they can improve The Villages
by working with their developer.
They gravitate to the VHA.

Group 3 – they love living here. But,
they believe that the developer‘s goal is to
take advantage of the residents. They believe
they can improve The Villages by
challenging the developer and fighting for
residents‘ rights. They gravitate toward the
POA.

We find ourselves in the second group and believe in the Morse family's dedication to The Villages and believe they are doing their best to make this the best retirement area in the world.

[ncarvalho]

Originally Posted by Advogado

The POA has done a lot, and continues to do a lot, for residents. The POA is the only organization that represents the residents in situations (which arise from time to time) where their interests conflict with those of the Developer. I view supporting the POA as a civic obligation, not a way to get discounts.

The VHA does some good things, such as its golf-cart-safety course. However, the VHA is subsidized by the Developer in an obvious effort on the Developer's part to weaken the POA-- which has been a thorn in his side at times. As a consequence, the VHA invariably sides with the Developer in conflict situations. I view supporting the VHA as a matter of individual choice, but people should be aware of its connection to the Developer.

Very interesting, Advogado. If I understand you correctly this is a conflict of interest. I wonder if, in the charter of POA, there is an code of ethics/ conduct that address this situation or guidances on how to handle decisions when a conflict of interest arises.

I read material from POA from time to time, which indicated to me the staff at POA trends to look for members best interest. I did not realize (probably because I did not get involved in checking governance issues) of the engagement with the Developer. I shall take time and learn more about this, as I am not (yet) a full time resident at TV.

[Peachie]

Originally Posted by ncarvalho

Very interesting, Advogado. If I understand you correctly this is a conflict of interest. I wonder if, in the charter of POA, there is an code of ethics/ conduct that address this situation or guidances on how to handle decisions when a conflict of interest arises.

I read material from POA from time to time, which indicated to me the staff at POA trends to look for members best interest. I did not realize (probably because I did not get involved in checking governance issues) of the engagement with the Developer. I shall take time and learn more about this, as I am not (yet) a full time resident at TV.

If you do some reading on the history of the POA, you will find that Mr. Morse did at one time belong to the POA. He disassociated himself from this group when it turn out to be a gripe session from individuals about their problems which didn't always involve the entire community well-being.

It wasn't that he didn't think they had a right to exist, he was far more interested in a group with committees that tackled major issues that may occur within The Villages and not so much the smaller issues for which there were already avenues for resolution. The POA has tackled some larger issues but does more, shall we say "nitpicking" at smaller issues that really don't involve the developer, ie; seatbelts on golf carts, etc.

I agree that there is a place for the POA since it brings peace of mind to some residents in the fact that it exists. If the Morse's ever pack up their buckboard and leave, we'll join immediately.

[blueash]

Disagreement with a policy does not obligate a person to financially make up for the result of that policy. If I oppose the cut in the military budget that has resulted from sequestration, I am not therefore obligated to send a check to the Pentagon even though my taxes are lower as a result of that cut and thus I have benefitted from that policy. Nor if I opposed the cut in SNAP am I obligated to send a check to the Agriculture department. I couldn't legally withhold part of my check to the IRS during the Vietnam war. I can't now do it if I oppose the ACA. Avogadro, don't badger the witness may be applicable phrase.

POA member as I want someone representing me as a counter balance to those in power. I may have a blind spot but I don't see the POA as anti-Morse, I see it as pro-Villager. Where the interest of the developer and the Villager are in alignment the POA is actively supportive. In those rare situations where interests seem to conflict the POA will try to represent the Villager's best interest.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by blueash

Disagreement with a policy does not obligate a person to financially make up for the result of that policy. If I oppose the cut in the military budget that has resulted from sequestration, I am not therefore obligated to send a check to the Pentagon even though my taxes are lower as a result of that cut and thus I have benefitted from that policy. Nor if I opposed the cut in SNAP am I obligated to send a check to the Agriculture department. I couldn't legally withhold part of my check to the IRS during the Vietnam war. I can't now do it if I oppose the ACA. Avogadro, don't badger the witness may be applicable phrase.

POA member as I want someone representing me as a counter balance to those in power. I may have a blind spot but I don't see the POA as anti-Morse, I see it as pro-Villager. Where the interest of the developer and the Villager are in alignment the POA is actively supportive. In those rare situations where interests seem to conflict the POA will try to represent the Villager's best interest.

