Originally Posted by shut the front door (Post 1816357)

AAC voted 4-1 for the apartments at Hacienda.
The most infuriating part is this:
"It was clear that the Developer had vowed to put a parking garage or big box retailer at the Hacienda Hills site if the AAC did not go along with the apartment complex."

Originally Posted by selevanl (Post 1818175)

Forewarning: in my previous life, I was a RE investor.

What was the $ dollar value associated with “fair market value” to buy HH? El Santiago went for $340k or so right? If this price was anywhere in keeping with that, then realize that commercial buildings OUTSIDE the villages are selling for millions similarly sized without the extra acreage this has.

It sounds to me like if AAC was a real estate developer, they might have turned down a really good deal. Since they’re not and can’t see beyond simply keeping it in its current use, the real estate developer who owns the property (and clearly wasn’t making money in its current form) has decided to invest a few MM to build out in exchange for a huge income stream. That’s their prerogative and that’s really all there is to it. They won’t do it everywhere bc if they did, it would decrease the appeal of the villages. So maybe they’re just making their common use space a more “efficient” use.

That said, if they want to play hardball and ask for use of your amenities, AAC is under no need to grant it to them. Or, there’s a world of negotiation bw an even exchange of amenities with no fees, and no exchange at all. Sounds like a raw deal was made both times and the AAC was listening to villagers’ wishes that weren’t based in realities. But that’s just me.

Originally Posted by Jayhawk (Post 1816391)

The head of "the other news source" worked for The Villages several years ago and has an axe to grind. Most stories have a negative color towards The Villages.

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 aletarw (Post 1818653)

Blvd. Someone recently said...the daily sun is all rainbows and lollipops. The ************** prints the news that the Sun will not print.

Originally Posted by shut the front door (Post 1816357)

AAC voted 4-1 for the apartments at Hacienda.
The most infuriating part is this:
"It was clear that the Developer had vowed to put a parking garage or big box retailer at the Hacienda Hills site if the AAC did not go along with the apartment complex."

Originally Posted by Mleeja (Post 1816398)

The AAC DIDNOT vote for apartments. They voted on an amenity fee sharing plan. The decision to build apartments was the developer’s and developer’s only.

We can debate if the amenity fee sharing was a good idea or deal, but at least debate the facts.

Originally Posted by pkfavreau2 (Post 1819469)

I thought at the hearing for the residences that the apartment complex was not the popular vote. Next thing you know they have all the drawings ready within a day or so to present for approval. Apparently the decision was already made, not sure why they Asked the residences for their input. Me, I didn’t move to TV to have apartment complexes around me. I realize it’s more money for the Morses, but still why now all of a sudden are they being built here.

Originally Posted by Bogie Shooter (Post 1820103)

All the Debbie downers, naysayers and those who have no idea what they are talking about, should read this very informative post by GoldWingNut posted on another thread.
Enjoy!
—————————-


You, like many others here in The Villages lack an understanding of who owns what, who pays for what, and what is an amenity and what isn't, HH was NOT an amenity, it was a privately owned business.

I am "in the know" only because I take the time and effort to understand where I live and how it works.

The AAC had previously (5 years ago) assigned amenity rights for 300 additional units to the developer for use in assisted living facilities and independent living facilities. The use of these did not pan out as had expected, the assisted and independent facilities only showed interest in 7 units. 7 of the 300 were also assigned to the Chatham Acres subdivision. For these 14 units the AAC receives the Amenity Fees for providing amenities to these 14 properties. The remainder have gone unexecuted. This means that they were not generating any revenue or income for anyone, not the AAC, not the RAD fund, not the SALD fund, and not the developer. Nothing was given away. The developer requested reassignment of these rights to the HH redevelopment project.

The HH redevelopment project will be funded by the developer, they will build the additional amenities, they will maintain the additional amenities, and the amenities will be open to all residents of The Villages. How is this different from south of SR44 or the Lofts? It isn’t. The developer is carrying all the cost to provide and operate as well as all the risk, they pay for community watch services, recreation staffing services, Public Safety supplement, and any other costs incurred by the “District” to support these new amenities. HH will operate the same way.

