Originally Posted by graciegirl (Post 1816367)

Can you link us to credible proof that the developer did/said/planned/ had such a thought?

Apartments are not awful. I imagine they will look like the complex on 466 for people who are living there independently.

We are of an age where downsizing to a beautiful apartment is something we think about. If the developer builds it, it will be beautiful and a lovely haven just like all of our homes.

Originally Posted by J1ceasar (Post 1816635)

You guys all seem to forget that's a Villages and all the Senior Communities around here started out selling mobile homes. Not everyone can afford $300,000 or half a million dollars for a house or wants or needs it you're all being very prejudiced but not wanting Apartments yes please people also use your amenities but they will also be paying for them just like everybody else so don't be snobs because

Originally Posted by DrJanetDDS (Post 1816550)

I didn’t see any sharing! I think the developer gets to keep the amenity fees for all the units. It was around $543,000 a year. The tenants get to use all amenities in the Villages. What kind of deal is that?

Originally Posted by PennBF (Post 1816689)

Lets stop using the term "Developer" and use the correct term "Village Owner". Now let's call the Villages what they are, a "Company Town". Anyone who lived in Western Pennsylvania many years ago recognize the the term and can see the Villages as an "Upscale" Company town. This is a profit making business! It is not a religious place with a conscience. Some like to give it a "soul" it does not have a soul and it exists to make a profit for the Owner. When this is understood there is a chance the residents will understand what they are facing in their desire for any controls. Allegedly the owner pretty much dictates the Village Newspaper, the Homeowners Association (e.g.HOA) which protects his/her against investigations by the POA, the Owner appoints and therefore has strong leverage with regards to the Commissioner's. He controls the building policies and practices. Again, going back to the old Companies Town's in Western Pennsylvania run by Coal Mining Owners you can see the comparison to the current Upscale Company town. Is it all bad? I would vote no. Is it all good again I would vote No. Replacing the current Commissioner's is a good start?:ho:

Originally Posted by Jayhawk (Post 1816695)

Your guests and those of 120,000 other residents get to use the amenities at no cost.

Does that bother you?

Originally Posted by Jayhawk (Post 1816698)

Vote with your wallet and go somewhere more to your liking (if such a place exists). For me and many others, I vote to let the developers / owners make the decisions they are entitled to make since they built and continue to build with THEIR money, not yours.

Originally Posted by Don Ferguson (Post 1816677)

Jim was EXACTLY right on EVERY issue he described.

I was here for all of them and he did not exaggerate one bit!

Originally Posted by toeser (Post 1816678)

Empathy helps build perspective.

Originally Posted by Aces4 (Post 1816701)

I would guess not because the homeowners paid for that priviledge. It appears the developers are not, rather like elbowing one’s way to the neighbors table at dinner time.

Originally Posted by Choro&Swing (Post 1816620)

I doubt that there was an actual “vow”. It’s possible that someone threw out a parking garage or a big box store as a mild threat to get people to play along, but I don’t think it was a serious threat. Neither would be well-sited there. They would not make as much money there as elsewhere.

I certainly wouldn’t want a big apartment house next to my house. However, I bought my house from a couple who wanted to downsize to a courtyard house with no maintenance for health reasons. I think they would have gone smaller if they could. Plenty of people at The Villages who have lost a spouse and now live alone and find keeping things up to be difficult might be relieved to move into an efficiency apartment or a one bedroom apartment of 350 to 500 square feet. The surroundings would be familiar, and they would be safe. They would pay amenities fees, but it’s quite possible that they wouldn’t play any sports. Some might not have a car, or might not have a golf cart.

There are probably also snowbirds who would really prefer having an apartment all year and saving the money they spend on yard work. Maybe they would just rent.

I don’t think the developer is considering a low income housing development, and this would not be for families with children. I doubt this would increase crime.