Originally Posted by Lauren Ritchie (Post 289441)

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

Originally Posted by Lauren Ritchie (Post 289438)

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

Originally Posted by Russ_Boston (Post 289484)

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

Originally Posted by spk7951 (Post 289461)

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

Originally Posted by JimJoe (Post 289499)

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

Originally Posted by spk7951 (Post 289571)

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

Originally Posted by JimJoe (Post 289577)

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?

Originally Posted by The Shadow (Post 289579)

He shoots, he scores. :agree:

Originally Posted by The Shadow (Post 289579)

He shoots, he scores. :agree:

Originally Posted by Lauren Ritchie (Post 289450)

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.