[Warren Kiefer]

[QUOTE=Advogado;1109457]

Originally Posted by JoMar

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.

No not wrong at all. The community is made up of CDD's who actually are under the control of the Developer and after a particular time lapse the developer must give up control of a CDD and allow the Residents to elect the boards. Now you have the SLCDD and the VCCDD. For at least five years the Developer has control over the CDD's and control over the SLCDD and VCCDD for as long as he remains the only landowner in those Districts. For want of a better explanation, the two Districts are the fathers over the CDD children. Therefore, we probably will never have any control who serves on the District Boards. Many of those board members work for the developer. At one time one gentleman serving on the VCCDD was the caretaker of the buffalo. Who do you think he usually agreed with ???

[outlaw]

[QUOTE=Warren Kiefer;1109409]

Originally Posted by outlaw

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.

Now I'm confused. The CDDs ARE districts, are they not? So the district representatives are elected by the residents, who are also the landowners.

[outlaw]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

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

Didn't you forget to add na na na na na na?

[Mleeja]

Originally Posted by outlaw

Didn't you forget to add na na na na na na?

1. I would like to see the posters who are so adamantly supporting the POA reveal there conncetion with the POA. Are they members, officers, etc. Are they benefiting financially from the POA?

2. Did the three named plaintiffs in the last lawsuit foot all the bills or did the POA pay the legal fees?

3. Where did the $40,000 paid to The Villages come from? Memebers dues?

The POA lost the lawsuit. However some seem to feel that they must continue to trash the developer and The Villages.

Yes, you lost, na na na na na....

[rubicon]

[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?

outlaw: what does relinquish control mean? If the past is prologue to the future then The Villages of Lake-Sumter, Inc. will continue to spin off only those facilities they deem unprofitable or unimportant to their business plan. make no mistake The Villages is their fiefdom and they intend to tap into it for many years to come. They own or rent all of the commercial property adjacent to The Villages. They established and fought off repeal of Sumter One for good reason. They own or control all local news media There is no question in my mind that The Villages of Lake-Sumter, Inc will control even if at an arms length distance.

Oddly enough for me I have not satisfied myself as to who would better govern. Like all decisions it is a trade off.

Personal Best Regards:

[rubicon]

Originally Posted by Mleeja

It is “funny” how this has turned into another thread about the governance of The Villages. IMO the negative comments are being driven by POA officers, members, or supporters. I have a news flash for the POA…”you lost… bigtime”! However in the midst of the lawsuit, we all lost because The Villages had to expend over $300,000 in legal fees that could have been used for other purposes within The Villages. In this case the POA has done a disservice to the community.

So “who is lying”? Well let’s start with the count ruled against the POA with prejudice. This tells me that the arguments they put forth were not accurate, so that should be the beginning point in answering the question.

I am sure the POA supporters are licking their wounds and feel the need to lash out through this forum because their reputation just took a big hit. How can we trust anything they say in the future?

Hi meeja: i do understand why you feel the way you do and it is impossible for the loser to defend a lawsuit viewed as lost. However one of my duties was to oversee 250 lawsuits at any given time around the country. We settle some lawsuits simply because the cost of defending was going to end up being more than the settlement. In fact that is the primary reason trial lawyes take up lawsuits because they force the defense to expend large sums and they know if they keep it up they will get a payday. Without belaboring it we settled for several reasons including judges who were influenced by anything other than the facts of a case. Because the POA lawsuit was settled with prejudice doesn't mean the truth prevailed. i am not going to retry this case in this post but you may want to reread the facts especially the part were the facts support the promise the Developer made for a southside AAC.

Personal Best Regards:

[rubicon]

Originally Posted by Advogado

I think you are mistaken. The distinction is really: POA: Property owners' association. VHA: Developer front organization. I don't think political parties have anything to do with it.

I will preface my remarks in this regard by making the following disclosures:

a. I am a registered Republican, but knowing what I now know, I view the VHA as a blight upon the Villages landscape. I have to admit that shortly after I moved here, I naively believed that the VHA was a legitimate homeowners' association, and I became a member. Needless to say, as I learned more about it, I allowed my membership to lapse.

b. I will stipulate the Developer, which is the Villages of Lake-Sumter, Inc. (and a maze of trusts, family members, and other corporations), has done a marvelous job of developing, and in almost all aspects, running, The Villages. I love living here and have no intention of moving. However, it is absurd to think that the interests of the Developer, who controls the local media and politics, will always coincide with those of the residents. It is for that reason that we need our own, independent homeowners' organization, i.e., the POA.