They have some unusual allegiances and medical presentations. Didn't you once post on one of them?

[BobAllen1290]

In every organization or community you belong to there is a collection of malcontents. They KNEW what they were getting into when they signed up and then after they WILLINGLY agreed to join/buy-in/accept the conditions and realities of the organization or community they then begin to howl as though they were hoodwinked widows being thrown into the snow by Simon LeGree. That in a nutshell is the essence of the POA. Noise for the sake of noise.

[blueash]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

They have some unusual allegiances and medical presentations. Didn't you once post on one of them?

Good memory GG. Yes a very non-standard medical opinion. But they also had a great presentation on the wisdom of having a neighborhood AED given by Gail Lazenby, who is an employee of VCDD. The POA didn't take a position on the utility of mega-vitamins, it allowed a presentation of a topic completely unrelated to Villages governance, I have no problem with that. I have no idea what you might be suggesting by "unusual allegiances" as the only allegiance I have noticed is to be a voice for the benefit of the community.

[rubicon]

Originally Posted by Peachie

This response is exactly why we prefer not to align ourselves with the POA. The POA may have good intentions but the back-handed slaps at the Morse family are always being provided by many of the POA followers.

When a developer is competing in the real estate development corporate world, they need to compete on level ground in the area in which they develop. It's my understanding this development is not the only one in Florida that used these tax-exempt bonds for financing. Should the Morse family not use the tax-exempt bonds for financing if other developers are using them? Equal financial footing is critical to be successful in property development.

This is from the 2007 letter to the residents from the Developer:

Villages‘ residents seem to divide up into 3 basic groups:

Group 1 is the silent group. They love
living here. They don‘t want to bother
with anything. They just want to enjoy the
golden years of their retirement.

Group 2 wants to help. They love living
here and believe they can improve The Villages
by working with their developer.
They gravitate to the VHA.

Group 3 – they love living here. But,
they believe that the developer‘s goal is to
take advantage of the residents. They believe
they can improve The Villages by
challenging the developer and fighting for
residents‘ rights. They gravitate toward the
POA.

We find ourselves in the second group and believe in the Morse family's dedication to The Villages and believe they are doing their best to make this the best retirement area in the world.

Hi Peachie: You have taken an article written by the Developer back in 2009 as I recollect and have done so verbatim.

Please once again the POA IS NOT ANTI DEVELOPER and anyone suggesting so has learned the benefits of the a Saul Alinsky tactics.

They are using this same tactic to confuse pro-active activities undertaken by the POA to protect homeowners such as the siding issue, roofing issue etc. They are using this tactic to mischaracterize the negotiations that are necessary to come to an agreement. How else do you believe the POA can operate. I mean they have not threatened to burn the place down if the Developer doesn't comply.

Is a wife anti husband if she has a beef with her spouse? No she is asserting what she believes is right.

Does one person's response reflect an entire organization? And should or can that organization be held responsible to what some people think.
The POA has never in the years I have lived here ever said or acted derogatorily toward the Developer but only addressed the issues that they believe were not in the best interests of residents. I know what I am talking about here.

There was much so called negativity concerning the recent "Berlin Wall" Did the POA create it or try and resolve it to everyone's best interests? By the way I was vocal for the wall and disagreed with the POA.

Please stop these mischaracterizations they are not fair and they are destructive to us all.

Personal Best Regards:

[Peachie]

Originally Posted by rubicon;773***

Hi Peachie: You have taken an article written by the Developer back in 2009 as I recollect and have done so verbatim.

Please once again the POA IS NOT ANTI DEVELOPER and anyone suggesting so has learned the benefits of the a Saul Alinsky tactics.

They are using this same tactic to confuse pro-active activities undertaken by the POA to protect homeowners such as the siding issue, roofing issue etc. They are using this tactic to mischaracterize the negotiations that are necessary to come to an agreement. How else do you believe the POA can operate. I mean they have not threatened to burn the place down if the Developer doesn't comply.

Is a wife anti husband if she has a beef with her spouse? No she is asserting what she believes is right.

