[Mleeja]

I have no problem with an organization ran by the residents. I do have a problem with certain members of that organization benefiting personally financially from the organization. For example the six members who received settlements from the original lawsuit or the three that stood to benefit if the latest would have prevailed. I have a problem with a member of the board of the POA being a District 5 Supervisor and a named party in lawsuit against The Villages. This reeks of conflict of interest.

The VHA and the POA serves their purposes. If the VHA has by working with the developer the ear of the developer, then this is organization I want to belong to. It seems the only way the POA can be heard is by shouting, intimation and lawsuits. I’ll save my $10.00.

Someone tried to make a comparison the organizations as Democrats and Republicans. I think the POA is more like a union. Where many members pay dues but only a few leaders benefit. They tell the members what a great job they are doing for them while at the same time picking their pockets.

[Advogado]

Originally Posted by Mleeja

I have no problem with an organization ran by the residents. I do have a problem with certain members of that organization benefiting personally financially from the organization. For example the six members who received settlements from the original lawsuit or the three that stood to benefit if the latest would have prevailed. I have a problem with a member of the board of the POA being a District 5 Supervisor and a named party in lawsuit against The Villages. This reeks of conflict of interest.

The VHA and the POA serves their purposes. If the VHA has by working with the developer the ear of the developer, then this is organization I want to belong to. It seems the only way the POA can be heard is by shouting, intimation and lawsuits. I’ll save my $10.00.

Someone tried to make a comparison the organizations as Democrats and Republicans. I think the POA is more like a union. Where many members pay dues but only a few leaders benefit. They tell the members what a great job they are doing for them while at the same time picking their pockets.

You are mistaken when you say that the VHA serves as the "ear" of the Developer. The VHA serves as the Developer's mouth.

You are also flat out wrong with respect to your "picking their pockets" remark. The plaintiffs in the VCCDD class action suit took nothing from POA members or Villages residents. The plaintiffs spent a huge amount of their personal time mounting that successful lawsuit-- which recovered something like $40 million for you, me, and the rest of the residents. If somebody gets me $40 million to which I am entitled, I have no problem with their getting $50,000 for their efforts. That being said, I concede that it would have been great public relations if the Plaintiffs had turned down the $50,000 awarded them, but that would be asking an awful lot of a group of volunteers.

BTW, the outcome of that lawsuit was an admission by the Developer that it had overcharged the Developer-controlled Villages Center District for the amenity facilities-- an essential fact totally ignored by the Daily Sun in the Developer-inspired articles that provoked this thread.

[outlaw]

Originally Posted by Advogado

You are mistaken when you say that the VHA serves as the "ear" of the Developer. The VHA serves as the Developer's mouth.

You are also flat out wrong with respect to your "picking their pockets" remark. The plaintiffs in the VCCDD class action suit took nothing from POA members or Villages residents. The plaintiffs spent a huge amount of their personal time mounting that successful lawsuit-- which recovered something like $40 million for you, me, and the rest of the residents. If somebody gets me $40 million to which I am entitled, I have no problem with their getting $50,000 for their efforts. That being said, I concede that it would have been great public relations if the Plaintiffs had turned down the $50,000 awarded them, but that would be asking an awful lot of a group of volunteers.

BTW, the outcome of that lawsuit was an admission by the Developer that it had overcharged the Developer-controlled Villages Center District for the amenity facilities-- an essential fact totally ignored by the Daily Sun in the Developer-inspired articles that provoked this thread.

My understanding is that they also ponied up money for court costs, legal fees, etc., which would have been their burden if they had not prevailed. They deserved every penny they got, and then some.

[Advogado]

Originally Posted by outlaw

My understanding is that they also ponied up money for court costs, legal fees, etc., which would have been their burden if they had not prevailed. They deserved every penny they got, and then some.

They certainly did deserve it.

The people who criticize the plaintiffs and the POA, yet reap the benefits of the plaintiffs' efforts by enjoying the amenity system that the plaintiffs preserved, strike me as being ungrateful, if not hypocritical. I have suggested, in an earlier thread on the subject, that these critics put their money where their mouth is by refunding their pro rata share of the VCCDD class-action recovery to the Developer, but to my knowledge, none of the critics has done so.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by Advogado

They certainly did deserve it.

The people who criticize the plaintiffs and the POA, yet reap the benefits of the plaintiffs' efforts by enjoying the amenity system that the plaintiffs preserved, strike me as being ungrateful, if not hypocritical. I have suggested, in an earlier thread on the subject, that these critics put their money where their mouth is by refunding their pro rata share of the VCCDD class-action recovery to the Developer, but to my knowledge, none of the critics has done so.

