[Barefoot]

Originally Posted by ricthemic

Have not read all the post on this subject.
Hypothetically, what would Sumter County and Ms Tutt have said if in the same area one morning last November a body was found? "Well we asked everyone and no one knows anything"

I don't think anyone has asked that particular question before.
A Villages employee told me "We know who did it but we can't prove anything".
I would guess it works the same way with dead bodies. ... presumption of innocence.

[tuccillo]

I am not sure what you are expecting to happen. If you can't get anyone to talk there is really no recourse. You can't exactly take them in the back room and beat the tar out of them until they talk. The residents here are not teenagers that you can intimidate. I imagine the investigation going something like this:

Investigator: Did you see any trees being cut down?
Resident: No.
Investigator: I think you did and you better come clean.
Resident: I have a tee time, gotta go.

Originally Posted by virgind

I drove past that area on Lake Miona and that is right across the street from the rec center and no one saw any thing I really find that hard to believe. I think a farther investigation needs to be done but would the sheriffs dept do it.

[Chi-Town]

Let's hope the fine is mitigated which is fairly common. This is a cold case.

[janmcn]

Originally Posted by tuccillo

I am not sure what you are expecting to happen. If you can't get anyone to talk there is really no recourse. You can't exactly take them in the back room and beat the tar out of them until they talk. The residents here are not teenagers that you can intimidate. I imagine the investigation going something like this:

Investigator: Did you see any trees being cut down?
Resident: No.
Investigator: I think you did and you better come clean.
Resident: I have a tee time, gotta go.

Investigator: Have a wonderful day in The Villages.

[CFrance]

Originally Posted by janmcn

Investigator: Have a wonderful day in The Villages.

Further investigation of the investigator reveals he is employed at the Bridgeport gate!

[downeaster]

Originally Posted by Mleeja

Your math is corect, but your assumption is flawed. The amenity fee is per household. It would be roughtly 50%, probably more like 60% of the total quoted. Still a big chunk of change. However, this money is used for maintaining the common areas, not just some big pile of cash. If you want to know where it goes, checkout the meeting minutes from the CDDs or the ACC. There is always a finiacial statement. Then you will not need to make wild claims and assumptions.

The amenity fee is for maintaining amenities, not common areas. There is an annual maintenance fee for the purpose of maintaining common ares.

[Mleeja]

Originally Posted by downeaster

The amenity fee is for maintaining amenities, not common areas. There is an annual maintenance fee for the purpose of maintaining common ares.

Ok, I think you are splitting hairs here. Are not the amenities common areas also? However, my point does not change. The money from the amenity fees are already budgeted for other uses. It is not some big slush fund as suggested by the poster.

[Skybo]

Originally Posted by downeaster

The amenity fee is for maintaining amenities, not common areas. There is an annual maintenance fee for the purpose of maintaining common ares.

Originally Posted by Mleeja

Ok, I think you are splitting hairs here. Are not the amenities common areas also? However, my point does not change. The money from the amenity fees are already budgeted for other uses. It is not some big slush fund as suggested by the poster.

Mleeja, I understand your "slush-fund" point, but Downeaster was not splitting hairs when he corrected your misstatement. "Amenities" and "Common Areas" are distinctly different entities and are paid for from different funds. It's an important point, especially in a thread where we are discussing what our amenity fees pay for.

[rubicon]

Originally Posted by downeaster

The amenity fee is for maintaining amenities, not common areas. There is an annual maintenance fee for the purpose of maintaining common ares.

We should all email Janet Tutt and express our frustration with this malfeasance being paid out of our fees. downeaster is right and were being dumped on

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by rubicon

We should all email Janet Tutt and express our frustration with this malfeasance being paid out of our fees. downeaster is right and were being dumped on

I respect you mightily Rubicon, but who would the bill go to? The District is us. WHAT am I not seeing here???

