[Dorebea]

(Reposting from yesterday. I am new at posting items and it seems this originally ended up in the ‘non-villages’ section)

I am well aware of the pros / cons voiced by the ‘North vs South of 44’ constituents. I think everyone would agree though that what makes TV appealing regardless of where you live is the beauty of the area. Two recent events i think are threatening this and accentuating this divide: 1) creation of a separate PWAC for CDDs 12+, and 2 ) I read that CDD12 is now employing a special hearing master to review resident aesthetic related applications in lieu of ARC. A CDD1 supervisor voiced concern that this approach may give more emphasis to the legality of requests vs the aesthetic impact. I agree with him. Part of the uniqueness of TV is due to the rules to maintain visual consistency of the homes and villages. I see these two changes in particular (what can be changed per home and what / how the common areas will be maintained) as having a big impact on the overall community. Could TV be headed for a more formal split into two Villages (north & south)? What’s to stop changes in amenity fees between the two areas and potential additional fees for those from one area to use the amenities in the other?

How can one or. more CDDs decide to just do their own thing at the expense of the rest of the community? At a minimum the ARC replacement should require a approval from a majority of all CDD’s just as the PWAC split did. And …in both cases a process to enforce some level of overall consistency is needed.

Interested in your thoughts on this movement. Are you concerned?

[Garywt]

Originally Posted by Dorebea

(Reposting from yesterday. I am new at posting items and it seems this originally ended up in the ‘non-villages’ section)

I am well aware of the pros / cons voiced by the ‘North vs South of 44’ constituents. I think everyone would agree though that what makes TV appealing regardless of where you live is the beauty of the area. Two recent events i think are threatening this and accentuating this divide: 1) creation of a separate PWAC for CDDs 12+, and 2 ) I read that CDD12 is now employing a special hearing master to review resident aesthetic related applications in lieu of ARC. A CDD1 supervisor voiced concern that this approach may give more emphasis to the legality of requests vs the aesthetic impact. I agree with him. Part of the uniqueness of TV is due to the rules to maintain visual consistency of the homes and villages. I see these two changes in particular (what can be changed per home and what / how the common areas will be maintained) as having a big impact on the overall community. Could TV be headed for a more formal split into two Villages (north & south)? What’s to stop changes in amenity fees between the two areas and potential additional fees for those from one area to use the amenities in the other?

How can one or. more CDDs decide to just do their own thing at the expense of the rest of the community? At a minimum the ARC replacement should require a approval from a majority of all CDD’s just as the PWAC split did. And …in both cases a process to enforce some level of overall consistency is needed.

Interested in your thoughts on this movement. Are you concerned?

For the most part I don’t pay attention to all these different groups other than the one to covers my neighborhood. What one does or doesn’t do has nothing to do with me. As long as I can live in my house, drive my golf cart and go to the various centers, restaurants and shopping all is good with me. If the north and south as you call them is different then they are different. Does not change what I do day to day.

[Escape Artist]

Originally Posted by Dorebea

(Reposting from yesterday. I am new at posting items and it seems this originally ended up in the ‘non-villages’ section)

I am well aware of the pros / cons voiced by the ‘North vs South of 44’ constituents. I think everyone would agree though that what makes TV appealing regardless of where you live is the beauty of the area. Two recent events i think are threatening this and accentuating this divide: 1) creation of a separate PWAC for CDDs 12+, and 2 ) I read that CDD12 is now employing a special hearing master to review resident aesthetic related applications in lieu of ARC. A CDD1 supervisor voiced concern that this approach may give more emphasis to the legality of requests vs the aesthetic impact. I agree with him. Part of the uniqueness of TV is due to the rules to maintain visual consistency of the homes and villages. I see these two changes in particular (what can be changed per home and what / how the common areas will be maintained) as having a big impact on the overall community. Could TV be headed for a more formal split into two Villages (north & south)? What’s to stop changes in amenity fees between the two areas and potential additional fees for those from one area to use the amenities in the other?

How can one or. more CDDs decide to just do their own thing at the expense of the rest of the community? At a minimum the ARC replacement should require a approval from a majority of all CDD’s just as the PWAC split did. And …in both cases a process to enforce some level of overall consistency is needed.

Interested in your thoughts on this movement. Are you concerned?

It would help if you didn't use so many acronyms - PWAC, CDD1, CDD12 . It's confusing for us newbies.

Do you mean to say that one part of The Villages will have different rules and regulations than the other? And this might cause friction and animosity between residents living on either side of the Great Divide?

Ah, the eternal and emotionally charged battle between North and South (just don't erect any statues).

[Toymeister]

I see the establishment of two PWACs as a good thing. The areas and the buildings covered by the PWACs were built, and will be built, at different times.

Let me explain. The PWAC north of 44 is on average 13 (+/-) years old. The PWAC south of 44 hasn't reached its median age but it's likely it will be 2028. A spread of 20 years.