Does one person's response reflect an entire organization? And should or can that organization be held responsible to what some people think.
The POA has never in the years I have lived here ever said or acted derogatorily toward the Developer but only addressed the issues that they believe were not in the best interests of residents. I know what I am talking about here.

There was much so called negativity concerning the recent "Berlin Wall" Did the POA create it or try and resolve it to everyone's best interests? By the way I was vocal for the wall and disagreed with the POA.

Please stop these mischaracterizations they are not fair and they are destructive to us all.

Personal Best Regards:

Good morning, Rubicon. I don't consider the general consenus of the POA, which is they have to save us from the developer, as a mischaracterization. I, IMHO, do believe the scenerio provided by Mr. Morse in his speech pretty much sums up the opinions of most people regarding The Villages. Most POA people love The Villages but feel if they turn their back, the Morse family will rob them blind.

I would need to review the records of how many lawsuits the POA ITSELF has instituted and won and on what basis. If someone has a record of all those lawsuits, it would be great if they would bring us all up to speed.

I do remember the settlement from the lawsuit, which is bandied about so often as the POA's great achievement but was not adjudicated with a trial, and was settled when Mr. Morse agreed to the class action lawsuit settlement he reached that was approved by the Court in March of 2008. At that time the Developer agreed that he had overlooked some things and that adjustments were needed. Was it the POA that executed this lawsuit?

As I stated in my earlier post, I am comfortable with the fact that some people feel the need for protection from the Morse family. I'm in the second group, not mindless, but I have the conviction the Morse's will step up to the plate if a situation requires such. I've have been wrong before but one knows we all have to live with our convictions.

BTW, I think a wife maybe anti-husband if she is telling everyone she thinks he's going to cheat.

Enjoy the day, Rubicon. Sometimes we have to agree to disagree.

[Warren Kiefer]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

Yes I do. Absolutely. If you have ever watched a HOA board you would see for yourself. Everyone wants to run it and spend money on foolish things.

The developer keeps things running smoothly and we don't have to listen to board members who have big egos and not too much common sense.

Every member of these two boards are known cronies and or employees of the developer. How can this be good when these two boards make decisions on million dollar properties the residents will purchase from the developer and how much we will pay for those properties. Just who do you think they truly represent in these purchases. "the residents" is the wrong answer. Let's say you desire to buy some very pricey property, so you are forced to hire a particular lawyer and an agent. It is beyond your control that the lawyer is the son of the seller and the agent is the brother of the seller. They two will establish your cost and again it is important that you know, whether to purchase or not is not up to you but will be the sole decision of the son and brother. Your reply to my post indicates you might not be concerned about this relationship and that the son and brother will take care of your interest and keep things running smoothly, at least for them.

[Peachie]

Originally Posted by Warren Kiefer

Every member of these two boards are known cronies and or employees of the developer. How can this be good when these two boards make decisions on million dollar properties the residents will purchase from the developer and how much we will pay for those properties. Just who do you think they truly represent in these purchases. "the residents" is the wrong answer. Let's say you desire to buy some very pricey property, so you are forced to hire a particular lawyer and an agent. It is beyond your control that the lawyer is the son of the seller and the agent is the brother of the seller. They two will establish your cost and again it is important that you know, whether to purchase or not is not up to you but will be the sole decision of the son and brother. Your reply to my post indicates you might not be concerned about this relationship and that the son and brother will take care of your interest and keep things running smoothly, at least for them.

Rubicon, I rest my case.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by Warren Kiefer

Every member of these two boards are known cronies and or employees of the developer. How can this be good when these two boards make decisions on million dollar properties the residents will purchase from the developer and how much we will pay for those properties. Just who do you think they truly represent in these purchases. "the residents" is the wrong answer. Let's say you desire to buy some very pricey property, so you are forced to hire a particular lawyer and an agent. It is beyond your control that the lawyer is the son of the seller and the agent is the brother of the seller. They two will establish your cost and again it is important that you know, whether to purchase or not is not up to you but will be the sole decision of the son and brother. Your reply to my post indicates you might not be concerned about this relationship and that the son and brother will take care of your interest and keep things running smoothly, at least for them.

How can it be good? It IS good. If you want to see a mess, turn the running of this place over to the general population. I know of what I speak.