When you, I, or any other resident utilizes the developer owned amenity facilities there is no compensation made by the “District” to the developer for this use, the same holds true if someone from one of the villages south of SR44 comes north to go to a rec center or plays golf. It is generally considered to be an even swap of services. The same will hold true for the HH property.

The AAC isn’t giving any amenity fee payment away, they are swapping utilization rights and each entity will continue to carry the operating costs and risks of their own facilities. The residents are gaining additional amenities at zero cost to them.

Who comes out ahead, it could be one party or the other on any given day, but it’s probably breakeven in the end.

People are upset because a for profit business went out of business. It couldn’t sustain itself any longer on selling ice water and air conditioning. If you’re upset of the closing then maybe you should have patronized it more.

The AAC was given the opportunity to purchase the property, buy it at market value, image that, someone wanted to sell their property at market value. Would you take half the market value when selling your house, I dare anyone reading this post to be foolish enough to say yes, sure pay me half what my house is worth, you’re not that foolish and neither is the developer. The AAC didn’t want to buy the property, so be it, it is being redeveloped into something new, it’s their property and they are free to do with it as they will. The developer owes no one anything, you bought a house in a community, you didn’t buy an eternal free ride. The developer made their money the same way the rest of us did, they earned it, and they don’t owe any of us a dime of it.

My stance on this isn’t because I favor the developer, it’s because I think like a businessman. Too many living here have forgotten how the real world actually work, that a business has to make a profit to survive.

Here’s the text of the agreement that the AAC approved.

On September 9, 2015, the Amenity Authority Committee (AAC) approved and recommended to the Village Center Community Development District (VCCDD) that The Villages of Lake-Sumter, Inc. (VLS) could bring into the Village Center District Service Territory an additional 300 units and that the use of the units be restricted to residents of independent living or assisted living facilities (ALF/ILF). On October 14, 2015, the VCCDD approved an agreement with VLS to provide amenities for the additional 300 units.

There are currently fourteen (14) amenity rights being utilized which include seven (7) for TSL SS PropCo, LLC (Elan Spanish Springs) and seven (7) that were subsequently designated for use for Chatham Acres. The current balance of unused amenity rights is 286.

For your consideration today is the First Amendment to the Agreement executed in 2015 between the VCCDD and VLS. This amended agreement takes into consideration that should VLS utilize the amenity rights for ALF/ILF, as the existing agreement provides, there would be no common amenity improvements to the community.

As presented, the amended agreement provides VLS the ability to utilize the unused amenity rights for age restricted units, and to construct additional amenity improvements at no cost to residents and guests in the Village Center District territory and The Villages community at large. If the amenity rights are utilized in this manner, VLS shall construct, at a minimum, a resort-style pool, sport and activity courts, walking paths and open spaces – all of which shall be accessible to residents and guests. Furthermore, the additional amenities would be perpetually maintained by VLS.

In consideration of the significant capital expenditures to construct the amenity facilities, the amended agreement provides that VLS would retain the amenity fee revenue for said units, with the exception of certain defined contributions towards Community Watch and The Villages Public Safety Department. As previously noted, the amended agreement provides that VLS will perpetually maintain these facilities; they would not be the financial responsibility of the VCCDD.

The amended agreement also addresses the Hacienda Parcel, which is the former location of the privately owned Hacienda Hills Country Club. Should the additional age-restricted residential units or amenity infrastructure be constructed by VLS on this property, VLS assumes the responsibility for redesigning and improving the abutting parcel owned by the District as described in the attached Exhibit “B” . The improvements include the drive aisles, parking, and postal facility. The District will continue to own and operate the District Parcel, including the postal facility, and the Developer shall contribute the proportionate
share of postal box charges and costs for postal boxes utilized by users of the Hacienda Parcel to the District. If this is pursued, the necessary legal documents pertaining to easements for ingress and egress of the property will be drafted.
__________________
GoldWingNut

Originally Posted by Northwoods (Post 1820145)

My head just exploded reading this. (It's a great post!!! But I don't understand it all). Is it saying that The Developer can build "senior" housing because they already have approval to do that?

