To Julie
 

Thank you for being so articulate with your response. I will be waiting to hear what the Reporter responds to your letter. I'm sure she is enjoying all of the attention.

Civil and Criminal cases both settle
 

I was an attorney for 31 years before I retired. Both criminal and civil cases settle all the time. I do not think there is anything unusual about it, and I do not think it means anything about the strength of either side's case. Sometimes it is a matter of cost of litigation, and sometimes it is a matter of not wanting to look like you are beating up on old people, and sometimes if what you really want is for the other party to change it's behavior, you reduce your claim and require the other party to do what you really want ... like in this instance, issuing tax free bonds. Just a guess and I could be wrong.

Can you please tell me why they did not get an IRS private opinion letter before issuing these bonds?

One thing to keep in mind is that Lauren Ritchie is an opinion columnist, not a news reporter. Like any and all commentors, she expresses her opinions, some of which she supports with facts.

A fact is empiracal and verifiable. An opinion is just someone's belief, often emotional, often based on selective information, often based one the person's interpretation of facts.

Thus, when Ms. Ritchie states that, "The district already has spent more than $209,000 of residents' money so far, nearly all on (attorneys)", she is making a statement of fact as to the amount and source of spending. Although she did not provide the source of this information, the statement itself is verifyable and I personally am inclined to believe it is accurate unless I find out otherwise. (When she states that the money was spent on "high-powered lawyers," she's providing a subjective if probably accurate assessment.)

When she states that the IRS wants, "...a promise by community development districts never again to masquerade as a legitimate government," she is stating her interpretation of the facts.

As a commentator, she is entitled to her opinions, assessments and interpretations, just as we are entitled to ours. We should, however, recognize that as a columnist, she is not reporting news per se, but merely giving her commentary.

I agree with JimJoe that Villagers and would-be Villagers should be educated about issues affecting our community. I think a well-rounded education includes understanding the facts, as well as understanding how knowledgeable people on all sides of the issue interpret those facts.

Too often we want to hear the voices of only those with whom we agree. While I do not agree with all of Ms. Ritchie's assessments and conclusions, I feel no need whatsoever to silence her.

Very well said with two great points.
 

Very well said with two great points.
1. Ritchie is a columnist.
2. Hear all the facts on all sides of an issue.

Pturner,

Ohhh... I didn't catch that little "Commentary" above her articles! I agree with you that these types of columnists are entitled to their opinions. Online it is hard to tell that you are reading such an article, especically when someone posts them on TOTV. When reading a newspaper it is clear when you are reading the Op Eds - a little harder in this context, but THANK YOU for pointing it out. I hope everyone reads your post and does not take Ms. Ritchies "opinions" for "fact". As I am sure you have read, her opinions (articles) have and are affecting peoples decision to move to TV and I think that is a shame.

You just need to do the math. Lets say the IRS gets there 16 million in fines. And they have to stop selling these as tax free bonds. I doubt anyone gets 100% of what they want, but assume worst case and they do. So the difference between tax free and taxable bonds right now is very small. So the bond holders get hurt a little bit and future bonds for the rest of the development may not be so attractive. But take the 16 million and assess every home in TV, again worst case. Each home would owe a little less then $300. Probably have to paid over 2 years, so an added assessment of an awful $15 a month with interest for 2 years. My guess would be that will never happen, but even the maximum fine having to paid by the residents, while not great, probably wont change what you have for dinner tonight.

Good points! but as usual I have questions.
1. Does your approach account for the possibility the IRS will require TV to redeem the bonds and sell new ones at current rates? I think the current bond holders will want a lot to cover their lost profit with the interest rate on the sold bonds probably being a lot higher than the interest rate they would get on current taxable bonds. The bond holders will not want to give up that profit for nothing. If you idea does, please explain. This is one of the issues that I do not understand, how the bonds would be remedied if they are not tax free. How does the IRS calculate how much money they have lost thus far? Redo the tax returns of the people that bought the bonds and figure out what taxes they avoided and then assess that to the bond sellers? Or do they have a statutory fine that based on the value of the bonds.... that would be my guess.
2. If they were forced to redeem the bonds, can the commercial districts sell taxable bonds in this current market with bond interest so low and real estate in so much trouble?
3. Your solution is assess homeowners in TV but is it possible to assess all of the homeowners in TV for this problem? Who ever issued the bonds would probably have to pay, and what would be the source of their revenue? If it Amenities fees, they are capped by the cola which was a point earlier that amenities COULD suffer SOMEWHAT.
4. Was that 16 million dollar claim for all bonds, or just the ones they originally looked at? As I remember, when there was no settlement, the IRS said they were going to look at all of the bonds.