The subject seems to have changed. What happened is that your team lost this lawsuit, counselor. Big time.

[Advogado]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

The subject seems to have changed. What happened is that your team lost this lawsuit, counselor. Big time.

First of all, the plaintiffs were not "my" team. I am just discussing the facts of the matter.

Second of all, the net result of both lawsuits (and the two are intertwined) is that, thanks to the POA's efforts, you, I, and the rest of the residents recovered $43 million that the Developer had shorted (by his own admission) the amenity system by overcharging the Center District that the Developer controlled. Not a bad net result if you ask me.

Like I said, people, like yourself, who don't think that this recovery was appropriate should send their checks, for their pro share of the recovery, to The Villages of Lake Sumter, Inc. Alternatively, you could stop using the amenity system.

[Warren Kiefer]

Originally Posted by rubicon

I copied redwitch's post because redwitch does well in highlighting the important issues much of what I agree.

The differences for me are that: we will never really know if there was something more that created the dismissal of this lawsuit but it clearly doesn't mean that the decision and the truth are one in the same. I do know that in the original amenity lawsuit that the POA filed, created a dilemma for them because they couldn't find an attorney who wanted to go against the Developer. Remember the Developer is the big dog in Sumter County.

Frankly I have always been worried that the District Manager's loyalties favor the Developer. I had come by that concern after reading the Notice of Proposed Issues submitted by the IRS explaining the transactions between the District and the Developer. Its one thing to work harmoniously with the Developer another to defer to their wishes. the District is suppose to protect the residents and hence can't serve both interests without creating a conflict
I certainly can be persuaded to view this concern otherwise as I always remain open.

The lawsuit in essence was about honoring a commitment/promise by the developer to all residents input into the decisions made south of 466 of which 100% of the cost plus profits will eventually inure to the Developer paid by us. In essence they use our money to build south of 466 will sell it back to us for a handsome profit

All of this discussion actually is a waste of time because the usual suspects will accuse those who simply ask the logical questions of why, how etc of being anti developer. We have witnessed how name calling ends discussion in our society so too does being called an anti-developer and we have witnessed repeatedly how any discussion about The Villages ends up about the Developer and not the real issue of the development and it future

I hold no malice toward the Developer (actually The Villages Lake-Sumter, Inc,) and in fact admire the work being done, nor am I pro POA for a number of reasons. However there is not one other entity in Sumter County that will speak up against The Villages of Lake-Sumter, Inc. and while I do view this entity as a monarchy I do not view it as a benevolent one but simply a business one.

Simply stated in nine years I have never witnessed a discussion about The Villages that didn't end up like a scene out of the Hatfield and Mc Coys and that indeed is a sad situation because residents should be united in their concern for preserving our way of life and that can never happen until the name calling stops. The one real asset we have going for us is that the majority of the residents are decent fair minded people that makes all of this palatable. And perhaps the Hatfield McCoy comparison speaks to the issue of who is best to manage this creation?

Personal Best Regards:

This is without a doubt one of the best responses I have ever seen published on TOTV. It is accurate, fair, clear and to the point.

[Warren Kiefer]

[QUOTE=outlaw;1109186]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

I think by Florida law, the developer must turn over the control to residents once a certain amount of homes have been sold. I don't know why you would think otherwise. Did the sales person tell you that?

Wrong !!!! The CDD's over a certain period of time become a resident elected board. The District Boards will also be elected by landowner elections. Unfortunately every square foot of land in the Districts is owned by the Developer. Hence, the Developer is the only voter who elects the District Boards.

[PennBF]

1. The attorney's were awarded the $7M in the Paradise Rec Center suit out of the $40M the Developer lost for neglect of the facility. Six residents, some POA members actually put up their own personal funds to help the suit. After the settlement ($40M Developer Loss) the Attorney's decided to donate $300K of
their fees of $7M to the six who took the risk and stood to lose significant personal funds. The six were to split it evenly and they did with each receiving
$50K. How many of you stand ready to sign up to spend your own money to protect your neighbors property. By the way you are all continuing to reap in the benefits of the $40M as it has and is going to your advantage.
2. In the case of the current loss the Developer spent $300K to try to avoid some accountability and lost of control of dollars spent South of 466A. . If you think he won and you lost you may want to reexamine the facts and decide who really lost.
3. The POA has existed for 40 years and the VHA a rather short time. The original developer liked the POA UNTIL it sued to enforce the Developer to take care of the Paradise Rec center that was falling apart, (e.g.mice and rats in the ceiling, etc.). When they lost and had to put aside $40M to ensure
future support for needs of the Village the Developer (as you can guess) became pretty darn angry and created the VHA. It goes on today as the arm of the Developer and as seen in the last Daily Sun, etc. continues to try to
destroy the POA and any independent support for the residents. The POA continues after 40 years to work for the residents and as an independent
support for its neighbors.
Just some history to digest.