Here are the reasons that I view the VHA as a blight:

1. In case of conflict between the interests of homeowners and those of the Developer, the VHA has consistently sided with the Developer. The latest example of this is the absolute nonsense published by the VHA's newsletter, The Villages Voice, about the ongoing IRS investigation of the Developer's actions in selling amenity facilities to the Developer-controlled Center Districts. The reasons why the VHA always supports the Developer follow.

2. The Developer sponsors the VHA. The Villages Voice is printed and delivered by the Developer's newspaper, The Daily Sun.

3. The Developer collaborated in the very establishment of the VHA. The motive of the Developer in doing so was obviously to weaken the POA, which was frustrating his actions when they conflicted with the interests of the residents.

4. The Developer has co-opted as least some of the VHA presidents. One VHA president was, incredibly, actually on the Developer's payroll while holding office. Two other presidents were, upon leaving office, rewarded by the Developer by getting his political and financial backing to successfully run for County Supervisor positions. These are just examples of the corruption of VHA officers that I have been able to glean from public records. Do other members of this forum know of other examples?

I would not have a real problem with the VHA if it would not, hypocritically, hold itself out as a bona fide homeowners' association. After all, the VHA does run a golf-cart safety clinic, a very worthwhile activity. Perhaps a name change to something like "The Villages of Lake-Sumter Landing, Inc. Booster Club"?

Spot on

[rubicon]

Originally Posted by 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.

PennBF:

an accurate assessment. The only problem I had with the aforementioned was that in my view the POA jumped at the Developer's first offer. They should have recognized that the Developer doesn't yield and that because he did they had him on the ropes. That's my view and it worth what people paid for it.

[rubicon]

It was stated in articles published at the time of the original amenity lawsuit was underway that there are three kinds of people living in The Villages.

Pro developer
Anti developer
Retired don't care

Each of those categories has been represented here. I didn't believe this was an accurate assessment then and I don't now.

One does not have to be pro/anti anything to express concern about the large and perhaps last investment of our lives. I reiterate again that it saddens me that we can't have civil discourse pertaining to this issue and won't until residents abandoned the labels.

Personal Best Regards:

[outlaw]

[QUOTE=rubicon;1109543]

Originally Posted by outlaw

outlaw: what does relinquish control mean? If the past is prologue to the future then The Villages of Lake-Sumter, Inc. will continue to spin off only those facilities they deem unprofitable or unimportant to their business plan. make no mistake The Villages is their fiefdom and they intend to tap into it for many years to come. They own or rent all of the commercial property adjacent to The Villages. They established and fought off repeal of Sumter One for good reason. They own or control all local news media There is no question in my mind that The Villages of Lake-Sumter, Inc will control even if at an arms length distance.

Oddly enough for me I have not satisfied myself as to who would better govern. Like all decisions it is a trade off.

Personal Best Regards:

Maybe your question is rhetorical? The CDDs self govern wrt managing budgets, setting maintenance fees, amenities fees, maintaining executive golf courses and other amenities (MMP, Rec centers) once the developer sells them to the CDDs. I think the CDDs can also change district standards (lawn ornaments, signs, etc). I think an example, although not a major impact, is the MMP striping in CDD4. I believe CDD2 is building a new Santiago Rec center from the ground up. Last year or earlier this year, CDD1 completed a complete remodel of Paradise Rec center. I agree that the developer will always have influence and impact just because of it's control over the town centers and all the commercial property, not to mention the endless "build outs".

[mickey100]

Originally Posted by Mleeja

1. I would like to see the posters who are so adamantly supporting the POA reveal there conncetion with the POA. Are they members, officers, etc. Are they benefiting financially from the POA?

2. Did the three named plaintiffs in the last lawsuit foot all the bills or did the POA pay the legal fees?

3. Where did the $40,000 paid to The Villages come from? Memebers dues?

The POA lost the lawsuit. However some seem to feel that they must continue to trash the developer and The Villages.

…...

The lawsuit was a win for the residents of The Villages. Without it there wouldn't have been money in the till for many of the upgrades and maintenance issues that we enjoy now. If those members of the POA had not pursued it, who knows what kind of shape the Villages north of 466 would be in right now. I give them a big "thank you". And I really don't get why people begrudge the money they received for all the work they did. I know at this stage of my life I wouldn't devote years of my time for $50,000 or whatever the amount is they received. They worked hard and they deserve it. The POA did not lose, in any sense of the word. It was a victory - as a result of the lawsuit, the developer agreed to pay about $40 million over the 13 years to replenish maintenance accounts and keep the facilities up to date. Its just too bad the developer had to be prompted to do the right thing by a lawsuit, instead of doing it voluntarily.

