[jandbrare]

The May 2013 Bulletin includes a letter to the Editor of the POA Bulletin by Jack Weber:

"Your recent article in the latest bulletin
concerning Lake Paradise said because of
possible flooding it is hard to determine
if this site can be updated. Yes, it would be
expensive, but in order to make it look like
all our other beautiful surroundings, I think it
would take some dredging and deep enough
so that people who live in the area would not
have a worry. As I remember, the biggest
rains that we have had over the years have
not actually gone into homes but just close. I
may be wrong, but this is the way I remember it.
If this lake was dredged and then liner
protection like they have done in other
places, then I feel this could be accomplished.
If you think about it, many new people, and even
people who live south of here sometime for one
reason or another pass this location. With all the
beautiful areas that we have here in The Villages,
it is a shame that we have this [a dry lake bed]
to look forward to each year. Thank you. Jack Weber"

The POA Bulletin editor responded:

"Editor’s Note: Your comments have been
raised and discussed at several AAC meetings. The net of
the discussions is that we would all like to see all of our
water features filled to the high water mark at all times.
Unfortunately, even if we had the water to do
that, (which we don’t), it would defeat their
function of storm water control. While Lake
Paradise has not had flooding in recent years,
we have not artificially raised the level of the
water in Lake Paradise during the dry season
either. It is important that there be capacity in
the lake so that when the rainy season arrives
the lake can handle whatever level of rainfall
we receive. Dredging the lake and lining the
dredged area would not affect the appearance
of the shoreline and the island around the
“waterfall”, they would still be dry during
the drought periods. These unlined areas
would still be needed if we are to have any
capacity for significant runoff during the
rainy season.

In Florida we must deal with a dry season
and a rainy season – that’s nature. Almost all
of the lined ponds here in The Villages have
substantial areas above the level of the liners
to assure sufficient percolation into the
ground to dispose of rain water to allow capacity
for future rain water runoff. Dredging
water features – making them deeper – and
lining them may increase the likelihood of
subsurface sinkhole activity as a result of less
groundcover over the lime rock and the increased
concentration of weight in that area.
In addition, such dredging activity would require
substantial deviation from the existing
storm water management plan and there are
indications that approval of such changes
would be highly unlikely from the Southwest
Florida Water Management District."

The Editor's response sounds very scientific and knowing with regard to a likely response by the Southwest Florida Water Management District.

I agree that the Southwest Florida Water Management District would not "likely approve" a change to the hydrology of Paradise Lake.

The following graphics taken from the St. Johns River Water Management District site reveal that St. Johns River Water Management District is responsible for Paradise Lake and not the Southwest Florida Water Management District.

This brings to question the credibility of the entire analysis by the POA Editor of the hydrological effects of dredging and lining the lake to improve its water retention.

This is the entire SJRWMD:


This is the region including Paradise Lake:


I realize that this post could be considered "political" and therefore, not allowed. I prefer to think of it as a comment on the bias of the POA. Note, I have not made any statement for or against making improvements to Paradise Lake.

Jerry Lester

[Mikeod]

I don't understand how this reflects bias. It appears that since the bulk of TV is under the SFWMD, the writer simply was confused about which entity would have final say. The concerns regarding capacity for storm water retention are logical. Do you think the St. Johns District has a different philosophy?

[jandbrare]

Originally Posted by mikeod

I don't understand how this reflects bias. It appears that since the bulk of TV is under the SFWMD, the writer simply was confused about which entity would have final say. The concerns regarding capacity for storm water retention are logical. Do you think the St. Johns District has a different philosophy?

I don't pretend to know what the philosophy's of the water management districts are. I object to the implication that the AAC/POA has some inside information from the SWFWMD that indicates that they would not approve an application for modification of the Paradise Lake basin, especially since SWFWMD is not the approval agency. To imply is purely speculation to support an opinion held by some of the AAC board.

If the Developer can transfor Cherry Lake into Lake Sumter, then an engineering study could show how to transform Paradise Lake into something equally appealing. Both Cherry Lake and Paradise Lake were/are natural water basins subject to being wet or dry, depending on the season. (I have confirmed this by looking at historical aerial photographs of the two basins.)

