[SaveTownofLadyLake]

The Town Commission Voted No for the annexation of Grand Oaks.

To the Nay-Sayers: You Can Fight For What You Believe In and have a win.

[jimbomaybe]

Originally Posted by SaveTownofLadyLake

The Town Commission Voted No for the annexation of Grand Oaks.

To the Nay-Sayers: You Can Fight For What You Believe In and have a win.

Next step sweeten the deal

[tophcfa]

Originally Posted by SaveTownofLadyLake

The Town Commission Voted No for the annexation of Grand Oaks.

To the Nay-Sayers: You Can Fight For What You Believe In and have a win.

I was glad to hear the news. I’m not anti development up to a reasonable point, but at some point things begin to get overbuilt, the infrastructure in the area gets stressed, and the area becomes too urbanized. In my opinion, the area in question would be better served by tapping the brakes on growth. Things like traffic and availability of quality health care are already being stressed and more development will only make things worse. Not surprisingly, the only Commissioner in favor of the annexation also happens to have ties to a large building supply company.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

I'm curious to learn what all those neighbors think about the situation, if the owner of the property tells the bank to just keep it - and they abandon it to overgrowth and rodents.

They've already stated they have zero intention of maintaining it as an equestrian venue. They wanted to put in affordable housing for families. I doubt anyone else will want to buy it, especially any developer if they already know in advance that it ain't gonna happen.

[Topspinmo]

Why does some developers get special treatment and some don’t?

[Aces4]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

I'm curious to learn what all those neighbors think about the situation, if the owner of the property tells the bank to just keep it - and they abandon it to overgrowth and rodents.

They've already stated they have zero intention of maintaining it as an equestrian venue. They wanted to put in affordable housing for families. I doubt anyone else will want to buy it, especially any developer if they already know in advance that it ain't gonna happen.

So if you can't eat the whole pie at once, throw it out? Density is a huge issue and just how "affordable" would these homes have been after development? Not all low income housing is as inexpensive as that on the historic side. And, of course, poorer medical services should be everyone's wish since this area can't handle the influx now. Florida will probably be wall to wall houses in 20 years, so hang in there... purgatory is waiting.

[Bogie Shooter]

Originally Posted by Aces4

So if you can't eat the whole pie at once, throw it out? Density is a huge issue and just how "affordable" would these homes have been after development? Not all low income housing is as inexpensive as that on the historic side. And, of course, poorer medical services should be everyone's wish since this area can't handle the influx now. Florida will probably be wall to wall houses in 20 years, so hang in there... purgatory is waiting.

What does that mean?
Wow!
Any response from the “low income “ folks?

[MorTech]

Originally Posted by Topspinmo

Why does some developers get special treatment and some don’t?

Tax revenues.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Aces4

So if you can't eat the whole pie at once, throw it out? Density is a huge issue and just how "affordable" would these homes have been after development? Not all low income housing is as inexpensive as that on the historic side. And, of course, poorer medical services should be everyone's wish since this area can't handle the influx now. Florida will probably be wall to wall houses in 20 years, so hang in there... purgatory is waiting.

What are you even talking about, and what does it have to do with my post, which you quoted?

There's also a difference between "low income housing" and "affordable housing." In addition, there are a few homes in the Historic section going for $400,000. What does any of this have to do with poorer medical services? An influx of FAMILY housing options means more doctors, nurses, and other medical practitioners, who aren't ready to retire, finding places they can live near their place of employment.

Nowhere in my post do I say, hint, imply, that I thought 800+ units on this under-400-acre property is a good idea. But if I was the OWNER of the property, and didn't want to continue using it as an equestrian venue, but was interested in helping the community fill the VERY large need (as you have said) of supplying non-retired people into professional jobs - and the county said "nope, you can't do it" - I'd probably just ditch the property. I'd sell the horses, close the restaurant, fire all the employees, and let the bank have it rather than be required to maintain it, pay taxes on it.

