[spk7951]

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?

There are two lines in the POA story that I find especially interesting.
The first is: "If there is a financial impact on Villagers, the POA expects the developer to do the right thing and protect residents."
Second is: "The POA will do whatever it can to help protect residents."
I think it is pretty clear what is being said there.

We were not here during the issue of the amenities lawsuit but I do believe that was a negotiated settlement.

[bkcunningham1]

I wish the elected officials in our federal, state and local governments used my money as efficiently as the VCCDD and the Morse family.

[dillywho]

Originally Posted by bike42

"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.

At last, a voice of reason.

[JimJoe]

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. that's the reason i keep writing this story.

but i'm still with you on the excellent lifestyle.

lauren

Lauren: Could the developer TOMORROW sell another 30 years of blue sky to the two commercial districts for $300 million again? Is that what he really did? I do not understand how that is possible. Are you serious?

[pauld315]

As a non-resident, but one who has been certain that TV is where I was going to retire, the one thing that concerns me the most about this is TV's lack of divulging the information to the buyers. I just never got the impression, in my visits, that TV would hold back information like this for the sake of a sale. I am probably naive but I have been involved in the business end of companies for over 30 years.

I know the marketing and sales consequernces that may be involved in their decision but there is also the issue of ethics and openess. Heck, when I sell my house I have to divulge that I am in a flight path to the airport even though it is only used once or twice a year when they have a runway shut down at the airport.

They should lay the information out on the table for perspective buyers, the possible solutions and ramnifications to the issue as they understand it and let the buyers decide if they are willing to take the risk or not. At least give them a heads up so they can research it on their own and make a decision. I doubt if it would affect many, or any sales but at least everyone would be on the same page going into the transaction with both eyes open.

This is coming from somebody who loves TV and the lifestyle and wants to retire there.

[Taj44]

Originally Posted by pauld315

As a non-resident, but one who has been certain that TV is where I was going to retire, the one thing that concerns me the most about this is TV's lack of divulging the information to the buyers. I just never got the impression, in my visits, that TV would hold back information like this for the sake of a sale. I am probably naive but I have been involved in the business end of companies for over 30 years.

I know the marketing and sales consequernces that may be involved in their decision but there is also the issue of ethics and openess. Heck, when I sell my house I have to divulge that I am in a flight path to the airport even though it is only used once or twice a year when they have a runway shut down at the airport.

They should lay the information out on the table for perspective buyers, the possible solutions and ramnifications to the issue as they understand it and let the buyers decide if they are willing to take the risk or not. At least give them a heads up so they can research it on their own and make a decision. I doubt if it would affect many, or any sales but at least everyone would be on the same page going into the transaction with both eyes open.

This is coming from somebody who loves TV and the lifestyle and wants to retire there.

As someone who loves the lifestyle, and does live here, I agree with you. And in my opinion, because all this was not disclosed, should the ruling adversely affect the residents, I suspect it would be grounds for a class action lawsuit. But, who knows how things will turn out. At this point, the residents just have to wait and see.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by Taj44

As someone who loves the lifestyle, and does live here, I agree with you. And in my opinion, because all this was not disclosed, should the ruling adversely affect the residents, I suspect it would be grounds for a class action lawsuit. But, who knows how things will turn out. At this point, the residents just have to wait and see.

And we all will continue living our lives as we always have. Some of us have faced adversity when adversity arrives and worked it out. Some of us will always be looking for trouble. If there is nothing I can do about it, I am not wasting a precious moment of my life, when I see all around me evidence that the persons who designed this lovely place and maintain it so perfectly could have made a LOT more money off of it than they have.

I am a hard working, well planned, ready for emergency person who has saved carefully for this happiness. I would do it again in a heartbeat and I trust the Morses.

[Lou Card]

Originally Posted by bkcunningham1

i wish the elected officials in our federal, state and local governments used my money as efficiently as the vccdd and the morse family.

bingo

[dillywho]

I'm with you, Gracie. Most of us have enough to be concerned with without borrowing any. Strangely enough, I don't see this place emptying enmasse. There are plenty (see posts on TOTV) that can't wait to get here. What does that say for it?