But, just look at Lake Sumter, now: Beautiful!

The members of the AAC are not engineers trained in hydrology. They are simply lay persons with an opinion. An engineering study is required to define how to transform Paradise Lake. The AAC could fund this if there wasn't the bias against improving Paradise Lake.

(I recognize that that this thread should be in the General Forum. My mistake. I don't think I should cross-post?)

Jerry Lester

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by jandbrare

I don't pretend to know what the philosophy's of the water management districts are. I object to the implication that the AAC/POA has some inside information from the SWFWMD that indicates that they would not approve an application for modification of the Paradise Lake basin, especially since SWFWMD is not the approval agency. To imply is purely speculation to support an opinion held by some of the AAC board.

If the Developer can transfor Cherry Lake into Lake Sumter, then an engineering study could show how to transform Paradise Lake into something equally appealing. Both Cherry Lake and Paradise Lake were/are natural water basins subject to being wet or dry, depending on the season. (I have confirmed this by looking at historical aerial photographs of the two basins.)

But, just look at Lake Sumter, now: Beautiful!

The members of the AAC are not engineers trained in hydrology. They are simply lay persons with an opinion. An engineering study is required to define how to transform Paradise Lake. The AAC could fund this if there wasn't the bias against improving Paradise Lake.

(I recognize that that this thread should be in the General Forum. My mistake. I don't think I should cross-post?)

Jerry Lester

This post got my attention too.

POA mtg, Dr Anderson

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

Two things come to my mind. First, do they drain water from the lake in the rainy season? If so why? Why not just let the lake deplete itself naturally so that there is water left in it during the dry season?
Second, why is it that this is the only lake that appears to go completely dry. It is a lake that is highly visible to all including outsiders who may be considering buying here. I would thing that we'd want this lake above all to look nice 365 days a year. When it is empty, not only is it an eyesore, but it smells awful as well.
Dredging would make the lake able to hold more water so that the water level would be lower but the bottom could be covered.

[jandbrare]

Originally Posted by Dr Winston O Boogie jr

Two things come to my mind. First, do they drain water from the lake in the rainy season? If so why? Why not just let the lake deplete itself naturally so that there is water left in it during the dry season?
Second, why is it that this is the only lake that appears to go completely dry. It is a lake that is highly visible to all including outsiders who may be considering buying here. I would thing that we'd want this lake above all to look nice 365 days a year. When it is empty, not only is it an eyesore, but it smells awful as well.
Dredging would make the lake able to hold more water so that the water level would be lower but the bottom could be covered.

You make very appropriate observations. This lake was an existing natural basin. It was not constructed as a retention pond in the same sense that current retention ponds are. I think it was simply adopted and houses built around it and storm drains directed to it. I attempted to find out more by contacting St. Johns River WMD, but got no response. I think I was ignored because I did not have any official status. The dredging-and-lining proposal sounds reasonable to me, but I think an engineering study is required to determine effective changes to Lake Paradise. I so proposed in the most recent AAC Meeting, minutes of which are not on the website, yet.

I have not made up my mind on a fix for Paradise Lake. It depends on how much it would cost, but I think it deserves a real engineering study and cost estimate so that everyone would know what they are getting in to. Currently, there is only speculation by unqualified AAC Board Members and a cost estimate by the District Property Manager that he admits was done in a half hour on the "back of an envelope."

This is not a sound basis for rejecting improvements to Paradise Lake.

Jerry Lester

[rubicon]

jandbrare: You are a brave soul for pursuing this issue. I appalud your research and find your rationale sound.

It is very disappointing to see that the POA and AAC have offered you no support and in fact appear very defensive. It makes one pause to wonder what is going on behind the scenes?

I hope you succeed here becaue it would be a win for all of us.

[OnTrack]

Help a newbie out here.

What standing/authority does the POA have, to initiate any changes to the lake?

The above posts insinuating that the "POA = Bad" aside, why is the POA being held as the entity unwilling to do anything?

I thought they were but a voice, to counteract the one-sided message we get from the developer/VHA?

.