On the other hand, I wouldn't have asked for an 800-unit community. I would've gone much smaller, and kept part of it as a resort-style RV camp. The rest of it would be single family homes sold with no private rentals allowed, and a few townhouse apartment buildings with no sublets allowed, with minimum 1-year leases.

In other words - if you want to rent space for a season or short-term in this property, you can bring your RV or camper to a designated area. If you want to LIVE in the area, you have to commit to living here.

That would be what I'd have done, instead of trying to turn it into a mini Water Oak.

[Aces4]

Originally Posted by Bogie Shooter

What does that mean?
Wow!
Any response from the “low income “ folks?

You're telling me you are unaware of some of the low income housing occupants on the historic side? Or don't we admit to that seeing this is The Villages? You notice I didn't say all housing on the historic side is low income.

[CarlR33]

Originally Posted by SaveTownofLadyLake

The Town Commission Voted No for the annexation of Grand Oaks.

To the Nay-Sayers: You Can Fight For What You Believe In and have a win.

Ok, what is a good proposal? I have read posts like this back where we just came from with people saying No to a Synagog (with the usual mean undertones), no to apartments (infrastructure cannot handle more), no to retail strip malls (do we really need more vape shops), no to widening the main road (it did not go far enough out), no to dollar general (I seen this in the middle of nowhere), no to solar farms, (must be to quiet for people)? I guess I have heard and seen it all recently concerning building something new and yes growth stinks but there seems to be that demand for the empty field next door so be careful what you wish for because it may become a data center, wind farm or another Wawa with lots of night lighting or a Burger King spewing out the whopper smell from their grill stack, LOL

[Aces4]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

What are you even talking about, and what does it have to do with my post, which you quoted?

There's also a difference between "low income housing" and "affordable housing." In addition, there are a few homes in the Historic section going for $400,000. What does any of this have to do with poorer medical services? An influx of FAMILY housing options means more doctors, nurses, and other medical practitioners, who aren't ready to retire, finding places they can live near their place of employment.

Nowhere in my post do I say, hint, imply, that I thought 800+ units on this under-400-acre property is a good idea. But if I was the OWNER of the property, and didn't want to continue using it as an equestrian venue, but was interested in helping the community fill the VERY large need (as you have said) of supplying non-retired people into professional jobs - and the county said "nope, you can't do it" - I'd probably just ditch the property. I'd sell the horses, close the restaurant, fire all the employees, and let the bank have it rather than be required to maintain it, pay taxes on it.

On the other hand, I wouldn't have asked for an 800-unit community. I would've gone much smaller, and kept part of it as a resort-style RV camp. The rest of it would be single family homes sold with no private rentals allowed, and a few townhouse apartment buildings with no sublets allowed, with minimum 1-year leases.

In other words - if you want to rent space for a season or short-term in this property, you can bring your RV or camper to a designated area. If you want to LIVE in the area, you have to commit to living here.

That would be what I'd have done, instead of trying to turn it into a mini Water Oak.

Yeah, top notch medical practitioners are knocking each other over to move to The Villages.

[Bogie Shooter]

Originally Posted by Aces4

You're telling me you are unaware of some of the low income housing occupants on the historic side? Or don't we admit to that seeing this is The Villages? You notice I didn't say all housing on the historic side is low income.

///////

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Aces4

You're telling me you are unaware of some of the low income housing occupants on the historic side? Or don't we admit to that seeing this is The Villages? You notice I didn't say all housing on the historic side is low income.

What's your problem with people who have low income? The Villages was built to be affordable for any budget. There are retirees here who never had hundreds of thousands in investments, who bought their homes 20 years ago for less than $60k and are living the dream on just their social security and pensions alone.

As I said - there's "affordable housing" and "low income housing." The Villages doesn't have Section 8 housing, if that's what you're referring to.

[Moderator]

Everybody Quit Talking Directly to each other so the thread won't have to be closed.