[Polar Bear]

Originally Posted by NYGUY

Relax, it's just a debate Bear!!

Me relax? I'm still trying to figure that one out.

[Bogie Shooter]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

I live in a small isolated village that has fewer houses than Bridgeport at Lake Miona.

At the other end, three streets down, they could be sawing each other legs off and we wouldn't hear it or see it, they back to the golf course and to the preserve..

If pressed we would likely KNOW who would be the leg sawers but we couldn't PROVE it.

My apologies to my neighbors, none of which look or act like the could do any heinous act.

Sawing of their legs is rather serious.........................

[mickey100]

Originally Posted by janmcn

What happened to the generation of people that took personal responsibility for themselves? You know, the generation that worked hard, and saved their money so that they could enjoy their retirement without being a burden on other people.

How about the neighbors that are always looking out for one another? The ones that keep an eye on each other's home all day, everyday? The retired people that never miss a trick?

IMO: these people are no different than welfare cheats who want others to pay their way.

Exactly. Its really a shame. You know someone knows what happened and isn't talking. The rest of us pay the price. Think of all the good that money could have done that would have benefitted ALL the residents, not just those few houses.

[justjim]

In a court of law just thinking something, believing something or feeling something isn't enough, you need to be able to prove it. End of story.

Here is a thought. Maybe the District should stand up to St. John's Authority. The District didn't authorize these trees to be cut down and had nothing to do with the removal. Let St Johns replace them if they want them replaced. Why is the District anymore responsible to replace the trees than another government entity?

Oh well, in the scope of things, it's just a "drop in the bucket"---lets move on.

[Polar Bear]

Originally Posted by justjim

...Maybe the District should stand up to St. John's Authority. The District didn't authorize these trees to be cut down and had nothing to do with the removal. Let St Johns replace them if they want them replaced. Why is the District anymore responsible to replace the trees than another government entity?

My guess is the District is the permittee for the permit that was violated.

[rubicon]

Res ispa loquitur ( the thing speaks for itself). While res ispa will not have legal application here it does underscore what many people have said concerning this issue. There were four homes that benefited from the clearing of trees . It is hard to imagine that not one of these homeowners heard or saw someone well sawing and the view quickly changing

There is really not a thing the police can do. These homeowners may be suspects but that's all thy have unless someone comes forward and after this length of time its unlikely

I agree with justjim. If the district had a legal obligation to pay then I wish they explained it to us. And lastly let's hope the District just didn't say like most politicians "the heck with it let's just throw money at the problem its not coming out of our pockets"

[LndLocked]

Originally Posted by justjim

In a court of law just thinking something, believing something or feeling something isn't enough, you need to be able to prove it. End of story.

Here is a thought. Maybe the District should stand up to St. John's Authority. The District didn't authorize these trees to be cut down and had nothing to do with the removal. Let St Johns replace them if they want them replaced. Why is the District anymore responsible to replace the trees than another government entity?

Oh well, in the scope of things, it's just a "drop in the bucket"---lets move on.

It is not the "St. John's" it is the South West Florida Water Management District that (SWFMD .... or typically called: swif-mud) is the agency that issued the fine. They have fined the district because the illegal, unpermitted removal of the tree was on district property .... the trees were actually NOT on a TV residents property.

[LndLocked]

Originally Posted by Polar Bear

What gracie said. We weren't fined. Just because you're angry and want to call it that doesn't make it true.

Who (will) pay? .... It has been stated that districts south of 466 will share in the cost of the fine

Where are the fine $$$ coming from? .... It has been stated that money will be taken from amenity fees paid by the districts south of 466.

Who pays into the amenity fees of districts south of 466 .... All TV property owners withing those districts.

Simple logic dictates that if you are a TV property owner south of 466 that pays amenity fees (which is everyone) ... you are for all practical purposes being FINED!!

[KeepingItReal]

Originally Posted by Barefoot

I'm surprised that Ms. Tutt worded her announcement, that basically the case is closed, over, done.
She could have said: "Further investigation will be based on leads, should they materialize".
Semantics I know, but it would have seemed The District/The Police haven't "thrown in the towel".

