Yes it does I've seen it also. I've also seen the motorized wheel chairs make that crossing. That's called a death wish.

"I think he doth protest too much."

Just to be clear, looneycat, I didn't post the message I've bolded above. It was by Steve9930 who lives in Stonecrest. Somehow in answering an earlier post of mine, he got my name involved in his post.

Csrl in Tampa

As I posted earlier on this Thread. A precedent was set several years ago to allow Stonecresters access via golf trail to Doctors, Hospital facilities, residents of TV, and other commercial establishments within TV.

Of course when a precedent is set, it becomes rather cumbersome to eliminate that action. A wall was put up to stop Stonecresters from access to TV and their Doctors and Hospital via a regular golf cart. However, this action also stopped TV residents from accessing certain facilities. Subsequenty, the wall was removed and a gate was constructed that could only be opened by a TV gate pass. Thus, Stonecresters could no longer enter via a golf cart and must find alternate transportation to doctors and hospital facilities among other "things" they previously accessed by golf cart.

It is rumored that the gate was put into place to solve a potential liability issue. However, since TV is not a total gated community an "outsider" can (and do) access TV via Street Legal golf cart and may get to doctors and the hospital via golf cart transportation. It appears that the liability issue or issues has not been effectively addressed by the "Paradie Dr. gate". Who or what is going to keep them off the TV golf trails?

Since Street Legals may use the multi modal trails, IMHO the Gate solves nothing except to stop Stonecresters (who only drive a regular golf cart) from accessing certain public facilities that previously they could access via their golf carts.

Do we issue a windshield or plate to Villagers and then "police" those who do not have this identification in order to keep ALL so called illegal golf carts off our so called "private trails"? Now, we are talking about nonesense! And something that could be costly to all. It's a pretty slippery slope that some seem to want to travel.

Originally Posted by Carl in Tampa
A Stonecrester with an LSV can legally drive on the streets of TV but could still be prohibited from using the multi-modal paths. It would require some work on the part of the Developer to detect the offenders and issue them a "Trespass Warning" but it could be accomplished if the Developer has the will to do it.

Once warned, the offender could be arrested if there were a repeat violation, The fact that the LSVs are required to have a license tag would make enforcement easier.


Trespass warnings can be issued by any representative of the Development District. The most logical people would be the Community Watch people who are out and about in their patrol trucks. They simply hand the offender a pre-printed piece of paper. They would also have the option of calling the Sheriff to have a deputy issue the warning.

No money diverted. They are out there anyway.

It wasn't a precedent, it was a vandalized gate that wasn't replaced after continually being damaged. As I stated earlier, it would be unusual to reward vandalism.

Originally Posted by Bogie Shooter
My point is you say "No one is trying to get Golf Cart access to your beloved villages."
And I say once accross 441/27 you do have access.

"This is what you bought into.' Not sure what this means................and really don't care to know.


Well, not legally.

First, let's get some terms correctly understood. Our golf cart paths run through the golf courses and are solely for the use of people actively playing golf. Our multi-modal paths (walking, biking and golf cart access) are probably what you are talking about since they are the method of getting around The Villages without getting on the streets with 35mph limits.

Both the golf cart paths and the multi-modal paths are the private property of the developer. As has been often discussed in other forums, the sheriff's deputies do not enforce speed limits on these paths. However, they do have the authority to enforce trespassing laws.

You continually insist that your group only wants to be able to legally cross 441 in order to get to the hospital and the doctor's complex. Of course we all know that once at the hospital it is possible to access the entire Villages community via multi-modal paths. I can only suggest to you that if the highway crossing is approved you can be sure that the developer will install new gates to prevent accessing the rest of the community from the hospital complex. Count on it.

There will always be those who sneak into The Villages via golf cart and improperly use our multi-modal paths, but that is no reason for us to facilitate their offense.

I do not believe they have any law enforcement authority, nor do they have any authority to detain or stop any individual. If you want The Villages in a major law suit try it and see what happens. You will first have to post no trespassing signs. Since some of these paths intermingle with public road ways good luck with that approach.

If the cart crossing is approved then The Villages will have every right to limit such access. I don't have a problem with that and nether does any one that I know either.

Since the word " liability " just came up I now fully understand why the gate was set up. I can think of some possible scenarios if it hadn't been erected. The developers' simply legally protecting their property. That's the way I see it. I' m no longer looking at it as a p!@@#$& match.

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.

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.

Peachie, by the way, Spruce Creek will also have access to the Hospital and Doctors because they now have a crossing that gets them to Walmarts and subsequently will be able to get to the Medical facilities if Stonecrest is granted a crossing.

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.

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! ;)