I still think she's just picking into something that is really no concern of hers in the first place. Kinda reminds me of the IRS, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you." She's from the Sentinel and "she's here to help us."

[The Shadow]

Originally Posted by dillywho

I'm with you, Gracie. Most of us have enough to be concerned with without borrowing any. Strangely enough, I don't see this place emptying enmasse. There are plenty (see posts on TOTV) that can't wait to get here. What does that say for it?

I still think she's just picking into something that is really no concern of hers in the first place. Kinda reminds me of the IRS, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you." She's from the Sentinel and "she's here to help us."

“I still think she's just picking into something that is really no concern of hers in the first place.”

Now that is just precious.

Maybe she thinks that if a CDD cheats the IRS she/me/we/us will have to make up the shortage.

[graciegirl]

Gee I hope so.. You and her anyway. HER does not mean Dillywho.

Just kidding.

[Russ_Boston]

Originally Posted by pauld315

the one thing that concerns me the most about this is TV's lack of divulging the information to the buyers.

They have the latest that they know about the IRS on the district gov website. What other info are they not divulging? Do you know of something?

Everyone who buys here is given the info about the normal bonds and the maintenance bonds and the amenity fee. They run a district government meeting (monthly? - someone help here). The district setup is given on the district website.

Obviously they thought they could issue the bonds as non taxable. If the IRS says no then they have to make amends.

As a new buyer I think I'm informed - NO?

[Pturner]

Not only is information about IRS issue posted on the district gov. website, http://www.districtgov.org/links/index.aspx, but there's a prominent link to the issue directly on the home page (4th link down).

[pauld315]

Originally Posted by Russ_Boston

They have the latest that they know about the IRS on the district gov website. What other info are they not divulging? Do you know of something?

Everyone who buys here is given the info about the normal bonds and the maintenance bonds and the amenity fee. They run a district government meeting (monthly? - someone help here). The district setup is given on the district website.

Obviously they thought they could issue the bonds as non taxable. If the IRS says no then they have to make amends.

As a new buyer I think I'm informed - NO?

Russ, it is great that you are a savvy consumer and you were fully informed due to your own due dilligence prior to purchasing. I applaud you for that. However, I would wager (if iI was a bettor) that most did not read the information related to this on the district.gov website prior to purchasing because they weren't even aware there was a potential issue like this loomng.

So, unless they explicitly pointed out that this issue could affect your ownership in the future, I don't think TV was practicing full disclosure to their customers prior to the sale. Sometimes customers just don't know what to ask about and as an ethical seller you have the responsibility to inform them.

So, as I said before, I am surprised that TV wouldn't want to make sure everyone was informed before buyiing. They could easily make sure this was the case by letting people know what was happeining between the IRS and themselves, even if it was by just defining it at a very high level so that people could look into it on their own if they so desired. I have always run bisinesses with openess and have never seen any of them suffer because of it. If they are already doing that, it is fine. If not, one has to question why they aren't.

[Taj44]

Originally Posted by pauld315

Russ, it is great that you are a savvy consumer and you were fully informed due to your own due dilligence prior to purchasing. I applaud you for that. However, I would wager (if iI was a bettor) that most did not read the information related to this on the district.gov website prior to purchasing because they weren't even aware there was a potential issue like this loomng.

So, unless they explicitly pointed out that this issue could affect your ownership in the future, I don't think TV was practicing full disclosure to their customers prior to the sale. Sometimes customers just don't know what to ask about and as an ethical seller you have the responsibility to inform them.

So, as I said before, I am surprised that TV wouldn't want to make sure everyone was informed before buyiing. They could easily make sure this was the case by letting people know what was happeining between the IRS and themselves, even if it was by just defining it at a very high level so that people could look into it on their own if they so desired. I have always run bisinesses with openess and have never seen any of them suffer because of it. If they are already doing that, it is fine. If not, one has to question why they aren't.

Bingo. Well said.