[Velvet]

To me the “us vs them” seems to be not unlike Apple and the consumers. Apple sells you the iPhone (the Developer sells you house and use of amenities) Apple keeps control of the use of phone through iOS which we have to agree to, and we have the Developer’s deeds which we also have to agree to.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Velvet

To me the “us vs them” seems to be not unlike Apple and the consumers. Apple sells you the iPhone (the Developer sells you house and use of amenities) Apple keeps control of the use of phone through iOS which we have to agree to, and we have the Developer’s deeds which we also have to agree to.

Why would anyone want a company to control their device, agree to that, and pay for the privilege of not being allowed to use anything else - when that product was clearly inferior?

When the product has a problem, and the developer controls the product, then it should be the developer who pays to fix the product. They're the ones who claim control over it. If it continues to have problems, and the developer continues to ignore the customers' concerns that they might be getting inferior goods for a premium price...

then it stands to reason there will either be a) a lawsuit or b) a mass exodus.

Pretty sure we see the result of those two choices now. There was a settlement, things were fixed, future issues were given financial coverage by the Developer that they were supposed to set aside in the first place, but failed to do. Developer control now comes with legal and financial consequences for ignoring their responsibility, and the Developer happily continues developing and profiting.

Seems the POA had a pretty heavy hand in ensuring a satisfactory outcome for both Developers and Homeowners.

[Midnight Cowgirl]

Originally Posted by Northwoods

Can I comment as someone who doesn't have all the animosity or "history" that seems to be going on in this thread? I don't belong to the POA or the VHA. I have NO skin in this game. This is my opinion...
I love it here. I moved here 5 years ago. Are there things that could be improved (golf courses to name one). Yes.
But is my goal to stick it to The Developer? No.
It is my PERCEPTION that the POA wants to "stick it" to the Developer. Why do I feel this way? I think you can read all the comments on this and many threads.
I would love to have an open dialogue with the Developer to fix issues. Any and all issues. But if it's an "us vs. them" mentality that's never going to happen.

You will never have an open dialogue with the developer; trust me on that one!

You may have the "perception" that the POA wants to "stick it" to the developer, but in reality, nothing could be further from the truth.

What you probably perceive as "sticking it" is a group of well-intentioned residents who have banded together for fighting for what is fair and right for the benefit of all residents. If past performance is any indication of future behavior, if it is going to cost the Morse family $$$, you can bet your bottom dollar that the family will fight to the end to not have to pay. The POA will stand up to the developer and fight for what is right.

[Midnight Cowgirl]

Originally Posted by Jazuela

Why would anyone want a company to control their device, agree to that, and pay for the privilege of not being allowed to use anything else - when that product was clearly inferior?

When the product has a problem, and the developer controls the product, then it should be the developer who pays to fix the product. They're the ones who claim control over it. If it continues to have problems, and the developer continues to ignore the customers' concerns that they might be getting inferior goods for a premium price...

then it stands to reason there will either be a) a lawsuit or b) a mass exodus.

Pretty sure we see the result of those two choices now. There was a settlement, things were fixed, future issues were given financial coverage by the Developer that they were supposed to set aside in the first place, but failed to do. Developer control now comes with legal and financial consequences for ignoring their responsibility, and the Developer happily continues developing and profiting.

Seems the POA had a pretty heavy hand in ensuring a satisfactory outcome for both Developers and Homeowners.

Jazuela -- please keep up your terrific posts; your comments are golden!

Yes -- the POA did a great job and set a precedent for making the Morse family responsible for something they tried to turn their back on. The precedent which was set will benefit homeowners for many years to come

[Polar Bear]

Originally Posted by Velvet

To me the “us vs them” seems to be not unlike Apple and the consumers. Apple sells you the iPhone (the Developer sells you house and use of amenities) Apple keeps control of the use of phone through iOS which we have to agree to, and we have the Developer’s deeds which we also have to agree to.

Some people don't see their relationship with Apple as us-versus-them either.

An operating system is necessary, for an iPhone and TV. How you like it...or not...is simply up to you.

[PennBF]

It would be a good approach if the "Drama" was removed from this subject and we just relied on the basic facts. It is a fact the courts awarded the Residents of the Villages $40 Million Dollars to protect against future neglect of reserves funds being available for extraordinary problems. It is a fact the Developer is responsible for certain properties in The Villages which had very bad building and property damages and the Developer was not providing funds to repair and replace. It is a fact the Court fined him $40 Million Dollars for this failure to have repair and replace money on hand. You can put any "spin" you want on these and in the end these are the "facts". The motivation(s) for the Developer to form the VHA is something only he/she knows and each resident can decide for him or herself based on history and actions of each. I personally fully support a "Check and Balance" approach and the POA is a good mechanism to meet this need of the residents. I am sure the Developer is a fair person and good given the The Villages as a result of his handiwork. But is he open to mistakes in judgement, etc. absolutely as all of us are and therefore it is to his advantage as well as ours to have a POA.