[iaudit]

[QUOTE=outlaw;1109630]

Originally Posted by rubicon

Maybe your question is rhetorical? The CDDs self govern wrt managing budgets, setting maintenance fees, amenities fees, maintaining executive golf courses and other amenities (MMP, Rec centers) once the developer sells them to the CDDs. I think the CDDs can also change district standards (lawn ornaments, signs, etc). I think an example, although not a major impact, is the MMP striping in CDD4. I believe CDD2 is building a new Santiago Rec center from the ground up. Last year or earlier this year, CDD1 completed a complete remodel of Paradise Rec center. I agree that the developer will always have influence and impact just because of it's control over the town centers and all the commercial property, not to mention the endless "build outs".

Outlaw, some of the above statements are absolutely wrong. None of the numbered CDD's control any amenity facility(executive golf course, pool, courts, recreation center, etc.). They are controlled by the town center CDD's which in reality are controlled by developer who is the sole landowner there. Because of the settled lawsuit, certain expenditures on facilities north of 466 are controlled by resident elected Amenity Authority Committee representatives. The numbered CDD do not collect amenity fees, either the developer or the town center CDD collect those, depending on whether an amenity facility has been sold to the town center. Only infrastructure, such as cart paths, landscaping, etc. is controlled by numbered CDD's. You really need to go to an orientation class before making comments on CDD structure and responsibility. Your statements perpetuate falsehoods that have been espoused by others in the past.

[rubicon]

Originally Posted by mickey100

The lawsuit was a win for the residents of The Villages. Without it there wouldn't have been money in the till for many of the upgrades and maintenance issues that we enjoy now. If those members of the POA had not pursued it, who knows what kind of shape the Villages north of 466 would be in right now. I give them a big "thank you". And I really don't get why people begrudge the money they received for all the work they did. I know at this stage of my life I wouldn't devote years of my time for $50,000 or whatever the amount is they received. They worked hard and they deserve it. The POA did not lose, in any sense of the word. It was a victory - as a result of the lawsuit, the developer agreed to pay about $40 million over the 13 years to replenish maintenance accounts and keep the facilities up to date. Its just too bad the developer had to be prompted to do the right thing by a lawsuit, instead of doing it voluntarily.

mickey 100: I am not totally enamored with the POA but two facts stand out. They operate in a good faith and positive manner to protect the rights of residents. Secondly there simply is not another entity in and around The Villages that will take issue with The Villages of Lake-Sumter, Inc (TVLSI) because they are owned, controlled or concerned about their viability if they should go against TVLSI. Its simply a political reality.

And for this service the POA is maligned, called whinners, negative, etc. when in reality all they are doing is pointing to issues of legitimate concern and differences . Far too many residents unfairly dismiss the POA out of hand simply because a dispute of any kind disturbs their perception of this Adult Disney World or as many say here: "I'm retired, leave me alone."
Once again this issue will never go forward in a constructive manner if residents continue with the name calling.

As to the rules and policies pertaining to CDD's etc rules and policies were made to be broken but that is another and separate topic of discussion

Personal Best Regards:

[outlaw]

[QUOTE=iaudit;1109641]

Originally Posted by outlaw

Outlaw, some of the above statements are absolutely wrong. None of the numbered CDD's control any amenity facility(executive golf course, pool, courts, recreation center, etc.). They are controlled by the town center CDD's which in reality are controlled by developer who is the sole landowner there. Because of the settled lawsuit, certain expenditures on facilities north of 466 are controlled by resident elected Amenity Authority Committee representatives. The numbered CDD do not collect amenity fees, either the developer or the town center CDD collect those, depending on whether an amenity facility has been sold to the town center. Only infrastructure, such as cart paths, landscaping, etc. is controlled by numbered CDD's. You really need to go to an orientation class before making comments on CDD structure and responsibility. Your statements perpetuate falsehoods that have been espoused by others in the past.

Thank you for the clarification. Are you sure the CDDs north of 466 do not own/control the rec centers?

[Mleeja]

Originally Posted by mickey100

The lawsuit was a win for the residents of The Villages. Without it there wouldn't have been money in the till for many of the upgrades and maintenance issues that we enjoy now. If those members of the POA had not pursued it, who knows what kind of shape the Villages north of 466 would be in right now. I give them a big "thank you". And I really don't get why people begrudge the money they received for all the work they did. I know at this stage of my life I wouldn't devote years of my time for $50,000 or whatever the amount is they received. They worked hard and they deserve it. The POA did not lose, in any sense of the word. It was a victory - as a result of the lawsuit, the developer agreed to pay about $40 million over the 13 years to replenish maintenance accounts and keep the facilities up to date. Its just too bad the developer had to be prompted to do the right thing by a lawsuit, instead of doing it voluntarily.

You have not correctly read my post. My questions are about the lawsuit that was lost by the POA. Who is footing the bill for this one? No one seems to want to answer this question.