[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by senior citizen

Very well said. Intelligent succinct post.

And, there are some who are much older than 55 (or the younger set in their 40's)

These elders are content with a simple existence, pursuing their own artistic endeavors and probably NOT interested in dancing in the squares or frequenting the pubs (nice word for bars)....or picking up dates.

Not everyone needs to have a "new lifestyle"......just enjoy the life they've already made for themselves and their families.

Plus, some with the million dollar budgets are actually frugal....or they never would have amassed the wealth they do have. Different strokes for different folks........some prefer the simple life. Would that mean they should not live in THE VILLAGES?

We found THE VILLAGES very very very attractive to look at and we enjoyed the way their "zoning" achieved that look of beauty, not to mention we truly appreciated all of the "services" which are convenient to every village location. Can't top the location of various daily "needs".

We are not used to the density, however, the way it was laid out, probably no need to even venture into other areas.........unless one wanted to.

Truly a great thanks should go to the developer........one of a kind community, that's for sure. However, as my other post of earlier does mention, there are larger homes on larger properties outside of The Villages.......so one has to weigh the apples vs. the oranges.

[Bogie Shooter]

Originally Posted by buzzy

I think this issue is a lot more complicated than people are seeing it, and the OP may be justifiably concerned. The differences between the old and new sections are not so much the quality of homes and amenities, but differences in demographics. Let�s assume, just for illustration, that most folks retire at around age 62. So the population north of 441 would be in their 90�s, north of 466 in their 80�s, between 466 and 466a would be in their 70�s, and south of 466a would be in their 60�s. Now, when all the new homes are bought, only resales will be available. As the oldest population expires, the bulk of the resales will be in the northern villages. On the other hand, the bulk of the new retirees will be baby boomers in their 60�s. So, are these new retirees, say over the next decade, going to be happy moving into older homes that are surrounded by people 20-30 years older? And, if they choose to pass on The Villages for that reason, what will happen to all those homes for sale in the older sections?

I have seen this, on a much smaller scale, in our south FL condo. When the last survivor passes on, the heirs dump the unit for half its value. The next owners are either young divorcees, or landlords, who do not give a hoot about maintaining the place. When we finally retired, we ended up being the youngest retirees, in our mid 60�s. Thank goodness that we discovered The Villages.

Now, you could argue that it can�t happen here, and I hope that it�s true. But elements of this scenario are almost unavoidable, over the long run.

So, the solution is?

[Bogie Shooter]

Originally Posted by PennBF

Has anyone considered when The Village's outgrow the population at some point in the future what will happen? How will the potential problems be handled when TV just gets too big? As an example the key government construction is based on the Developers appointments/controls. I don't think anyone questions this. There is little question that at some point there will be a greater demand for a more basic form of a Democratic government. You can see some of the problems starting to pop up. The historic entertainment practices have changed, (e.g. no support for a majority of parades, the entertainment at the squares has become less in talents.) It is also noted that landscaping is not as good as it was and there are a lot more weeds and uncut bushes, etc).It does not take a lot to observe these changes. This may mean there are problems with the current growth and it will just get worse. The question is has anyone thought about this and what if anything is being done to put together plans for the future. Not planning for the future is really outrages as we will get into a reactive mod as opposed to a "proactive mod". Does anyone really think you can act the same way when the growth goes from 10,000 to over 100,000 without a
real form of a democracy? Just think this is something that should be debated.

I too don't understand "The Village's outgrow the population".
To better understand the form of government now and in the future, read the explanation as presented in the Village Voice September 2013 The Villages Voice.
Saying that the entertainment at the squares has become less talanted, is just an opinion/preference. How many talant evaluators actually live in TV? And of those how many come and post on TOTV?
As to noting uncut bushes and weeds.............I have read posts in the past of just such observations and were disputed by the next poster. Isn't it just a timing thing? I don't see uncut bushes and weeds growing uncontrolled.
You state we need "a real form of democracy". Could you explain that form and show how it would work...........better?