[jandbrare]

Originally Posted by rubicon

jandbrare: You are a brave soul for pursuing this issue. I appalud your research and find your rationale sound.

It is very disappointing to see that the POA and AAC have offered you no support and in fact appear very defensive. It makes one pause to wonder what is going on behind the scenes?

I hope you succeed here becaue it would be a win for all of us.

I don't understand, either, why the AAC has adopted such a rigid stance for not pursuing improvements. They have convinced the POA that their position is correct. Paradise Lake, when dry, is such an obvious departure from the otherwise exceptional esthetics of The Villages that it is hard to understand why there would not be a more willing attitude on the part of the POA and ACC to bring it into conformance.

I have "no dog in this fight" except that I wish the best for the entire community and am especially sympathetic to those that live around Paradise Lake and the rest of Orange Blossom Hills. I live in Polo Ridge, well out of sight of Paradise Lake and own no property there.

Jerry Lester

[jandbrare]

Originally Posted by OnTrack

Help a newbie out here.

What standing/authority does the POA have, to initiate any changes to the lake?

The above posts insinuating that the "POA = Bad" aside, why is the POA being held as the entity unwilling to do anything?

I thought they were but a voice, to counteract the one-sided message we get from the developer/VHA?

.

It is a misunderstanding to gather that the POA is "...being held as the entity unwilling to do anything." I only intended that the POA be recognized as agreeing with the ACC as they illustrated by their response to the letter to the editor of the POA bulletin, which I quoted in the initial post.

Jerry Lester

[OnTrack]

Originally Posted by jandbrare

It is a misunderstanding to gather that the POA is "...being held as the entity unwilling to do anything." I only intended that the POA be recognized as agreeing with the ACC as they illustrated by their response to the letter to the editor of the POA bulletin, which I quoted in the initial post.

Jerry Lester

Which means what exactly?

Is the ACC the entity that has to initiate any permits and/or mitigation?

Who would pay for the engineering study and/or any subsequent work?

And even if the POA agrees with the ACC and doesn't see the need....where is the developer and VHA on this issue?



In your original post, you said....

Originally Posted by jandbrare

"I prefer to think of it as a comment on the bias of the POA."

One can only conclude, that you must be biased against the POA.


.

[jandbrare]

Originally Posted by OnTrack

Which means what exactly?

Is the ACC the entity that has to initiate any permits and/or mitigation?

Who would pay for the engineering study and/or any subsequent work?

And even if the POA agrees with the ACC and doesn't see the need....where is the developer and VHA on this issue?



In your original post, you said....

One can only conclude, that you must be biased against the POA.


.

1. Don't know how to clarify what I said.
2. An engineering firm, under contract to the AAC, would request any permits, I suspect, as this would be part of the engineering contract.
3. The ACC would pay for the engineering study and any subsequent work.
4. I don't know of any involvement by the Developer or VHA.
5. "...biased against the POA." I disagree with the stand the POA has taken on this issue. I think the AAC should place a contract for an engineering study to define the scope and cost of the transformation of Paradise Lake. I am a member of the POA and believe they serve a useful purpose.

Jerry Lester

[OnTrack]

OK, I think I'm now getting a clearer picture of what is really going on here.

Originally Posted by jandbrare

Don't know how to clarify what I said.

Clarity comes from understanding the agenda (hidden or otherwise).

I believe you made yours pretty clear, when trying to dismiss the POA's position/opinion in your original post...

Originally Posted by jandbrare

This brings to question the credibility of the entire analysis by the POA Editor of the hydrological effects of dredging and lining the lake to improve its water retention.

In other words, your first post seemed to try and destroy any credibility the POA has....solely because they may have confused which Water District is involved.

Originally Posted by jandbrare

An engineering firm, under contract to the AAC, would request any permits, I suspect, as this would be part of the engineering contract.

My question is, who "controls" the AAC? As I understand it, they are a separate entity. Or are you saying that the POA has the ability to direct the AAC's actions?

Originally Posted by jandbrare

The ACC would pay for the engineering study and any subsequent work.

Where does the AAC get its funding?

Originally Posted by jandbrare

I don't know of any involvement by the Developer or VHA.