[Bogie Shooter]

A voice of reason. Thank you.
However, those with some underlying reason will continue to try and stir up trouble.

[Madelaine Amee]

What seems to be lost in the posts is that the "Developer" involved in the law suit was GARY MORSE. Our current "Developer" is his son MARK MORSE. I hardly think Mr. Mark Morse is too interested in what happened many years ago. He is the new generation and is doing a great job in growing and developing TV to the benefit of all residents.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Madelaine Amee

What seems to be lost in the posts is that the "Developer" involved in the law suit was GARY MORSE. Our current "Developer" is his son MARK MORSE. I hardly think Mr. Mark Morse is too interested in what happened many years ago. He is the new generation and is doing a great job in growing and developing TV to the benefit of all residents.

I don't know Mark Morse and haven't seen anything about him, personally to indicate one way or another. However I think it's great that the Developer (which would be the Corporation headed by Mark Morse, not Mark Morse individually, the person), is held to certain standards of financial responsibility for the future of the development in which other people live, and rely for safe and liveable habitation and recreation.

[PennBF]

I agree the discussion of the family is not in line with the thread. It is hard for some to recognize that a "Business" does not have a soul and is in business for "profit". It is a common misconception of some to try to give a business a soul! Those that think that way have usually never been in business or never Managed a business. When referring to the Developer it is in reference to "The Business" and not the family. It would not be unusual for the "Business" to employ family members. However decisions related to Business Policy and Practices is mainly in control of the CEO or President who in this case is the "Developer" and is the bottom line for Profit and ROI.

[ColdNoMore]

Originally Posted by PennBF

I agree the discussion of the family is not in line with the thread. It is hard for some to recognize that a "Business" does not have a soul and is in business for "profit". It is a common misconception of some to try to give a business a soul! Those that think that way have usually never been in business or never Managed a business. When referring to the Developer it is in reference to "The Business" and not the family. It would not be unusual for the "Business" to employ family members. However decisions related to Business Policy and Practices is mainly in control of the CEO or President who in this case is the "Developer" and is the bottom line for Profit and ROI.

Keep in mind though, that almost of the major executive positions and overall control...are now held by siblings/family members.

So while it is a 'developing company,' it is much more accurate to call them 'Da Family' than it is to refer to them now as 'The Developer'...as when Gary Morse ran the entire show.

[ColdNoMore]

Originally Posted by Two Bills

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

"Aurum potestas est"


The 'Golden Rule' applies.

" Whoever has the gold...makes the rules!"

[PennBF]

The title of this Thread is "Representing Residents" and is a spin off of the POA. It is totally unfair to the Developer to bring his or her family into the thread! There are boundries and that really crossed them. Would the writer want it to be reduced it to a comparison of POA famlies vs the Developers? I would think the Developer would shudder at the thought of his children being used for a publications. Lets all have higher values.

[ColdNoMore]

Originally Posted by PennBF

The title of this Thread is "Representing Residents" and is a spin off of the POA. It is totally unfair to the Developer to bring his or her family into the thread! There are boundries and that really crossed them. Would the writer want it to be reduced it to a comparison of POA famlies vs the Developers? I would think the Developer would shudder at the thought of his children being used for a publications. Lets all have higher values.

While I completely recognize your right to (and respect) your opinion, in this particular case...I will have to respectfully disagree.

The POA is made up by, and solely represents, the residents here and the VHA is, when all else removed...simply a representative and protector for The Developer.

And given that Gary Morse, who was indisputably 'THE Developer,' but now that he has passed and almost everything is completely controlled by his offspring/other relatives...I believe it is entirely appropriate to acknowledge such.

It's not meant as attacking 'family members,' which IMHO SHOULD be off-limits in almost all other situations, it's simply acknowledging the current senior executives...who now run The Villages ever-expanding business.

[ColdNoMore]

As clarification, I would also like to add that there is a HUGE difference...in what/who should be considered "children."

While those who have no connection to their parents, other than just being offspring, who are young (say under 21) and have no connection to their parents except by being their children...should DEFINITELY be considered TOTALLY off-limits.

And I've felt that way about the Bush twins, Chelsea, Obama girls, Etc.

HOWEVER, if these "children" are actually full-grown adults, who have taken on business responsibilities (for anyone), they should no longer be classified as 'children'..in the intended sense.

They are now adults, who can & should be judged...on what THEY do (or don't do).

I mean shoot, if that were the case that all children should be off-limits, I can think of thousands of denigrating remarks made by lots of folks...who have voiced criticisms of grown children.

In fact, I posit that we are ALL...children of someone.

Does that automatically protect us...from criticism?

I think not.