Originally Posted by Goldwingnut (Post 1820153)

It's saying the developer already has rights to 286 amenity units from the agreement 5 years ago. Their request was to redesignate them from ALF/ILF to regular amenity units. They have already received this on the 7 Chatham Acres properties, so the precedence has already been set.

As far as what they build on the HH property, that is between them and the zoning board, the residents have absolutely zero say about it except maybe the 4 owners that directly abut the HH property to be developed.

Originally Posted by tophcfa (Post 1820154)

Thanks for the information, your vast knowledge is greatly appreciated. Is it safe to assume there will be a lot more than 4 abutting owners if the golf course is involved? Also, do you know if the golf course could be involved given that some (not sure if HH is part of the some) of the golf courses have been designed as flood plains of last resort for an event like hurricane Irma? I am assuming there would be significant development restrictions on land designed as flood plains. Thats not to say a golf course could not be turned into walking trails (what a shame that would be)!

Originally Posted by tophcfa (Post 1820156)

Here is hoping that the members of the zoning board are folks of integrity and not developer puppets. I can not claim to have read the zoning bylaws for the HH area, but I have been involved in several zoning matters over the course of my lifetime. Typically to get an area re-zoned, or to get a special permit that circumvents zoning bylaws, the proposed use has to be in harmony with the existing neighborhood. I find it highly unlikely that a reasonable argument can be made that a 286 unit rental apartment complex would be in harmony with the existing neighborhood? But what do I know?

Originally Posted by aletarw (Post 1819438)

The Developer will pocket $500k/year into perpetuity. Sounds like a good deal for them not us.

Originally Posted by pkfavreau2 (Post 1819469)

I thought at the hearing for the residences that the apartment complex was not the popular vote. Next thing you know they have all the drawings ready within a day or so to present for approval. Apparently the decision was already made, not sure why they Asked the residences for their input. Me, I didn’t move to TV to have apartment complexes around me. I realize it’s more money for the Morses, but still why now all of a sudden are they being built here.

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 Bogie Shooter (Post 1820103)

All the Debbie downers, naysayers and those who have no idea what they are talking about, should read this very informative post by GoldWingNut posted on another thread.
Enjoy!
—————————-


You, like many others here in The Villages lack an understanding of who owns what, who pays for what, and what is an amenity and what isn't, HH was NOT an amenity, it was a privately owned business.

I am "in the know" only because I take the time and effort to understand where I live and how it works.

The AAC had previously (5 years ago) assigned amenity rights for 300 additional units to the developer for use in assisted living facilities and independent living facilities. The use of these did not pan out as had expected, the assisted and independent facilities only showed interest in 7 units. 7 of the 300 were also assigned to the Chatham Acres subdivision. For these 14 units the AAC receives the Amenity Fees for providing amenities to these 14 properties. The remainder have gone unexecuted. This means that they were not generating any revenue or income for anyone, not the AAC, not the RAD fund, not the SALD fund, and not the developer. Nothing was given away. The developer requested reassignment of these rights to the HH redevelopment project.

The HH redevelopment project will be funded by the developer, they will build the additional amenities, they will maintain the additional amenities, and the amenities will be open to all residents of The Villages. How is this different from south of SR44 or the Lofts? It isn’t. The developer is carrying all the cost to provide and operate as well as all the risk, they pay for community watch services, recreation staffing services, Public Safety supplement, and any other costs incurred by the “District” to support these new amenities. HH will operate the same way.

When you, I, or any other resident utilizes the developer owned amenity facilities there is no compensation made by the “District” to the developer for this use, the same holds true if someone from one of the villages south of SR44 comes north to go to a rec center or plays golf. It is generally considered to be an even swap of services. The same will hold true for the HH property.