If something arises in the north PWAC that requires an expenditure from the PWAC, why should the areas with the newest facilities (lowest risk) pay for the older areas?

Let's look at this a different way. The PWAC's reserves (pile 'o cash) are accumulated when the facilities are new as not much breaks. Why should the newest areas miss this accumulation of reserves phase? Why would they almost immediately go into the spend phase by 'supporting' the older CDDs?

None of this is a us Vs. them argument, this is straight forward accounting and risk analysis.

[Dotneko]

Originally Posted by Toymeister

I see the establishment of two PWACs as a good thing. The areas and the buildings covered by the PWACs were built, and we be built, at different times.

Let me explain. The PWAC north of 44 is on average 13 (+/-) years old. The PWAC south of 44 hasn't reached its median age but it's likely it will be 2028. A spread of 20 years.

If something arises in the north PWAC that requires an expenditure from the PWAC, why should the areas with the newest facilities (lowest risk) pay for the older areas?

Isnt it like social security? We need new workers coming in to keep the benefits flowing to the oldsters? Kind of like a giant ponzi scheme?

[Toymeister]

Originally Posted by Dotneko

Isnt it like social security? We need new workers coming in to keep the benefits flowing to the oldsters? Kind of like a giant ponzi scheme?

Unlike social security the PWAC north of 44 has real cash reserves and a plan to maintain reserves.

Let's make this analysis a bit more personal.

What if your homeowners policy was not based on the age of your roof but the average age of your village roof's? Your CDD? Your PWAC?

If it was your PWAC, do you think the newest homeowners would agree with this risk rating or would they get a different insurance company?

[frose]

Rules here are outdated and inconsistent. They should be reviewed and updated.

[DAVES]

Originally Posted by Dorebea

(Reposting from yesterday. I am new at posting items and it seems this originally ended up in the ‘non-villages’ section)

I am well aware of the pros / cons voiced by the ‘North vs South of 44’ constituents. I think everyone would agree though that what makes TV appealing regardless of where you live is the beauty of the area. Two recent events i think are threatening this and accentuating this divide: 1) creation of a separate PWAC for CDDs 12+, and 2 ) I read that CDD12 is now employing a special hearing master to review resident aesthetic related applications in lieu of ARC. A CDD1 supervisor voiced concern that this approach may give more emphasis to the legality of requests vs the aesthetic impact. I agree with him. Part of the uniqueness of TV is due to the rules to maintain visual consistency of the homes and villages. I see these two changes in particular (what can be changed per home and what / how the common areas will be maintained) as having a big impact on the overall community. Could TV be headed for a more formal split into two Villages (north & south)? What’s to stop changes in amenity fees between the two areas and potential additional fees for those from one area to use the amenities in the other?

How can one or. more CDDs decide to just do their own thing at the expense of the rest of the community? At a minimum the ARC replacement should require a approval from a majority of all CDD’s just as the PWAC split did. And …in both cases a process to enforce some level of overall consistency is needed.

Interested in your thoughts on this movement. Are you concerned?

My view, you can choose to be happy or miserable anywhere. Some look at a lawn and see weeds. Others look at the same lawn and see how nice it looks.

[charlieo1126@gmail.com]

And after that nice Post I’m never coming back to this thread again because it’s going to go straight down the rabbit hole

[Kenswing]

Didn't I just read in the paper that at this time there will be no splitting into two PWAC's? Something about District 7 not voting..

[njbchbum]

Originally Posted by frose

Rules here are outdated and inconsistent. They should be reviewed and updated.

Which rules? How do you suggest they change? Will you be running for a position of authority that will allow you to change those rules or leave it to others to do?

[Dorebea]

Originally Posted by Toymeister

I

…Let's look at this a different way. The PWAC's reserves (pile 'o cash) are accumulated when the facilities are new as not much breaks. Why should the newest areas miss this accumulation of reserves phase? Why would they almost immediately go into the spend phase by 'supporting' the older CDDs?
.

Good point. What caught my eye more than the potential PWAC split is the change CDD12 made to replace their ARC approval process with the ‘special hearing master’. Overtime it seems that approach will affect visual consistency across villages. It also appears that these two changes are incremental steps down a slippery slope. The governing processes that are in place clearly have been effective in the growth and attraction of the community. My thought is all changes to the governing processes should require approval of all areas (as the PWAC split is) and not be made unilaterally by any one CDD.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by Kenswing

Didn't I just read in the paper that at this time there will be no splitting into two PWAC's? Something about District 7 not voting..

I read the same thing.

From what I can see on the districtgov.org site, District 12 already has a Special Magistrate for Architectural Review as of 1 October.

[vintageogauge]

I say build a wall and make them pay for it. I'm with Garywt on this. I will note my thoughts on rule changes, if the rules mentioned are deed restrictions it's pretty hard to change those, maybe change the enforcement policies but not the restrictions themselves.

[frose]

I would love to run for a position, however I will not be here that long.. I can't wait to get out, this place is awful.