Tree Removal on Lake Miona

Closed Thread
Thread Tools
  #91  
Old 04-22-2015, 10:43 AM
Barefoot's Avatar
Barefoot Barefoot is offline
Sage
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Winters in TV, Summers in Canada.
Posts: 17,668
Thanks: 1,692
Thanked 244 Times in 185 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ricthemic View Post
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.
__________________
Barefoot At Last
No act of kindness, no matter how small, is ever wasted.
Saving one dog will not change the world, but surely for that one dog, the world will change forever.
  #92  
Old 04-22-2015, 10:44 AM
tuccillo tuccillo is offline
Soaring Eagle member
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 2,101
Thanks: 4
Thanked 411 Times in 218 Posts
Default

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.




Quote:
Originally Posted by virgind View Post
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.
  #93  
Old 04-22-2015, 10:46 AM
Chi-Town's Avatar
Chi-Town Chi-Town is offline
Sage
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 7,506
Thanks: 192
Thanked 1,484 Times in 717 Posts
Default

Let's hope the fine is mitigated which is fairly common. This is a cold case.
  #94  
Old 04-22-2015, 10:55 AM
janmcn janmcn is offline
Sage
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,298
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tuccillo View Post
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.
  #95  
Old 04-22-2015, 11:08 AM
CFrance's Avatar
CFrance CFrance is offline
Sage
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Tamarind Grove/Monpazier, France
Posts: 14,656
Thanks: 389
Thanked 2,072 Times in 849 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by janmcn View Post
Investigator: Have a wonderful day in The Villages.
Further investigation of the investigator reveals he is employed at the Bridgeport gate!
__________________
It's harder to hate close up.
  #96  
Old 04-22-2015, 11:44 AM
downeaster downeaster is offline
Platinum member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,562
Thanks: 0
Thanked 8 Times in 5 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mleeja View Post
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.

Last edited by downeaster; 04-22-2015 at 11:45 AM. Reason: typo
  #97  
Old 04-22-2015, 12:48 PM
Mleeja's Avatar
Mleeja Mleeja is offline
Platinum member
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Santiago
Posts: 1,902
Thanks: 11
Thanked 756 Times in 285 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by downeaster View Post
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.
__________________
The difference between genius and stupidity is genius has its limits - Albert Einstein
  #98  
Old 04-22-2015, 02:18 PM
Skybo Skybo is offline
Veteran member
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: The Villages
Posts: 664
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by downeaster View Post
The amenity fee is for maintaining amenities, not common areas. There is an annual maintenance fee for the purpose of maintaining common ares.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mleeja View Post
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.
  #99  
Old 04-22-2015, 02:39 PM
rubicon rubicon is offline
Email Reported As Spam
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 13,694
Thanks: 0
Thanked 14 Times in 12 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by downeaster View Post
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
  #100  
Old 04-22-2015, 02:52 PM
graciegirl's Avatar
graciegirl graciegirl is offline
Sage
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 40,184
Thanks: 5,008
Thanked 5,779 Times in 2,003 Posts
Send a message via AIM to graciegirl
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rubicon View Post
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???
__________________
It is better to laugh than to cry.
  #101  
Old 04-22-2015, 04:00 PM
Challenger's Avatar
Challenger Challenger is offline
Soaring Eagle member
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,283
Thanks: 56
Thanked 377 Times in 168 Posts
Default

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.
__________________
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" Edmund Burke 1729-1797
  #102  
Old 04-22-2015, 04:30 PM
Polar Bear Polar Bear is offline
Sage
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 4,671
Thanks: 222
Thanked 951 Times in 382 Posts
Default

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.
  #103  
Old 04-22-2015, 05:15 PM
Mikeod's Avatar
Mikeod Mikeod is offline
Sage
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Caroline
Posts: 5,021
Thanks: 0
Thanked 49 Times in 27 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Polar Bear View Post
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.
__________________
"the difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
  #104  
Old 04-22-2015, 05:19 PM
philnpat's Avatar
philnpat philnpat is offline
Veteran member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Clifton Park, NY and soon to be Duval
Posts: 813
Thanks: 95
Thanked 17 Times in 6 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by graciegirl View Post
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.
  #105  
Old 04-22-2015, 05:29 PM
manaboutown manaboutown is offline
Sage
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NJ, NM, SC, PA, DC, MD, VA, NY, CA, ID and finally FL.
Posts: 7,791
Thanks: 14,178
Thanked 5,046 Times in 1,924 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Challenger View Post
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.
__________________
"No one is more hated than he who speaks the truth." Plato

“To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.” Thomas Paine
Closed Thread


You are viewing a new design of the TOTV site. Click here to revert to the old version.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:20 AM.