[Challenger]

I think a lot could be cleared up if Ms Tutt would comment on what legal principle, agreement, or contract makes the CDD responsible to pay a fine and or mitigate, I feel quite confident that she would have a sound response.
The lack of factual comments on the issue has caused numerous conspiracy theories and rumors.
That being said the community and the various CDDs should keep the issue hot by continuing to ask questions of the Police and the CDDs. Someone will eventually blab.
This is not a Quixotic effort. a crime has been committed. The dollar amount of damage would probably rise to the definition of Grand Theft if it had been a robery.
If the Community is responsible for a fine and mitigation, certainly we should comply.
The amount is pennies in the overall scheme of things. It is the principle that is huge.

[Polar Bear]

I really don't think this situation is all that complicated. (Finding a guilty party may be, but the permit issue is not.) I haven't done any research, but it appears to be nothing more than a permit violation. The permit is violated. The permittee pays the fine and then pursues any avenues available to recover any losses.

The permitting agency is not going to wait for a long, drawn out investigation before they issue the fines. To the agency, it's clear cut...there is a violation and a permittee. The permittee pays the fine regardless of who might have actually committed the acts.

[Mikeod]

Originally Posted by Polar Bear

I really don't think this situation is all that complicated. (Finding a guilty party may be, but the permit issue is not.) I haven't done any research, but it appears to be nothing more than a permit violation. The permit is violated. The permittee pays the fine and then pursues any avenues available to recover any losses.

The permitting agency is not going to wait for a long, drawn out investigation before they issue the fines. To the agency, it's clear cut...there is a violation and a permittee. The permittee pays the fine regardless of who might have actually committed the acts.

I think you are correct. I recall TV entered into an agreement with the water district to maintain that area in its natural, unaltered state in order to build on the adjacent land. Because the trees were destroyed, the district was in violation of the agreement and required to restore the property. The PWAC will fund the project. The PWAC is funded by the residential CDDs below 466 which is why it is reported that only those are involved.

PWAC funds are used for other things. The new park near the Haciendas at Mission Hills was done with PWAC funds, I believe. And the bridge/island repair is likely being proposed for PWAC funding, again falling on the CDDs below 466. Not saying it's right, just how some things are funded.

[philnpat]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

But what else can be done? You can't go further in arresting someone without proof. We could beat them up, a bunch of us. I think we would all end up in jail.

If back where you lived, someone vandalized the public library or they ran their car through the plantings in the middle of the street, (if you had them) and wasn't seen or caught, it would come out of the public's pocket to repair it. I don't see the difference. It was wrong, and we all pay. That is how it is in this country. We pay when someone on welfare abuses the system.

I don't know what a slush fund is, but I do know that in our family we were taught to not live hand to mouth or from pay check to paycheck, but to save for an unforeseen disaster. That way you can take care of nasty surprises when they come that are not insured. This bill, which was not caused by all of us, still has to be paid.

Gracie, I think you're as frustrated as we are with what was done and the fact that we're stuck with the bill.
But your example of youth vandalism doesn't seem to fit.
The person or persons who did this did it for their benefit whether it was a financial opportunity or an esthetic improvement on their property to be enjoyed by them only.
Vandalism is kid stuff that most outgrow.

[manaboutown]

Originally Posted by Challenger

I think a lot could be cleared up if Ms Tutt would comment on what legal principle, agreement, or contract makes the CDD responsible to pay a fine and or mitigate, I feel quite confident that she would have a sound response.
The lack of factual comments on the issue has caused numerous conspiracy theories and rumors.
That being said the community and the various CDDs should keep the issue hot by continuing to ask questions of the Police and the CDDs. Someone will eventually blab.
This is not a Quixotic effort. a crime has been committed. The dollar amount of damage would probably rise to the definition of Grand Theft if it had been a robery.
If the Community is responsible for a fine and mitigation, certainly we should comply.
The amount is pennies in the overall scheme of things. It is the principle that is huge.

In addition to the act or acts being felonious, intentional torts were committed. Perhaps some civil remedy could be pursued. The burden of proof would be less than for a criminal charge. (Remember the Goldmans vs. OJ?) Can access to the records of the investigation(s) be obtained? They might make interesting reading, at least.

My concern is not $50,000 spread among many folks; it is the precedent set for anyone wanting to lawlessly cut down trees to improve their view, for example.