The AAC isn’t giving any amenity fee payment away, they are swapping utilization rights and each entity will continue to carry the operating costs and risks of their own facilities. The residents are gaining additional amenities at zero cost to them.

Who comes out ahead, it could be one party or the other on any given day, but it’s probably breakeven in the end.

People are upset because a for profit business went out of business. It couldn’t sustain itself any longer on selling ice water and air conditioning. If you’re upset of the closing then maybe you should have patronized it more.

The AAC was given the opportunity to purchase the property, buy it at market value, image that, someone wanted to sell their property at market value. Would you take half the market value when selling your house, I dare anyone reading this post to be foolish enough to say yes, sure pay me half what my house is worth, you’re not that foolish and neither is the developer. The AAC didn’t want to buy the property, so be it, it is being redeveloped into something new, it’s their property and they are free to do with it as they will. The developer owes no one anything, you bought a house in a community, you didn’t buy an eternal free ride. The developer made their money the same way the rest of us did, they earned it, and they don’t owe any of us a dime of it.

My stance on this isn’t because I favor the developer, it’s because I think like a businessman. Too many living here have forgotten how the real world actually work, that a business has to make a profit to survive.

Here’s the text of the agreement that the AAC approved.

On September 9, 2015, the Amenity Authority Committee (AAC) approved and recommended to the Village Center Community Development District (VCCDD) that The Villages of Lake-Sumter, Inc. (VLS) could bring into the Village Center District Service Territory an additional 300 units and that the use of the units be restricted to residents of independent living or assisted living facilities (ALF/ILF). On October 14, 2015, the VCCDD approved an agreement with VLS to provide amenities for the additional 300 units.

There are currently fourteen (14) amenity rights being utilized which include seven (7) for TSL SS PropCo, LLC (Elan Spanish Springs) and seven (7) that were subsequently designated for use for Chatham Acres. The current balance of unused amenity rights is 286.

For your consideration today is the First Amendment to the Agreement executed in 2015 between the VCCDD and VLS. This amended agreement takes into consideration that should VLS utilize the amenity rights for ALF/ILF, as the existing agreement provides, there would be no common amenity improvements to the community.

As presented, the amended agreement provides VLS the ability to utilize the unused amenity rights for age restricted units, and to construct additional amenity improvements at no cost to residents and guests in the Village Center District territory and The Villages community at large. If the amenity rights are utilized in this manner, VLS shall construct, at a minimum, a resort-style pool, sport and activity courts, walking paths and open spaces – all of which shall be accessible to residents and guests. Furthermore, the additional amenities would be perpetually maintained by VLS.

In consideration of the significant capital expenditures to construct the amenity facilities, the amended agreement provides that VLS would retain the amenity fee revenue for said units, with the exception of certain defined contributions towards Community Watch and The Villages Public Safety Department. As previously noted, the amended agreement provides that VLS will perpetually maintain these facilities; they would not be the financial responsibility of the VCCDD.

The amended agreement also addresses the Hacienda Parcel, which is the former location of the privately owned Hacienda Hills Country Club. Should the additional age-restricted residential units or amenity infrastructure be constructed by VLS on this property, VLS assumes the responsibility for redesigning and improving the abutting parcel owned by the District as described in the attached Exhibit “B” . The improvements include the drive aisles, parking, and postal facility. The District will continue to own and operate the District Parcel, including the postal facility, and the Developer shall contribute the proportionate
share of postal box charges and costs for postal boxes utilized by users of the Hacienda Parcel to the District. If this is pursued, the necessary legal documents pertaining to easements for ingress and egress of the property will be drafted.
__________________
GoldWingNut

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 tophcfa (Post 1820156)

Here is hoping that the members of the zoning board are folks of integrity and not developer puppets. I can not claim to have read the zoning bylaws for the HH area, but I have been involved in several zoning matters over the course of my lifetime. Typically to get an area re-zoned, or to get a special permit that circumvents zoning bylaws, the proposed use has to be in harmony with the existing neighborhood. I find it highly unlikely that a reasonable argument can be made that a 286 unit rental apartment complex would be in harmony with the existing neighborhood? But what do I know?

