[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by jimhoward

If the developer ran into financial problems, they might start putting new houses closer together, or they might cut back on finishes on little things like not bothering with ceiling fans, or they might undercut prices on existing homes to stimulate sales........oh wait .

Originally Posted by thelegges

You must be new to TV.
Do you remember in 2008, 09, 10, 11, 12, and so on, the discounts on newly built homes for PV, CYV, designers?

How about in 2012, 2014, some new builds, no washer/dryer, ceiling fans, or GARAGE DOOR Openers?

I remember all of those, why because we bought 4 houses during those years.

How about your personal experience of what was included in homes from 2007 to 2025.

What you think is missing in homes today has been ongoing over 15 years, you just weren’t here to understand what was or wasn’t included.

I think someone failed to see the cynicism.

The developer may even opt to cut back on golf courses and other amenities ...

[tophcfa]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

I think someone failed to see the cynicism.

The developer may even opt to cut back on golf courses and other amenities ...

That ship has already sailed.

[Jayhawk]

Originally Posted by tophcfa

Some prefer to seek knowledge and make informed decisions after considering as much knowledge as can be gathered.

You're in the wrong place if it's facts you want.

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Chellybean

think about it folks?
If there sell OFF there assets that tells me they are bleeding money at a fast rate and the new constructed homes are smaller lots, driveways and questionable construction.
this is not what was built north of 44. you don't have to be a genius to see they might of gotten to greedy this time around?
JMHO

There are no "smaller lots".

Yes, the driveways are shorter. That is because their market research indicated the the new home buyers wanted larger back yards and didn't care for the large front yards. They simply shifted the foundations closer to the street to accommodate them...

[Aces4]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

There are no "smaller lots".

Yes, the driveways are shorter. That is because their market research indicated the the new home buyers wanted larger back yards and didn't care for the large front yards. They simply shifted the foundations closer to the street to accommodate them...

Yeah, I'm not buying that. How many of us want to live on the street practically with little driveway? NOT!

[Aces4]

Originally Posted by VAtoFLA

You need to back up the construction part with some facts if you have any. The construction seems fine. Had an inspector in here just yesterday. Lot size bigger than the resale CYV we were looking at in Pennecamp.

I think you're jumping to conclusions about what selling assets means to a business and then from there what it must mean to its other business channels.

Are we comparing CYV yard to CYV yard in the same setting?

[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

How would we be affected?
- The Developer does not provide utilities
- The Developer does not maintain the roads
- The Developer does not run the rec centers
- The Developer does not maintain the pools or pickleball courts
- The Developer does not cut the grass along the streets or replace the flowers

The Developer does own the buildings in the commercial districts (the squares). This allows him to choose/elect the supervisors for the districts that control the amenities. But, since the amenities are funded by the residents and not by the commercial districts these supervisors typically stay away from fixing something that isn't broken.

If the Developer has financial issues it might somehow affect the businesses in the squares and we would notice that but I just don't see that being a big issue.

If the developer ran into financial issues the media would be all over it as basically they do not like us.

If negatives about the villages financially got it do you really think it would not affect resales?

[Aces4]

Originally Posted by Stu from NYC

If the developer ran into financial issues the media would be all over it as basically they do not like us.

If negatives about the villages financially got it do you really think it would not affect resales?

I wouldn't worry about the billionaires. However, if there was a failure with the developers that would mean greater problems everywhere in the States. I don't think it's failures, I think it's disentangling the company from all the facets and starting to let The Villages proceed with out the developers, just like every other community.

[BrianL99]

Has it occurred to anyone, that as we moved towards a new generation of the Developer's family, they perhaps want to simplify the operation and concentrate on their core business?

Or perhaps in the change of generations, cash is needed to buy off some heirs or stockholders?

[Pugchief]

Originally Posted by Aces4

Yeah, I'm not buying that. How many of us want to live on the street practically with little driveway? NOT!

North of 44 here, designer home with kissing lanais. I would gladly give up 10 feet in the front for an additional 20 feet in the back. YMMV

[Aces4]

Originally Posted by Pugchief

North of 44 here, designer home with kissing lanais. I would gladly give up 10 feet in the front for an additional 20 feet in the back. YMMV

We think just the opposite, enclosed the lanai and landscaping makes a kissing lanai no problem but we don't want our vehicles parked with the bumper feet from the street when we need to park outside the garages. Right in the street and you may as well live in a brownstone in Boston that is feet from the curb.

[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by Aces4

I wouldn't worry about the billionaires. However, if there was a failure with the developers that would mean greater problems everywhere in the States. I don't think it's failures, I think it's disentangling the company from all the facets and starting to let The Villages proceed with out the developers, just like every other community.

If the developer is liable for the medicare overruns might mean changes in how they operate which could affect the rest of us. I do not see the developer business failing.

However so far we have not heard most of what is going on and the Sun sure what be giving us a blow by blow description unless someone else can be blamed.

[jimhoward]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

There are no "smaller lots".

Yes, the driveways are shorter. That is because their market research indicated the the new home buyers wanted larger back yards and didn't care for the large front yards. They simply shifted the foundations closer to the street to accommodate them...

I agree. I am not sure the lots are smaller in the south. I know the house I own in the LSL area has a 0.15 acre lot, whereas the one I own near Eastport has a 0.27 acre lot. But the models are completely different so that doesn't mean anything.

I do like having a relatively big backyard. Room for a pool and a big bird cage and still a good amount of grass behind. The driveway is really short, but its wide. Can easily fit two cars and a golf cart across, so nothing needs to be shuffled.

[tophcfa]

Originally Posted by Stu from NYC

If the developer is liable for the medicare overruns might mean changes in how they operate which could affect the rest of us.

No worries, the developer has an army of attorneys that slice and dice their risk, and separate any liabilities between many different business entities. I most certainly don’t blame them for that, I would also if in their position. A bigger worry would be if that wasn’t the case, then their competence would be in question. That being said, a legitimate concern should be the fallout from the whole Villages Health disaster, and the future of quality accessible health care in a rapidly growing senior citizen community.

[Chellybean]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

I think someone failed to see the cynicism.

The developer may even opt to cut back on golf courses and other amenities ...

they have cut back on courses in the south and the maintenance of these courses has gone astray, JMHO