So you are saying that the POA, by not opposing the AAC's position, should get all the blame for nothing being done....and not the VHA or developer?

Help me out here and explain why you haven't taken the VHA to task....for not addressing it either?

Or is it because there is still animosity, that the AAC was formed as a result of the Lawsuit Settlement in early 2008 (in which the developer obviously lost)?

Originally Posted by jandbrare

"...biased against the POA." I disagree with the stand the POA has taken on this issue. I think the AAC should place a contract for an engineering study to define the scope and cost of the transformation of Paradise Lake.

Once again, I'm confused as to the authority the POA has over the AAC...and why the other owners association isn't commenting on it either.

Originally Posted by jandbrare

I am a member of the POA and believe they serve a useful purpose.

Since we haven't heard any comments about the VHA's role in this....how do you feel about them?



You mentioned above that you "don't have a dog in this fight," but it really seems that your intention is to lay the blame of the AAC's inaction...solely on the shoulders of the POA.

Please explain how I am wrong on that.


.

[jandbrare]

Originally Posted by OnTrack

OK, I think I'm now getting a clearer picture of what is really going on here.


Clarity comes from understanding the agenda (hidden or otherwise).

I believe you made yours pretty clear, when trying to dismiss the POA's position/opinion in your original post...

In other words, your first post seemed to try and destroy any credibility the POA has....solely because they may have confused which Water District is involved.



My question is, who "controls" the AAC? As I understand it, they are a separate entity. Or are you saying that the POA has the ability to direct the AAC's actions?



Where does the AAC get its funding?



So you are saying that the POA, by not opposing the AAC's position, should get all the blame for nothing being done....and not the VHA or developer?

Help me out here and explain why you haven't taken the VHA to task....for not addressing it either?

Or is it because there is still animosity, that the AAC was formed as a result of the Lawsuit Settlement in early 2008 (in which the developer obviously lost)?



Once again, I'm confused as to the authority the POA has over the AAC...and why the other owners association isn't commenting on it either.




Since we haven't heard any comments about the VHA's role in this....how do you feel about them?



You mentioned above that you "don't have a dog in this fight," but it really seems that your intention is to lay the blame of the AAC's inaction...solely on the shoulders of the POA.

Please explain how I am wrong on that.


.

1. "In other words, your first post seemed to try and destroy any credibility the POA has....solely because they may have confused which Water District is involved." Not at all. It was because their statement implied that they had insight as to how the Water District would respond, but they didn't even know which Water district was cognizant. They were implying that they had insight which they couldn't have had.
   
2. "My question is, who "controls" the AAC? As I understand it, they are a separate entity. Or are you saying that the POA has the ability to direct the AAC's actions?" Not at all. The POA is a separate organization.
   
3. "Where does the AAC get its funding?" As you probably know, the AAC gets its funding from the lawsuit the POA raised.
   
4. "So you are saying that the POA, by not opposing the AAC's position, should get all the blame for nothing being done....and not the VHA or developer?" How on earth did you deduce that? The VHA or Developer has not been involved, to my knowledge.
   
5. "Help me out here and explain why you haven't taken the VHA to task....for not addressing it either?" My post was directed to the POA response in their newsletter. I have no issue with the VHA or the Developer. My post was specifically directed to the POA Editorial response.
   
6. "Or is it because there is still animosity, that the AAC was formed as a result of the Lawsuit Settlement in early 2008 (in which the developer obviously lost)?" There, I was pretty sure you were asking questions to which you already knew the answer. Why?
   
7. "Since we haven't heard any comments about the VHA's role in this....how do you feel about them?" The VHA? They serve a purpose, too.
   
8. "You mentioned above that you "don't have a dog in this fight," but it really seems that your intention is to lay the blame of the AAC's inaction...solely on the shoulders of the POA." How could you possibly conclude that from what I've said. I think the POA has been duped, but the inaction is that of the AAC.

Thanks for your post. I hope my response has cleared up my purpose for posting.

Jerry Lester

[OnTrack]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

This post got my attention too.

POA mtg, Dr Anderson

I'm curious as to what this post has to do with the topic of the thread, except maybe to pile on the POA.

.