Originally Posted by npwalters (Post 1820507)

Many, many people agree with you.

Originally Posted by Kerry Azz (Post 1820304)

I’m sure if you lived in Hacienda you would be livid, The home values will drop very quickly. This was a fast Con job by 4 Of the 5 board members that approved it. Not one person at the meeting had anything positive to say but it was passed. Give me a break!

Originally Posted by npwalters (Post 1820282)

Good information but it misses what most of of consider the actual issue. The Villages developer may (I'm sure it will be challenged) have the legal ability to build an apartment complex in the middle of existing single family homes but it SHOULD recognize a ethical responsibility to the residents to not do so.

The negative PR implications will eventually translate into dollars to TV and SHOULD far outweigh the dollars to be gained by this slap in the face to long standing residents.

Originally Posted by Mleeja (Post 1820547)

Here is the problem, the AAC has no decision into what is being built in this location. When the meeting was held last week many residents spoke against the developers plans. Before the public comment began, the AAC should have clearly stated they have NO input into the building plans and that the discussion would only deal with amenity fees being granted to The Developer. This would have given the “public” an opportunity to comment on this arrangement.

There was no need to rush into this agreement. I would have like to seen what we are buying before signing the agreement.

Originally Posted by Jayhawk (Post 1820511)

And many, many more do NOT.

Originally Posted by npwalters (Post 1820282)

Good information but it misses what most of of consider the actual issue. The Villages developer may (I'm sure it will be challenged) have the legal ability to build an apartment complex in the middle of existing single family homes but it SHOULD recognize a ethical responsibility to the residents to not do so.

The negative PR implications will eventually translate into dollars to TV and SHOULD far outweigh the dollars to be gained by this slap in the face to long standing residents.

Originally Posted by npwalters (Post 1820810)

Apparently you did not attend the meeting with the amenities board. Those in favor of providing amenities to the proposed apartments were very few. Yours is also a minority opinion on this blog concerning this issue. You and Gracie are a team on this one.

Originally Posted by Jayhawk (Post 1820819)

I can't tell if you hate the apartments, the amenity passes, or the developer. Probably all three.

#1. The style of homes being built are not anyone's right to choose because YOU aren't paying for them.

#2, You don't own the amenities, you rent them. And most districts are capped in the amount of annual increase. You will also GAIN new amenities with the apartments, just like you did with The Lofts, yet your cost will not rise as a result. And the developer is paying to put them in for your use.

#3. If you don't like the business model, make an offer to buy the land and do your thing. Otherwise it is not your entitlement to determine use. This is not a city or town. It is a business covering parts of 3 counties and you are free to stay or go. If you can't afford to buy the land, you don't get to make the decision.

Originally Posted by npwalters (Post 1820870)

Jump overboard on assumptions much? I don't hate anyone without good cause.


I know when my property value is being diminished by a greedy action.

The future added amenities - we will see what actually develops - is a drop in the bucket compared to what is already here and will be used primarily by the additional 600 people (300 apartments) closest to it. They are offering nothing unique. A very bad trade.

How do you know when a poster has run out of viable arguments. They say "if you don't like it here......." My favorite is I 75 runs north and south, choose one. Really uummmm clever.

Originally Posted by npwalters (Post 1820870)

Jump overboard on assumptions much? I don't hate anyone without good cause.

I know when my property value is being diminished by a greedy action.

The future added amenities - we will see what actually develops - is a drop in the bucket compared to what is already here and will be used primarily by the additional 600 people (300 apartments) closest to it. They are offering nothing unique. A very bad trade.

How do you know when a poster has run out of viable arguments. They say "if you don't like it here......." My favorite is I 75 runs north and south, choose one. Really uummmm clever.