Yes, your answers certainly validated my original observations. :thumbup:

May I suggest that in the future, you make the effort to put the other persons responses in quotes (like I did) or even put yours in a different color if you don't know how to quote...so that it is easier for other folks to follow?

Thanks.

.

Bottom Line -

Lake Paradise doesn't look like Paradise some of the time and is clearly visible from six lanes of traffic on US 441/27. It needs to be fixed to the benefit of all of TV.

Water Oak's lake has the same problem. Muddy Paradise Lake puts TV in the same position as Water Oak to those potential buyers on the heavily traveled US 441/27.

.

Response to Chuckinca
 

It's really simple, a no-brainer, isn't it? It's just a matter of money, as is most everything. So, I proposed an engineering study to the AAC to see what it would cost and go from there. They were unresponsive.

Jerry Lester

How long has Paradise Lake had this problem?

Isn't the AAC composed of elected officials?

It seems to me, that a petition or group going to the AAC would be the proper procedure..... if the majority feels it is an issue. :shrug:


.

With all the money spent in the Villages making things pretty I would think that money could be found to repair this eyesore. It is the first impression that many people have of the Villages

Wonder if this lake would be allowed to stay in this condition if it was on, oh, let's say 466a and Buena Vista?

There are many lakes/ponds/retention ponds which have become unsightly due to problems with liners that need replacing or with faulty irrigation connection pipes. Or due to lack of rain. Many of them are on golf courses and are often viewed by many people. I'm assuming The Villages has limited funds to deal with these problems, and that each pond will receive attention in due time.

I think it's probably fair to assume that the appearance of ponds in the vicinity of new homes for sale is important to TV's marketing strategy.

I believe a lot of the problem dates back when the villages north of 27 voted down the monthly fee to pay for this and other landscaping that most of us now pay....It was then turned over to Lake County ....

I think you may be correct on this.

I think, from reading this forum for a long time that JandBrare was attempting to tell us about the way the problem is being portrayed and I felt his assessment was fair.It has been in the past. I cringe to think what will happen to this place when the decision making is turned over to the residents. Any of you who have observed home owners organizations over time will know of what I speak. We need a GOOD watchdog organization for sure and well...sometimes I think both homeowners groups leave a little to be desired.

These sorts of things we need to know and we need to know them from people who have The Villages best interest at heart and sometimes I don't think that is the POA or the VHA. Each has it's issues and it's agenda.

I would not have known the back story if it wasn't for this forum.

You can see all of the work of replacement of underground watering systems along Morse north of 466. I have only observed good maintenance of properties since I have moved here. Barefoot has a valid point about the new areas but I think that the way things are handled in the very old areas north of 466 are different possibly due to their vote and the fact they are in Lake County. I am interested in what BKCunningham and NJbchbum have to say because they live there.

I know that I am unabashedly a fan of how things work here, and nothing I have read or observed has changed my mind in six years. Rose colored glasses or maybe cataracts. I don't know.

You bring up a good point.

Our big fear before we moved here is that the amenities fee is being somehow subsidized by the developer (to increase the attractiveness of selling new homes) and doesn't actually represent the true costs of what it takes to currently maintain the amenities.

Much less what it will take in the future.

Human nature being what it is, there will be a huge outcry and resistance...should it be determined that the amenities fee needs to be substantially increased at some point in the future.


I disagree.

In the big scheme of things, I will go with the residents every time on who "has The Villages best interests at heart"...over an entity whose primary function is to make money on every little piece of the action.

It is analogous to...."just letting big business police themselves, because they would never let profit override the safety and well being of the public."

I think we've seen many times...how that works out. :oops:


.

"especially since SWFWMD is not the approval agency"

Based on this statement by the OP and his stance that the POA mistakenly writing that SWFWMD had jurisdiction and not SJRWMD made the POA "analysis" null and void ..... every thing that the OP said is null and void as well. All of the water management districts in Florida are most certainly "approval agency's" and they would certainly have to sign off on any project such as this.

For those new to the forum here is the SJRWMD
http://www.sjrwmd.com/

And I still maintain that both the VOA and the VHA aren't good enough.

The VHA is clearly the tool of the developers.

I wish the POA had better journalists writing the bulletin just for starters. I struggled to understand the tone and the information this month. It was far clearer about six months ago. One of the headers was inflammatory I thought.

Watchdog to me doesn't mean rabid dog.

So you think the POA......is a "rabid dog?" :oops:

As to the writing, I agree it could be better.

But if you can read and comprehend post #14 in this thread....you can certainly figure out the POA newsletter.

.

WOW ... I just noticed that I mistakenly typed STRWMD ... instead of the correct acronym of SJRWMD.

Guess that makes my posting null and void as well. :laugh: