[Xavier]

Originally Posted by rubicon

I find it remarkable that in post after post no one bothered to question why the POA did a complete turnaround? I also find it interesting that some residents find Richie's fact-based statements bias but the POA's fact-based non-biased? Are some people saying its the singer not the song? Please do yourselves a favor ask more questions and don't rely on labels. Ritchie is not the spoiler she is being portrayed to be. This is misleading and meant to discredit her reporting. I suspect the POA is once again bending to please the Developer as they have done in the past. Why? I believe I know but find it not productive just to speculate.

Wow, did you strike out! If you have followed the POA at all, you couldn't possibly come up with your conclusions. Please, please tell us what you think you know - we don't mind if you speculate.

Xavier

[Xavier]

Deleted duplicate - oops!

[Xavier]

Originally Posted by Avista

I have been a patient of Moffitt for the last 8 years. Following my cancer surgery and radiation, they saw me every three months for 5 years. The last few years I have been in their Survivership program and am seen annually. http://www.moffitt.org/Site.aspx?spi...37B733BDC50181

I am so pleased they are coming to The Villages. When I was in Tampa this week, everyone was mentioning it in a very happy manner.Don't know if the survivorship program will be here, but the person I talked with thought someone would probably be here one day a week (for that program). It's not such a bad drive down to Tampa--no tolls like Orlando, but will still be nice to have them here.

I've changed my avatar for today in honor of all you have endured. I lost my Mom to breast cancer in January. As you can see we both have a special buddy to help us through the hard times.

Xavier

[ajakk]

The POA is the closest thing to an unbiased source of news in TV. They try to give facts and look at an issue in an unbiased manner, unlike the VHA who is just the developer's lap dog and wouldn't think of having an independent opinion. The last article in the POA bulletin just confirmed their support of a new cancer center and questioned the ethics involved in separating Villagers from their money for something the Village Health System already had funds for.

NOBODY, including the POA, is or was against Moffitt locating an affiliate here. EVERYBODY should be against the tactics used to mislead us into donating under false pretenses. The money has always been there and this was even acknowledged by Village Health System.

[Xavier]

Originally Posted by ajakk

EVERYBODY should be against the tactics used to mislead us into donating under false pretenses. The money has always been there and this was even acknowledged by Village Health System.

Your words - NOT POA words.

I believe that POA may have been the very first to suggest that The Villages seek to have Moffitt here.

Xavier

[Pturner]

Originally Posted by rubicon

I find it remarkable that in post after post no one bothered to question why the POA did a complete turnaround? I also find it interesting that some residents find Richie's fact-based statements bias but the POA's fact-based non-biased? Are some people saying its the singer not the song? Please do yourselves a favor ask more questions and don't rely on labels. Ritchie is not the spoiler she is being portrayed to be. This is misleading and meant to discredit her reporting. I suspect the POA is once again bending to please the Developer as they have done in the past. Why? I believe I know but find it not productive just to speculate.

Hi Rubicon,
As others have surmised, perhaps you are confusing the POA with the VHA. The POA has always favored a Moffitt Center in TV. The POA also once sued the developer, so "once again bending to please the Developer" is quite off the mark.

I don't think the POA and Ritchie sing the same song at all. Cabo's point, I think, was that Ritchie simply omits facts that don't support her opinion. The POA includes facts that both support and mitigate its conclusions. Because of this, the POA is a more reliable source for giving both sides of the story.

[Pturner]

Originally Posted by Xavier

I've changed my avatar for today in honor of all you have endured. I lost my Mom to breast cancer in January. As you can see we both have a special buddy to help us through the hard times.

Xavier

What a kind, empathetic and loving thing to do!

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by ajakk

The POA is the closest thing to an unbiased source of news in TV. They try to give facts and look at an issue in an unbiased manner, unlike the VHA who is just the developer's lap dog and wouldn't think of having an independent opinion. The last article in the POA bulletin just confirmed their support of a new cancer center and questioned the ethics involved in separating Villagers from their money for something the Village Health System already had funds for.

NOBODY, including the POA, is or was against Moffitt locating an affiliate here. EVERYBODY should be against the tactics used to mislead us into donating under false pretenses. The money has always been there and this was even acknowledged by Village Health System.

Ajakk...I just reread the POA article and I didn't get that it questioned "the ethics involved separating Villagers from their money for something the Village Health System had funds for."

PTurner, well said as usual. Xavier, so sorry that you lost your mom. Hugs.

[ajakk]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

Ajakk...I just reread the POA article and I didn't get that it questioned "the ethics involved separating Villagers from their money for something the Village Health System had funds for."

I was referring to to the paragraphs in the front page article of the March newsletter:

"Like many other Villagers, we are very disappointed in the manner in which the media, the Villages Health System, and the Foundation have been presenting the partnership, as we have found misleading and inaccurate statements."

"We have made them [residents] aware that the Villages Hospital System has been saving money for the construction of the Brown-wood Hospital and will use monies from that savings account to cover any shortfalls in the fundraising effort."

[Advogado]

Originally Posted by Pturner

Hi Rubicon,
As others have surmised, perhaps you are confusing the POA with the VHA. The POA has always favored a Moffitt Center in TV. The POA also once sued the developer, so "once again bending to please the Developer" is quite off the mark.

I don't think the POA and Ritchie sing the same song at all. Cabo's point, I think, was that Ritchie simply omits facts that don't support her opinion. The POA includes facts that both support and mitigate its conclusions. Because of this, the POA is a more reliable source for giving both sides of the story.

Just a minor correction: While the POA supported the class-action suit against the Developer, the POA, itself, did not bring the suit, as you stated. The class-action suit was actually brought by individual residents who are active in the POA. For a list of plaintiffs, go to http://www.thevillagesfl.us/classactionsettlement.htm

The reason for this, I would think, is that the POA is merely a voluntary-membership organization and not a "standard" homeowners' association with mandatory membership and the power to assess fees. Consequently, the POA probably doesn't have standing to sue the Developer on behalf of all residents.

While this may sound like I'm splitting hairs, the distinction may become important if we have another major issue arising out of the actions of the Developer. I.e., although, in such a case, we will have POA support, we will again need interested individual residents who are willing to take the initiative and devote the time and effort to stand up for all of us.

Incidentally, the fact that membership in, and financial support of, the POA is voluntary has enabled the Developer to weaken its clout by subsidizing the VHA, which the Developer clearly has in his pocket.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by Advogado

Just a minor correction: While the POA supported the class-action suit against the Developer, the POA, itself, did not bring the suit, as you stated. The class-action suit was actually brought by individual residents who are active in the POA. For a list of plaintiffs, go to http://www.thevillagesfl.us/classactionsettlement.htm

The reason for this, I would think, is that the POA is merely a voluntary-membership organization and not a "standard" homeowners' association with mandatory membership and the power to assess fees. Consequently, the POA probably doesn't have standing to sue the Developer on behalf of all residents.

While this may sound like I'm splitting hairs, the distinction may become important if we have another major issue arising out of the actions of the Developer. I.e., although, in such a case, we will have POA support, we will again need interested individual residents who are willing to take the initiative and devote the time and effort to stand up for all of us.

Incidentally, the fact that membership in, and financial support of, the POA is voluntary has enabled the Developer to weaken its clout by subsidizing the VHA, which the Developer clearly has in his pocket.

And so, did the five individuals get to keep the 300,000. incentive fee?

[Advogado]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

And so, did the five individuals get to keep the 300,000. incentive fee?

Graciegirl:

As far as I know they kept it ($50,000/apiece). At least, I hope they did. It was a tremendous deal for the rest of us: $300,000 / $40,000,000 = 3/4 of 1% of the amount recovered for the rest of us. Also remember that the payment to the plaintiffs, by the Developer, was in addition to the $40,000,000 and did not come out of the $40,000,000.

Having some knowledge of: (1) all the work that went into the preparation and conduct of the negotiations with the Developer (the Developer initially denied any liability whatsoever) and (2) the plaintiffs' risk of personal liability and no recovery at all, I would not have begrudged the plaintiffs a much higher award. I, personally, would not have gone through what they went through if I were only interested in making $50,000, as opposed to seeing justice done.

Likewise, I do not believe that the plaintiffs were motivated by personal gain, although I am not sure that that is what you are implying. Some other posters have said so, however. I think their attitude shows a tremendous amount of ingratitude for what their neighbors have done for them and, frankly, it irritates the hell out of me. In earlier replies to those posters, I have pointed out that critics of the lawsuit are not obligated to keep their share of the class-action settlement. The critics can simply write the Developer a check for their share-- about $1,000 apiece. After having done so, they can then feel perfectly free to properly criticize their neighbors who worked so hard to get us what the Developer promised us: a continuation of our amenities.

[cabo35]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

And so, did the five individuals get to keep the 300,000. incentive fee?

Gracie....you have touched upon a subject that I have been reluctant to comment on for some time. It's kind of a sacred cow that has had little scrutiny and as usual, my personal assessment can be somewhat abstract in such matters.

It is seldom mentioned when the $39,800,000 settlement is bandied about by those that use it to support their position, that the actual settlement is spread out over 13 years. While the yearly sum is still remarkable, it somehow diminishes the wallop of the $39 million dollar figure. The attorney fees were negotiated and settled at $6,700,000 dollars and the original individual residents "settled" at $300,000 presumably to be shared by them.

As these sums of money are the product of a settlement, in my mind it raises haunting questions.

Why did the developer settle relatively quickly? Did he get a better deal than he had anticipated? In real dollars the settlement comes to a little over $3 million a year from the developer. Chump change for him as his antagonists frequently suggest.

What incentive did the class action filers have to hold out for a bigger award? I believe they are all good people, but, could the prospect of a $300,000 score, cloud judgement and induce a settlement when a holdout would have been more beneficial to all Villagers? As a large class of Villagers would be impacted by the settlement, did they have an opportunity to endorse or ratify the settlement? I don't know.

I didn't notice any awards for actuarial studies. A public disclosure on the finances in issue, to the rest of the "class" seems like it would be interesting and important. Maybe I missed it. Perhaps such studies were included in the $6,700,000 legal fees. I don't know.

If the developer put $6,700,000 dollars on the table for lawyer fees, could that hasten an early settlement in the developers favor. I haven't heard an argument from many here that he isn't devious or shrewd. There are 8760 +/- hours in a year. How many years would it take a $300 dollar an hour lawyer...working 7 days a week....24 hours a day....365 days a year to reach $6,700,000? That's a lot of billable hours. My point is simple....what incentive would attorneys have to hold out for say....$6 million a year instead of $3 million? I don't know.

In fairness to the litigants, they took the risk in filing and invested the time and stress of going through the process. Do you suppose the developer knew that when he offered the settlement? I don't know.

While the settlement is frequently posted and quoted in this forum and some papers, this citation from the settlement is seldom referenced:

The Court has not ruled on the merits of Plaintiffs' allegations or on the denials, or other defenses made by the Defendants. However, the parties entered into negotiations in connection with the alleged insufficiency of the Reserve and Replacement account and other matters and have entered into a preliminary settlement agreement.

I reiterate that I believe the litigants are all good people who took on a just and noble cause. I appreciate the success they achieved. I am concerned about a system of resolution that does not consider all those that are affected by a "settlement". It creates a cautious, skeptical distrust when those that have the power to settle, have a financial interest in negotiated outcomes. In that regard, I believe the "settlement" paradigm is flawed. I don't know?

Have a good evening in The Villages.

[nitakk]

I am grateful that these individuals pursued this matter on our behalf, and I think every person who travels the new cart paths owes them a lot for their courage. Taking on the Morse family is daunting and scary with the bottomless pit of money and attorneys at their disposal, and I find it poetic justice that the award they received came directly from the developer's pocket.

This also gives me some clarification as to why the newspaper and VHA love to trash the AAC. It is the only governing body in the Villages the developer can't control and they now have to watch the award money being spent by Villagers, for Villagers. If any of you five read this, I thank you.

[rubicon]

Cabo35 My sentiments exactly except you speak to it with more clarity. I wondered why residents were not given an opportunity to discuss the offer before the POA settled. Perhaps that is not a part of the legal process? All that ocurred was a written notice expalining that if a resident wanted to opt out they had x days to file an individual claim. Prhaps that is all that was required but it would have been nice to have been asked. And why under a class action did the POA agree to a confidential agreement. Perhaps this is standard procedure but we know they did because the attorney of record at the 3/18/08 meeting kept repeating that she had to refrain from specifics because of this agreement. And since we are not privy to this confidential agreement we don't know what future precedents were established with this settlement? The attorney did not satisify the many questions I had concerning this quick settlement, especially since the developer is not the sort of person who is accustom to compromise. Not only was the settlement amount somewhat illusionary as stated in a previous post but also ask yourself who really has control over the proceeds? Attend an AAC meeting and decide for yourself. By the way this is one of those issue that caused me to question the POA position on Moffitt. This is my opinion based on the fact that the 3/18/08 meeting left me with more questions than answers and I may be incorrect and welcome any input that may shed light on this issue.