[Madelaine Amee]

Originally Posted by buzzy

I think this issue is a lot more complicated than people are seeing it, and the OP may be justifiably concerned. The differences between the old and new sections are not so much the quality of homes and amenities, but differences in demographics. Let�s assume, just for illustration, that most folks retire at around age 62. So the population north of 441 would be in their 90�s, north of 466 in their 80�s, between 466 and 466a would be in their 70�s, and south of 466a would be in their 60�s. Now, when all the new homes are bought, only resales will be available. As the oldest population expires, the bulk of the resales will be in the northern villages. On the other hand, the bulk of the new retirees will be baby boomers in their 60�s. So, are these new retirees, say over the next decade, going to be happy moving into older homes that are surrounded by people 20-30 years older? And, if they choose to pass on The Villages for that reason, what will happen to all those homes for sale in the older sections?

I have seen this, on a much smaller scale, in our south FL condo. When the last survivor passes on, the heirs dump the unit for half its value. The next owners are either young divorcees, or landlords, who do not give a hoot about maintaining the place. When we finally retired, we ended up being the youngest retirees, in our mid 60�s. Thank goodness that we discovered The Villages.

Now, you could argue that it can�t happen here, and I hope that it�s true. But elements of this scenario are almost unavoidable, over the long run.

I see things in a very black/white way, and I see no validity in your comments. You are comparing a community of this size to a condo in South Florida - cannot possibly be a viable comparison. IMHO you would be better off equating our situation here with the residential areas we probably all moved from, where people moved out of their homes to retire or downsize, or they passed on, and new younger people moved into the neighborhood. The new young people moving into our older homes brought modern ideas with them and updated our homes.

The first home we purchased right after getting married was in a suburb of Boston and needed updating, I had a very elderly neighbor on one side and a 60+ neighbor on the other, over time the older residents moved out and young people bought in, and when we were ready to retire a very young couple purchased our home. It's the continuation of life and community, without which communities would cease to exist.

[buzzy]

Originally Posted by Madelaine Amee

I see things in a very black/white way, and I see no validity in your comments. You are comparing a community of this size to a condo in South Florida - cannot possibly be a viable comparison. IMHO you would be better off equating our situation here with the residential areas we probably all moved from, where people moved out of their homes to retire or downsize, or they passed on, and new younger people moved into the neighborhood. The new young people moving into our older homes brought modern ideas with them and updated our homes.

The first home we purchased right after getting married was in a suburb of Boston and needed updating, I had a very elderly neighbor on one side and a 60+ neighbor on the other, over time the older residents moved out and young people bought in, and when we were ready to retire a very young couple purchased our home. It's the continuation of life and community, without which communities would cease to exist.

Perhaps I should have left out the condo example. Your example is equally unsuitable. Young people are not moving into over 55 retirement communities. I am only suggesting that there could be a subtle long-term shift in the population which could have a negative effect on the lifestyle.

[PennBF]

I can only state what I believe but I can't help you understand it. The biggest dangers are denial's and not caring. Historically that has always been the dangers of loss and failures. It is interesting how many go to denial or rationalize why it should just be ignored as someone else will handle it and/or it will go away. Most of us are 60+ and just want to kick back and enjoy ourselves and let the next ones handle the potential problems. In the current responses you can see that attitude in the majority of them. With luck and a little care most may make it to the final call and not have to think or worry about it. How do you look at some of the bushes that are now not trimmed until they look shabby, or look at the weeds growing where they never use to grow, or take your chairs to the squares to see the parades only to find out they are not there, etc. There are only a few ways to psychologically handle this. Either accept mediocrity, lower ones standards, denial, + others that don't quickly come to mind. If you say none of this is true you may be in denial, if you say it isn't that bad you may be accepting mediocrity or lowering standards.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by PennBF

I can only state what I believe but I can't help you understand it. The biggest dangers are denial's and not caring. Historically that has always been the dangers of loss and failures. It is interesting how many go to denial or rationalize why it should just be ignored as someone else will handle it and/or it will go away. Most of us are 60+ and just want to kick back and
enjoy ourselves and let the next ones handle the potential problems. In the current responses you can see that attitude in the majority of them. With luck and a little care most may make it to the final call and not have to think or worry about it.
How do you look at some of the bushes that are now not trimmed until they look shabby, or look at the weeds growing where they never use to grow,I look at it as the fast growing season with all of the rain right now.
or take your chairs to the squares to see the parades only to find out they are not there, etc. There are only a few ways to psychologically handle this. We had a poll on here about parades and the posters on this forum who may or may not represent the populace did not miss the parades by a majority.
Either accept mediocrity, lower ones standards, denial, + others that don't
quickly come to mind. If you say none of this is true you may be in denial,
if you say it isn't that bad you may be accepting mediocrity or lowering standards.

