[EdV]

Originally Posted by Lauren Ritchie

ed,

i realize you meant this to be a witty stab, but as you may or may not know, arlington ridge's CDD has raided its reserve fund to avoid default on its bonds. just another fine example of why i think CDDs are a ripoff to the buyer. don't worry, my friend. you won't catch me buying a home in a community with a CDD.

lauren

On the contrary, I was quite aware of that fact. That’s what made my remark a ‘double witty’.

[spk7951]

In light of all the postings related to the IRS issue I thought I would post this "commentary" made by Janet Tutt in June 2009. Below is the link to her article but the part I find most interesting is:

"Although I can not address all the rumors, the one that is most disturbing floats the possibility that an adverse ruling would somehow result in increased amenity fees or assessments. That is absolutely false. Neither amenity fees, nor resident assessments could be increased
for such a purpose."

http://districtgov.org/images/whatsn...news200906.pdf

[EdV]

Originally Posted by Lauren Ritchie

ed,
are you actually gary morse in disguise writing this? please tell me this is a joke.

what you're saying is that it is equally cheap to: 1. "rent" facilities from the developer on a year-to-year basis and 2.) take out $355 million worth of loans for 30 years of advance amenity fees and pay back the loans with 30 years of interest to buy the same amenities. (thanks for catching my spelling -- that WAS a stupid error)

that's just absurd. that's like saying it's just as cheap to lease one car as it is to take out loans and buy cars that you're going to use over the next 30 years. um, no. that's simply impossible.

i understand your argument in the sense that the homeowner is paying his or $100 or $135 a month, depending on when they bought. your argument is that they'll be paying it no matter whether they "own" or "rent" the facilities.

mine is that you would not be paying $135 a month if you hadn't had to give the developer 30 years worth of advance fees TODAY. and then repay them with interest, which is staggering.

we can argue all day long on the esoteric points, but that's really all that's going on here.
lauren

Your just all over the board on this issue. Anything to convince everyone that you're right. A few posts back you challenged my analogy of the amenity fee being similar to a contract with your cable company as being “inappropriate” because it’s a private company. But now you're in here making analogies between the amenity fee and a lease on a car from an automobile dealership.

Now even I’m getting dizzy. Time for me to get off your tilt-a-whirl debate. I’ve said my piece, and I’m done with it.

[Russ_Boston]

About two years ago I asked if anyone had a really nice 'head spinning' emoticon. I wish I had one now!

[Challenger]

City "A" buys land and builds a park for the citizens to use. They float bonds to pay for the amenity. The cost of the thirty year bonds must be repaid by the citizens(taxpayers) over the 30 year life of the bonds.

Sounds fair in principle. What did I Miss? Citizens got the use of the park immediately and in perpetuity.

Upon the repayment of the bonds there will still be maintenance costs for the park to be paid by the taxpayers---unless the city finds oil on the park land!

[The Shadow]

Originally Posted by Russ_Boston

About two years ago I asked if anyone had a really nice 'head spinning' emoticon. I wish I had one now!

Just ask.

[JimJoe]

Originally Posted by spk7951

In light of all the postings related to the IRS issue I thought I would post this "commentary" made by Janet Tutt in June 2009. Below is the link to her article but the part I find most interesting is:

"Although I can not address all the rumors, the one that is most disturbing floats the possibility that an adverse ruling would somehow result in increased amenity fees or assessments. That is absolutely false. Neither amenity fees, nor resident assessments could be increased
for such a purpose."

http://districtgov.org/images/whatsn...news200906.pdf

If they can't raise amenities or assessments and I think Janet is correct, then how would they pay it? The only thing I can think of is sell amenities or reduce the maintenance on them. Any ideas on this Lauren or gang?
And one more interesting question. Homeowners agree to pay the amenity fee of about $135 per month right? What amenities are guaranteed in exchange for that monthly fee? Can they be reduced or eliminated as they see fit? If true, that bothers me. Please clarify this for me. Thanks. JJ

[Russ_Boston]

Shadow - I knew you were good for something

Just kidding, thanks!

[spk7951]

Originally Posted by JimJoe

If they can't raise amenities or assessments and I think Janet is correct, then how would they pay it? The only thing I can think of is sell amenities or reduce the maintenance on them. Any ideas on this Lauren or gang?
And one more interesting question. Homeowners agree to pay the amenity fee of about $135 per month right? What amenities are guaranteed in exchange for that monthly fee? Can they be reduced or eliminated as they see fit? If true, that bothers me. Please clarify this for me. Thanks. JJ

Try reading the question and answer regarding the irs issue on page 6 & 7 of the link below. From my read of it some already have a direction in mind should this negatively impact the homeowners.
http://www.poa4us.org/bulletins_file...etin200912.pdf

[JimJoe]

Originally Posted by spk7951

Try reading the question and answer regarding the irs issue on page 6 & 7 of the link below. From my read of it some already have a direction in mind should this negatively impact the homeowners.
http://www.poa4us.org/bulletins_file...etin200912.pdf

Did you mean the developer will do the right thing and protect the villagers? Why did the villagers sue over amenities a couple of years ago?

[The Shadow]

Originally Posted by JimJoe

Did you mean the developer will do the right thing and protect the villagers? Why did the villagers sue over amenities a couple of years ago?

He shoots, he scores.

[Lou Card]

Originally Posted by The Shadow

He shoots, he scores.

Because, like you Shadow, no matter how great it is, someone will complain.

The Shadow shot but missed the target.

[jannd228]

Originally Posted by The Shadow

He shoots, he scores.

I found some links he may be talking about:

http://lakeashtontalk.blogspot.com/2...n-lawsuit.html

http://www.sptimes.com/2008/03/10/St...develope.shtml

http://www.ccfj.net/CDDVillages$40milllawsuit.html

they all seem to report the same thing

there are some that are watching, maybe you should figure out a way to get more info on what you seem to be discussing with Ms Ritchie

[bike42]

Originally Posted by Lauren Ritchie

gracie,

it is not the morse's interpretation of how CDDs function that has given you the lifestyle. YOU paid for that -- he didn't. in fact, it would be costing you considerably less for the same amenities without the creative interpretation factor.

"Blue Sky" refers to amenities that are promised by developers but that are never built. The amenities in TV were in place before we paid for anything. The Morses may be making a lot of money now, but they were the ones who risked everything in the early years to build their vision. I'm a retired urban planner and I know there is NO PLACE in the world with a golf-cart-accessible retirement city of this scale and with this quantity/quality of amenities. Without the Morse's creativity the place would not exist, no matter how much we were willing to pay.

We are not a bunch of stupid retirees getting ripped off; we know value when we see it.

[18togo]

After reading the first article, I was much confused. The facts weren't presented clearly, and, as Ms. Ritchie has pointed out, was designed to set a certain tone. Since reading her initial post, I now clearly understand what she was saying and her point of view. I wonder how many readers of the initial article were as confused as I? I think this would have been a much better read, and would have gotten the point across easier and clearer, if the initial post had actually been the newspaper article.

That said, it does make me wonder how this will be handled and what the outcome will be? While I am years away from retiring, I certainly want TV to be around, the way it is now or better, when I have a chance to experience the life for myself.