[iaudit]

Originally Posted by Mleeja

I have no problem with an organization ran by the residents. I do have a problem with certain members of that organization benefiting personally financially from the organization. For example the six members who received settlements from the original lawsuit or the three that stood to benefit if the latest would have prevailed. I have a problem with a member of the board of the POA being a District 5 Supervisor and a named party in lawsuit against The Villages. This reeks of conflict of interest.

........

It is obvious that you do not know what conflict of interest means. How exactly does one position have any influence or financial benefit from the other.

A better example of conflict of interest would be the developer who appoints all the supervisors for the central districts and then the supervisors determine what the developer gets paid when the amenity facilities are bought by the central districts. Most or all of the appointed supervisors are employees or associates of the developer. Now that is a conflict.

[Warren Kiefer]

[QUOTE=TVMayor;1109228]

Originally Posted by Dr Winston O Boogie jr

Florida Statutes - Chapter 190 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS

Surely you realize there are two totally DIFFERENT boards. This statute refers to the CDD boards which are Residents elected by Residents. The VCCDD and SLCDD are also landowner elected boards. BUT at this time the ONLY landowner in the downtown Spanish Springs and Sumter Landing areas is the developer. The developer casts all the possible votes and consequently elects whom he wants. THERE IS NOT A SINGLE VOTING RESIDENT WHO LIVES IN EITHER THE VCCDD or THE SLCDD.

[Advogado]

Originally Posted by iaudit

It is obvious that you do not know what conflict of interest means. How exactly does one position have any influence or financial benefit from the other.

A better example of conflict of interest would be the developer who appoints all the supervisors for the central districts and then the supervisors determine what the developer gets paid when the amenity facilities are bought by the central districts. Most or all of the appointed supervisors are employees or associates of the developer. Now that is a conflict.

Exactly. And that relationship is what the IRS focused on when it banned future issuance of tax-exempt bonds by those center districts.

[JoMar]

[QUOTE=Warren Kiefer;1109420]

Originally Posted by TVMayor

Surely you realize there are two totally DIFFERENT boards. This statute refers to the CDD boards which are Residents elected by Residents. The VCCDD and SLCDD are also landowner elected boards. BUT at this time the ONLY landowner in the downtown Spanish Springs and Sumter Landing areas is the developer. The developer casts all the possible votes and consequently elects whom he wants. THERE IS NOT A SINGLE VOTING RESIDENT WHO LIVES IN EITHER THE VCCDD or THE SLCDD.

I agree....and it has been that way since the beginning. The Developer took all the risk and like any other business, he didn't do that to give away control. Why do people that live here believe this place should operate like a government entity, or didn't they know that when they moved in. Good news is the TOTV isn't the majority.....same voices, same threads. In my view the POA and the VHA both provide services to the residents but they don't represent everyone.

[manaboutown]

Originally Posted by iaudit

It is obvious that you do not know what conflict of interest means. How exactly does one position have any influence or financial benefit from the other.

A better example of conflict of interest would be the developer who appoints all the supervisors for the central districts and then the supervisors determine what the developer gets paid when the amenity facilities are bought by the central districts. Most or all of the appointed supervisors are employees or associates of the developer. Now that is a conflict.

The existing situation represents the polar extreme of a conflict of interest unfortunately open to the possibility if not probability of self dealing. It is literally all kept within the family.

[Advogado]

[QUOTE=JoMar;1109426]

Originally Posted by Warren Kiefer

I agree....and it has been that way since the beginning. The Developer took all the risk and like any other business, he didn't do that to give away control. Why do people that live here believe this place should operate like a government entity, or didn't they know that when they moved in. Good news is the TOTV isn't the majority.....same voices, same threads. In my view the POA and the VHA both provide services to the residents but they don't represent everyone.

I'm not sure what you are talking about, but, if I understand you correctly, I am afraid you are flat out wrong. The Villages is, in fact, governed by a conglomerate of community development districts (the 3 commercial districts and the residential numbered districts). These community development districts are all GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES, established under Florida law. That is the system established by the Developer.