[Peachie]

Originally Posted by Steve9930

As far as i can remember the gate did not require card access. The arm was always broken. The gate would open if you just drove up to the gate.

Steve, would you share with us how long you have been living in Stonecrest?

[Peachie]

Originally Posted by njbchbum

i'd love to see some sort of access control for carts on multi-modal paths if it would keep cars from accessing them!

Ain't that the truth!

[NoMoSno]

Originally Posted by Steve9930

As far as i can remember the gate did not require card access. The arm was always broken. The gate would open if you just drove up to the gate.

You are correct.

[Peachie]

Originally Posted by Steve9930

As far as i can remember the gate did not require card access. The arm was always broken. The gate would open if you just drove up to the gate.

The gate would open IF you were leaving The Villages, correct?

[Cisco Kid]

I would like a cart path to TV from subdivision.
I am going right to the top.
I am going to call Gracie .

[NoMoSno]

Originally Posted by Peachie

The gate would open IF you were leaving The Villages, correct?

Wrong.

[Steve9930]

Originally Posted by Carl in Tampa

Take it from a retired Florida deputy sheriff. Trespass warnings are issued by the property owner or an authorized representative, not by law enforcement. Law enforcement officers are sometimes present to prevent the offender from violence or to document the issuing of the warning. It would be just as lawful if the warning is done in the presence of a witness or if it is videotaped.

No Trespassing signs are effective for immediate arrest without an earlier trespass warning being issued.

Also, if they choose to do so the developers can go ahead an install No Trespassing signs.

The representative will have no authority to just randomly stop anyone on the path. A representative has no law enforcement authority, none. If this is started I can see a major problem. If the developer wants to protect the paths from unlawful use then he will need to gate them off, or make sure there is a way to identify a village resident so a representative can call law enforcement. If any one other then a law officer approaches an individual in an aggressive manner in this state they take their life in their own hands. I doubt the developer would like to see a story in the paper about an altercation on the Cart Paths in the paper. You also have vendors in the Villages renting carts for people to use on the paths. On one of the first go around on this gate closing were people talking about a girls bachelorette party who rented carts to do a bar hopping party in the villages. The bottom line is the requested crossing is from public accessed property to public accessed property over a state highway. The State and the County will make the decision as to whether the crossing will be allowed. After that it will be up to The Villages as to what to do about their Cart Paths. I do understand the difference between your golf cart path types. I would imagine with all this hoopla about this I would make an educated bet that the person who put up the styrofoam wall would never do it again. Everything was quite and peaceful until that event. Everyone does know that there are people that have access cards that are not villagers as there are people that have remotes to Stonecrest that do not live in Stonecrest. The ability to cross or not to cross makes no difference to me . But if there are people that need access to the medical facilities via Golf Cart then they should have it and we should all go along with our business. There are far more important items to take care of in life.

[justjim]

Originally Posted by njbchbum

justjim - the access precedent that had existed does not exist any longer - it was eliminated by installing the gate...not cumbersome at all...done!

and if stonecresters are now seeking a legal golf cart crossing to the hospital/medical offices - so be it. if the developer fears abuse of the multi-modal paths, should that crossing be approved, he will be at liberty to resolve same to his satisfaction.

why even think that villagers will be made to purchase 'identification' for their carts - sounds more alarmist than slippery slope. and be secured - the multi-modal paths are not part of the public infrastructure/roadway system within the villages.

i'd love to see some sort of access control for carts on multi-modal paths if it would keep cars from accessing them!

Who would have thought that a "midnight" wall would suddenly be constructed? Identification for TV golf carts doesn't seem that much of a stretch.

Hard to fix stupid.

[Bogie Shooter]

Originally Posted by Steve9930

The representative will have no authority to just randomly stop anyone on the path. A representative has no law enforcement authority, none. If this is started I can see a major problem. If the developer wants to protect the paths from unlawful use then he will need to gate them off, or make sure there is a way to identify a village resident so a representative can call law enforcement. If any one other then a law officer approaches an individual in an aggressive manner in this state they take their life in their own hands. I doubt the developer would like to see a story in the paper about an altercation on the Cart Paths in the paper. You also have vendors in the Villages renting carts for people to use on the paths. On one of the first go around on this gate closing were people talking about a girls bachelorette party who rented carts to do a bar hopping party in the villages. The bottom line is the requested crossing is from public accessed property to public accessed property over a state highway. The State and the County will make the decision as to whether the crossing will be allowed. After that it will be up to The Villages as to what to do about their Cart Paths. I do understand the difference between your golf cart path types. I would imagine with all this hoopla about this I would make an educated bet that the person who put up the styrofoam wall would never do it again. Everything was quite and peaceful until that event. Everyone does know that there are people that have access cards that are not villagers as there are people that have remotes to Stonecrest that do not live in Stonecrest. The ability to cross or not to cross makes no difference to me . But if there are people that need access to the medical facilities via Golf Cart then they should have it and we should all go along with our business. There are far more important items to take care of in life.

