[buzzy]

Let's just hope they put surveillance cameras in the new trees.

[NYGUY]

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....

I don't think anyone wants their heads (but, maybe some other parts) cut off, but financial penalties are a possibility.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by Mikeod

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.

This is a very good post.

[tuccillo]

Yes, possibly, if there is some evidence. It isn't clear to me that there is any evidence.

Originally Posted by NYGUY

I don't think anyone wants their heads (but, maybe some other parts) cut off, but financial penalties are a possibility.

[bimmertl]

Originally Posted by Mikeod

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 cost of the bridge/island repairs will dwarf the cost of the tree replacement. Estimated to cost up to 1.5 million, although a prolific poster on this site states this is a small amount, and until recently said it's all the fault of the "danged lawsuit". Who gets to pay for all this is outlined in the Project Wide "Agreement" set up by the developer and it is what the PWAC is bound to follow.

Here is the "agreement", and it's history, and as they say, for all of you south of 466, read it and weep!


PROJECT WIDE AGREEMENT AFFIDAVIT

[shanson99]

Originally Posted by Mikeod

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.

I recall a State Agency was supposed to take over the investigation from Sumter County Sheriff's Office and that they would have the power to take sworn statements from anyone they wished to. The District should pursue the criminals to recover restitution for the residents within the District. How do you pursue the criminals, by insisting the State Authority (Water District or Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission or whoever) investigate until all efforts are exhausted. Were sworn statements taken from each of the homeowners under suspicion and others who might have seen or heard something. It is a lot of money to restore that area and the District should not just say we must move on. I wonder why they feel that way?

[Polar Bear]

Originally Posted by shanson99

...How do you pursue the criminals, by insisting the State Authority (Water District or Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission or whoever) investigate until all efforts are exhausted. Were sworn statements taken from each of the homeowners under suspicion and others who might have seen or heard something. It is a lot of money to restore that area and the District should not just say we must move on. I wonder why they feel that way?

It simply doesn't work that way. The District is not a law enforcement agency. They are a permitting agency. They deal with the permittee. End of story for them. If the permittee wants to investigate further, that is up to them.

[tuccillo]

I seem to recall an article in the paper that said the investigation was closed, presumably because they had nowhere else to go. Are you suggesting that some other entity would conduct a better investigation and would have powers, that exceed those of the local law enforcement, to make people talk? You can probably FOIA the investigation and report back on what the investigators found.

Originally Posted by shanson99

I recall a State Agency was supposed to take over the investigation from Sumter County Sheriff's Office and that they would have the power to take sworn statements from anyone they wished to. The District should pursue the criminals to recover restitution for the residents within the District. How do you pursue the criminals, by insisting the State Authority (Water District or Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission or whoever) investigate until all efforts are exhausted. Were sworn statements taken from each of the homeowners under suspicion and others who might have seen or heard something. It is a lot of money to restore that area and the District should not just say we must move on. I wonder why they feel that way?

[shanson99]

Originally Posted by Polar Bear

It simply doesn't work that way. The District is not a law enforcement agency. They are a permitting agency. They deal with the permittee. End of story for them. If the permittee wants to investigate further, that is up to them.

I look at it as though we (the District and residents) are the victims of a criminal act. The investigators are the law enforcement agencies not the District. The law enforcement investigators such as the Water District or the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission or the Sheriffs office investigate, take sworn statements, question anyone that may have heard or seen something, etc. If probable cause is found, then the district attorney or state attorney's office can file criminal charges and if found guilty then restitution can be ordered for the victims, that is The District for their residents so we are not left with the burden of paying. Who actually determined the case was closed? The investigating agency would do that only after all efforts are exhausted unless the victim says forget about it. Can we see what has been done to this point by the investigators? Were the gate keepers questioned, what about cameras? Who was questioned? Any statements in writing and sworn? It is probably in the category of a felony.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by shanson99

I look at it as though we (the District and residents) are the victims of a criminal act. The investigators are the law enforcement agencies not the District. The law enforcement investigators such as the Water District or the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission or the Sheriffs office investigate, take sworn statements, question anyone that may have heard or seen something, etc. If probable cause is found, then the district attorney or state attorney's office can file criminal charges and if found guilty then restitution can be ordered for the victims, that is The District for their residents so we are not left with the burden of paying. Who actually determined the case was closed? The investigating agency would do that only after all efforts are exhausted unless the victim says forget about it. Can we see what has been done to this point by the investigators? Were the gate keepers questioned, what about cameras? Who was questioned? Any statements in writing and sworn? It is probably in the category of a felony.

There have been many discussions on this. Thousands and thousands of words written. Many threads.

I think everything that can be done is done, but it doesn't rule out if and when something comes to light that the district can't sue for reimbursement. That is how it looks to me.

I think if people understood a little more how a CDD worked, there would be less tension.

[shanson99]

A CDD can be a victim of a crime or could commit a crime. ,

[dolpterry]

Just why is everyone thinking it is a individual home owner and not the Villages that cut the trees. I believe the lots there were some of the highest priced lots around, and a clear view of the lake would help with a high dollar sale.

[Bogie Shooter]

Originally Posted by shanson99

I look at it as though we (the District and residents) are the victims of a criminal act. The investigators are the law enforcement agencies not the District. The law enforcement investigators such as the Water District or the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission or the Sheriffs office investigate, take sworn statements, question anyone that may have heard or seen something, etc. If probable cause is found, then the district attorney or state attorney's office can file criminal charges and if found guilty then restitution can be ordered for the victims, that is The District for their residents so we are not left with the burden of paying. Who actually determined the case was closed? The investigating agency would do that only after all efforts are exhausted unless the victim says forget about it. Can we see what has been done to this point by the investigators? Were the gate keepers questioned, what about cameras? Who was questioned? Any statements in writing and sworn? It is probably in the category of a felony.

You should call the sheriffs department..........

[Bogie Shooter]

Where was it announced the case was closed?
Not that you heard but factual information.

[Average Guy]

Originally Posted by Bogie Shooter

Where was it announced the case was closed?
Not that you heard but factual information.

The OP on this thread stated "Janet Tutt announced earlier today that "there are no further leads to pursue", so case closed in the tree removal case on Lake Miona Drive, according to a new article in the on-line news."

I went back and read the article referenced in that quote. It does not state that the case is closed. It states the following:

"The Sumter County Sheriff�s Office has exhausted all of its leads in its investigation into the unlawful removal of the trees late last year at Lake Miona, according to District Manager Janet Tutt."

�There are no further leads to pursue,� Tutt said.

There is no mention that the case is closed.