Penn.

If we accepted every one of the things you are worrying about as gospel, there is STILL not a danged thing we can do about it.

We can meet, we can organize, we can discuss, we can cuss, we can vent. We are not going to make the developers tell us what they are doing, or plan to do and believe me, if I were them, I would keep my cards close to my vest too. We all are retired and we most of us have been successful, we are confident that we know how things should be done.

We have too many wannabe chiefs and not enough politically correct followers.

If it ain't broke, WHY worry about fixing it?

Between now and the worried about downhill turn, many may be having huge personal changes in our lives. We may meet with flood, disaster, winds, locusts, or plagues. And many may be moving to the village of Heavenly.

What exactly do you think is the way to fix what you are worried about? If YOU were the ultimate decision maker in The Villages and had a magic wand, what exactly would you do? Hire more trimmers? Hire a parade planning and presentation company? Would you have an HOA that ran things with representatives from each street?

[Madelaine Amee]

Originally Posted by buzzy

Perhaps I should have left out the condo example. Your example is equally unsuitable. Young people are not moving into over 55 retirement communities. I am only suggesting that there could be a subtle long-term shift in the population which could have a negative effect on the lifestyle.

Young people are indeed moving into TV. We have a 46 year old in our neighborhood and to me, that's young enough to keep a community going.

[njbchbum]

pennbf -
what is wrong with 'accepting mediocrity or lowering standards'? do you think that everyone must consistently strive for perfection or at the least - more than mediocrity?

[jannd228]

I think the OP is trying to say what happens when TV is “all built out”? I understand it is a 55 Plus Community, but I assume many have heard of “straw buyers”, people who purchase a home on paper but are not the actual owners. I am not sure what FL is like but here on Cape Cod this happens all the time.

The OP maybe right, suppose the homes are sold at a lower price, or left vacant for long periods of time for whatever reason? Cape Cod is the REVERSE season of TV. Each neighborhood developed its own security system (not what you think) to let neighbors and law enforcement know about when an owner was not present for long periods of time. Yes there are home watch services, but what happens when real estate agents purchase homes for rental purposes only?

[PennBF]

It is interesting to note acceptance of mediocrity, denial and so what. Pretty standard fare. Even in one case the person did not want a democracy. Now that is thinking out of the box. It appears that outside of the POA there is not much interest in protecting the status quo. I did the statistics and I think I have a good chance of beating the loss of services and values.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by PennBF

It is interesting to note acceptance of mediocrity, denial and so what. Pretty standard fare. Even in one case the person did not want a democracy. Now that is thinking out of the box. It appears that outside of the POA there is not much interest in protecting the status quo. I did the statistics and I think I have a good chance of beating the loss of services and values.

Could you explain this post? What is mediocre? What is becoming mediocre? Who is in denial. This place is MUCH more efficiently run than any place I have EVER seen.

I ask you again, WHAT would you change and how EXACTLY would you change it?

[buzzy]

Our biggest problem is apathy, but nobody cares.

[kittygilchrist]

I just got here and have been thru a period of extreme angst for personal reasons. I'm letting go of as much worry about what is not happening as I can....
Kitty "what me worry" in Gilchrist..
Now is good...

[Golfingnut]

This thread is silly. We live in paradise and some worry about nothing. Keep in mind that after build out ther will be more money for improvement than we have now. Someone help me understand why anyone would live here with all the impending doom looming over us. I believe any doom will hapen to the rest of the country a few days before it hits The Villages.
Geeeeeeeeezzzzzzzz