Tutt has nothing to loose so why should she bother trying to really find out what happened. How come Community Watch didn't notice this being done? She has a money pot to take it from so why not do it. Definitely NOT a Janet Tutt or David Miles fan as she and he as well as Attorney Fuchs were part of the ordeal on the bond interest overcharging change. Tutt, Miles and Fuchs all had said everything was being done properly before the change was made at the direction of Gary Moyer proving it had never ever been done correctly. Tutt shouldn't be the final word on anything.

[maryanna630]

So agree...

[justjim]

Originally Posted by LndLocked

It is not the "St. John's" it is the South West Florida Water Management District that (SWFMD .... or typically called: swif-mud) is the agency that issued the fine. They have fined the district because the illegal, unpermitted removal of the tree was on district property .... the trees were actually NOT on a TV residents property.

Thanks for clarifying which water district. I know part of TV is in one Water District and Part is in the other---I think depending on which County. I must have picked St. johns from another post. Anyway, the District owns This lake property? That could be but doesn't sound right to me.

I don't think the District owns Lake Miona.

[chuckinca]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

We weren't fined. We are the district. Just like if we lived in Tarmack Texas and some goat ate the the water fountain in the square. They would replace it and we the Tarmackers would pay.

Huh?


Not nice to make fun of Texas!


.

[VT2TV]

Personally, I think this whole thing stinks. You can't possibly tell me they are our of leads, and they are just quitting. I happen to be in the lucky districts who have been selected to pay for the trees I have never seen, in an area where I don't know anybody, but we are also in the district that has been selected to help pay for the island having problems that is under the bridge on Morse coming into Lake Sumter. Since most people who live in the Villages has probably crossed that bridge as many or more times than the people in the Districts chosen to pay for the repair cost, I don't understand how they decided who would have to pay. I think if any Villagers have to pay for these 2 costs, then all Villagers should have to pay for both. I realize that spread out, it might not seem a problem to some, but it is just the priniciple of the thing. The first issue should not have to be paid by the residents for the actions of a few. I agree with the poster who said that the Villages/? should make the 4 residents pay for the trees. When one of them thinks they are going to have to pay out big money, it might not be so important to keep a pact. Then, I certainly think that the bridge/island issue should be spread out amonst all the residents. There are plenty of people who may not have lived here a month that are going to have to pay, and then those who have lived here for years and have used the bridge maybe daily, who don't have to pay. Just doesn't seem right. This is my opinion. Just for curosity, if anyone responds negativly to this post, please also share if you live above or below 466.

[Bonanza]

I am in agreement with you VT2TV, and I am south of 466.
Anyway::

It was determined that all residents south of 466 will pay the tree fine. However, they easily could have "determined" that the four people who would benefit from a better lake view should pay the fine. Of course those four families would bitch and moan, "why us?" Divided by four, the fine isn't chump change.

Take a deposition from the four of them, that they had no knowledge or any part in this. Logic tells me that THAT is the way to get some real answers. My guess is two of the four will probably fold and a couple more homes might be on the market soon!

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by Bonanza

I am in agreement with you VT2TV, and I am south of 466.
Anyway::

It was determined that all residents south of 466 will pay the tree fine. However, they easily could have "determined" that the four people who would benefit from a better lake view should pay the fine. Of course those four families would bitch and moan, "why us?" Divided by four, the fine isn't chump change.

Take a deposition from the four of them, that they had no knowledge or any part in this. Logic tells me that THAT is the way to get some real answers. My guess is two of the four will probably fold and a couple more homes might be on the market soon!

You can't make someone pay the tree fine if the trees are not on their property and there is no proof they cut them down or had them cut down. I think it is called circumstantial evidence. The circumstances make it look like so and so happened. But the burden of proof is not met. I don't know, I am not a lawyer and I haven't ever sued anyone or been sued or broke any law that I know of. I did break the speed limit law and got caught twice and admitted I did it, but I wasn't drinking...... and I try to stay away from lawyers except at family gatherings

If they didn't have laws like that folks would be going around saying it looks like you did it...your fanny is going to jail. That is the reason we have the law of the land.

Unfortunately it protects the innocent and the guilty.

I need coffee. Probably this is all wrong.

I mean, I know it is all wrong for people to hack down trees and their town gets fined and they don't have to be in the soup personally.

Good morning everyone. It's gonna be another beautiful day in The Villages.