Good advice........go for it.

[Cajulian]

Originally Posted by Peachie

Point being, Cajulian, that the dignified population of Spruce Creek has not asked for any special treatment to access The Villages properties. They had made accommodations for the lifestyle they chose in an enclosed, GATED golf cart community.

Peachie, point is, that the Stonecrest group also did not ask for special treatment to access your amenities. They only asked state authorities to consider approving a crossing over 441/27. That's it. You may be interpreting something else is being asked by the group.

[Steve9930]

Originally Posted by Peachie

Steve, would you share with us how long you have been living in Stonecrest?

Going on ten years.

[Carl in Tampa]

Originally Posted by Steve9930

The representative will have no authority to just randomly stop anyone on the path. A representative has no law enforcement authority, none.

Wrong, Steve.

A property owner, or the owner's representative has absolute authority to question a person's presence on the property. It is not a law enforcement function and does not require law enforcement authority.

If you see someone in your back yard you have the authority to confront the person and ask why he is there. You also have the authority to tell him to leave. You do not have, nor do you need, law enforcement authority to do this.

If he refuses to leave you may call the police and have him removed and/or arrested, depending upon the circumstances. If you tell him to leave and he leaves when the police arrive then you have successfully removed him. If he refuses to leave when the police witness his refusal then he can be arrested. If he returns to your property after the police have witnessed your warning for him to keep off your property he may be arrested based upon the earlier trespass warning.

For a person who simply wants to access the hospital and doctor's offices you sure seem hung up on wanting to use the multi-modal paths.

[justjim]

Originally Posted by Carl in Tampa

Wrong, Steve.

A property owner, or the owner's representative has absolute authority to question a person's presence on the property. It is not a law enforcement function and does not require law enforcement authority.

If you see someone in your back yard you have the authority to confront the person and ask why he is there. You also have the authority to tell him to leave. You do not have, nor do you need, law enforcement authority to do this.

If he refuses to leave you may call the police and have him removed and/or arrested, depending upon the circumstances. If you tell him to leave and he leaves when the police arrive then you have successfully removed him. If he refuses to leave when the police witness his refusal then he can be arrested. If he returns to your property after the police have witnessed your warning for him to keep off your property he may be arrested based upon the earlier trespass warning.

For a person who simply wants to access the hospital and doctor's offices you sure seem hung up on wanting to use the multi-modal paths.

Question is---who legally owns the multi modal trails. You think the Developer?

[njbchbum]

Originally Posted by justjim

Who would have thought that a "midnight" wall would suddenly be constructed? Identification for TV golf carts doesn't seem that much of a stretch.

Hard to fix stupid.

Calling me stupid?

[Steve9930]

Originally Posted by Carl in Tampa

Wrong, Steve.

A property owner, or the owner's representative has absolute authority to question a person's presence on the property. It is not a law enforcement function and does not require law enforcement authority.

If you see someone in your back yard you have the authority to confront the person and ask why he is there. You also have the authority to tell him to leave. You do not have, nor do you need, law enforcement authority to do this.

If he refuses to leave you may call the police and have him removed and/or arrested, depending upon the circumstances. If you tell him to leave and he leaves when the police arrive then you have successfully removed him. If he refuses to leave when the police witness his refusal then he can be arrested.

For a person who simply wants to access the hospital and doctor's offices you sure seem hung up on wanting to use the multi-modal paths.

You are correct when you are talking about your back yard. However in this case you have unsecured boundary lines in a public place next to public facilities with no clear definition of access restriction. You also have some self defense laws in Florida that make it very dangerous to have untrained, unarmed civilians approaching some one. You starting to see what may happen. Its a whole different ball game when you have a fenced yard The fence indicates a boundary restriction. As the owner who put up the fence you have the right to address the individual you made it clear with the fence there is an access restriction. You have the right to question, you do not have the right to detain. Your looking at apples and we are taking about oranges. Both are fruit but are not the same.