Your point is very good which is this should not be that big of a problem, and my point is you are right so why can they not get is resolved NOW, instead of leaving it hang, and hurting TV. JJ

...sort of like Glenn Beck? Now I'm beginning to understand more better! (yeah, I did that on purpose) It makes me even more skeptical of Ms. Ritchie's writings and their purpose - from whence she cometh. (yeah, I did it again)

X

Originally Posted by Taj44
I could have said that in the long run it won't cost the residents anything, except I don't believe that to be the case. Its already cost the residents $209,000!

GracieGirl: We really cannot make that assumption.

Thanks JimJoe. That's exactly the point. Gracie, the $209,000 is not an assumption. Ms. Ritchie didn't conjure it up from thin air - it is a verifiable fact. As JimJoe said, the longer this whole business goes on, the more expensive it gets. What a stupid waste of money, IMHO.

Don't remember any early settlement?
Waste of money......blame the IRS>
Everyone is making too many assumptions!

I am sorry, I was not clear. We cannot make the assumption that the Morses are paying the attorney fees with our amenity money. I would think they have money other than that.

The IRS problem is not with the Morses
 

The IRS problem is not with the Morses. It is with the cdds that sold the bonds. I think the villagers should know where the money is coming from to pay the costs of litigation, especially if it is coming from them. Maybe there is a source other than the amenity fees. That would be great news.

The IRS battle is with the CDD's. According to the CDD website, the CDD's are funded by our amentity fees and annual assessments. The CDD has hired legal representation to fight the IRS. It seems pretty clear to me who is paying for this legal battle.

The CDDs are a form of government and, as such, are required to publicly disclose details of their plans and actions.

There is a tremendous amount of information on the www.districtgov.org website (you may have to copy/paste this link into your browser).

Go to this site, on the main menu line, click on "Your District" and then from the list of choices click on either Village Center or Sumter to get info on the 2 commercial/central districts.

These central CDDs are the ones that manage the amenity fees. On the main page for each of the central CDDs is a link to Proposed FY10-11 budget. Click on this link and it'll bring up a large pdf file with detailed revenue and expense items.

For legal expenses, Village central CDD .... 08/09 actual expenses were $127K; 09/10 budgeted was 80K - spent thru first 7 months of this fiscal year - 36K; proposed budget for FY10-11 is $150K.

For legal expenses, Sumter central CDD .... 08/09 actual expenses were $20K; 09/10 budgeted was 80K - spent thru first 7 months of this fiscal year - 77K; proposed budget for FY10-11 is $100K.

These are basically government entities and they do face various legal issues during the course of a year. It appears as though they have budgeted up to $250K between them for legal expenses into next year. I don't know where Ms Ritchie got that $209K was spent on the IRS issue so far. That figure doesn't match what is published by the CDDs.

Do your research, attend the open meetings each of these two central districts (and your own numbered district) hold, and base your opinions on the facts. I know I still don't fully understand the inter-workings between the two central CDDs and probably lots of other stuff, too.

Precisely. Why is it that we just assume that something was done that is wrong just because the IRS claims it to be so? We need to remember that it is we the residents who are the beneficiaries of the current bond arrangement. Are we just supposed to roll over and accept an IRS ruling in an area that is anything but clear?

More bad stuff for people who are considering moving here to read.

You've got that right ! :sad:

Be suspicious of anything in the Sentinel about TV. They bash TV every chance they get.

Why do you want to rehash this? Didn't we have enough bad news over the week-end with the dog being eaten alive, the stinky smell at Hernandino, the electric generator four feet from the lanai and golf carts capsizing over narrow bridges? I can't take anymore.

I have an answer for you. Don't read what you don't like.

Try to understand that this is a "forum" for everyone. If someone wants to bring up a post for whatever reason, that is their choice. New members may not have read it. Sometimes new members bring them back up because it's new to them.

So, if you don't want to read something, please don't. But, don't try to censor the forum because it's a subject that "you" don't like.

This has been a public service announcement.

Your welcome! :)

Ummmm I beleive jnmcan had tongue in cheek :icon_wink:

I may be a little touchy on the "closing down of threads" and "why are we talking about this" comments. :ohdear:

So, let me go on to say, (saving face) that for anyone except jnmcan who wants to shut down a thread or complain about a thread, this goes for them.

Carry on. Nothing going on here. :popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:

Oh, and jnmcan, so sorry.