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

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

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.

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.

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

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"

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.

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!!

So agree...

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.

Huh?


Not nice to make fun of Texas!


.

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.

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.