Amenity Fees and Recreation News

» Site Navigation
Home Page The Villages Maps The Villages Activities The Villages Clubs The Villages Book Healthcare Rentals Real Estate Section Classified Section The Villages Directory Home Improvement Site Guidelines Advertising Info Register Now Video Tutorials Frequently Asked Questions
» Newsletter Signup
» Premium Tower
» Advertisements
» Trending News
» Tower Sponsors




















» Premium Sponsors
» Banner Sponsors
» Advertisements
Closed Thread
Thread Tools
  #31  
Old 08-01-2019, 02:46 PM
OrangeBlossomBaby OrangeBlossomBaby is online now
Sage
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,334
Thanks: 4,069
Thanked 5,662 Times in 1,736 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bogie Shooter View Post
So, what is wrong with this? Does John Rohan know about this site??
Not all Villagers have internet access.
Some Villagers want a printed version for whatever reason, and that is not a printable version.
Some Villagers (even some here) don't even realize that it's available on the internet, and won't know to look for it there.

A printed, or at least printable, version should be made available to all Villagers who want it. I don't feel a printable/printed version should actually be printed, to every single household, because not "all Villagers" want it.
  #32  
Old 08-01-2019, 03:00 PM
pacjag pacjag is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 131
Thanks: 3
Thanked 93 Times in 29 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jazuela View Post
Not all Villagers have internet access.
Some Villagers want a printed version for whatever reason, and that is not a printable version.
Some Villagers (even some here) don't even realize that it's available on the internet, and won't know to look for it there.

A printed, or at least printable, version should be made available to all Villagers who want it. I don't feel a printable/printed version should actually be printed, to every single household, because not "all Villagers" want it.
Perhaps offering printed copies at the rec centers would be a good alternative.
  #33  
Old 08-01-2019, 03:05 PM
OrangeBlossomBaby OrangeBlossomBaby is online now
Sage
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,334
Thanks: 4,069
Thanked 5,662 Times in 1,736 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacjag View Post
Perhaps offering printed copies at the rec centers would be a good alternative.
They already do that. The main argument of this entire thread is that since some people like having this newsletter delivered to their house directly, that everyone should have it - and the cost of delivery to every house should be fully funded by the amenity fee.

The argument against that idea, is that only a small percentage of people who get it automatically, actually want it, and a large percentage is wasted. Wasted paper, wasted man-hours, wasted ink and natural resources to run the machines, and hundreds of thousands of dollars in amenity fees being tossed, unwanted, into the trash.

A suggestion to appease both sides of the argument, is to allow people who DO want it, to continue to get it - for an additional fee. And everyone else stops getting it, thus being ecologically more responsible adults, and saving amenity fee money that can be spent on other things.
  #34  
Old 08-01-2019, 03:48 PM
Bogie Shooter Bogie Shooter is offline
Sage
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 15,563
Thanks: 4
Thanked 2,273 Times in 1,030 Posts
Default

In addition to the full weekly rec news with todays paper...…
On Page two of the Lifestyles Section was the schedule of todays activities at all rec centers.
There may be just too much hand holding going on with these schedules.
__________________
The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it. George Orwell.
“Only truth and transparency can guarantee freedom”, John McCain
  #35  
Old 08-01-2019, 04:08 PM
OrangeBlossomBaby OrangeBlossomBaby is online now
Sage
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,334
Thanks: 4,069
Thanked 5,662 Times in 1,736 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bogie Shooter View Post
In addition to the full weekly rec news with todays paper...…
On Page two of the Lifestyles Section was the schedule of todays activities at all rec centers.
There may be just too much hand holding going on with these schedules.
I agree. Cutting back significantly is a great idea. Also a great idea is to promote the existing online option, AND implementing a PDF or other printable online version.

As Goldnutwing reminded us, the Daily Sun is a Villages-corporation-owned entity. The rec news bulletins are owned by the CDDs and paid for by the amenities. It begs to wonder how much the Corporation is charging the CDDs to carry their bulletin in their newspaper.
  #36  
Old 08-01-2019, 07:51 PM
Marathon Man Marathon Man is offline
Platinum member
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,709
Thanks: 2
Thanked 1,443 Times in 533 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jazuela View Post
Nitpicking and totally obfuscating the point.

The point, is that there will be "a savings" to subscription-only. Whatever that savings is, whether $50 or $50,000 or $350,000 - can be used on other things.

Currently they cannot be used on other things, because they're busy being used on waste (meaning - the savings portion of the expense - is being used on printing and distributing something to people who don't actually want it).
But here is my point. There are a lot of people who do want delivery. They have said as much. If eliminating delivery results in a small saving of funds, then why remove the service from those who want it. So far, I have not seen that number. I have only seen current costs, and some assumptions that the savings would be large.
  #37  
Old 08-01-2019, 08:44 PM
Moderator's Avatar
Moderator Moderator is offline
TOTV Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 22,451
Thanks: 22
Thanked 615 Times in 218 Posts
Default

Several off topic posts have been removed. The topic of this thread is the use of amenity fee funds to publish a print copy of the Recreation News weekly for distribution through the Daily Sun. Further off topic posts will be removed.

Moderator
  #38  
Old 08-01-2019, 09:09 PM
eyc234 eyc234 is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 289
Thanks: 373
Thanked 318 Times in 109 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jazuela View Post
They already do that. The main argument of this entire thread is that since some people like having this newsletter delivered to their house directly, that everyone should have it - and the cost of delivery to every house should be fully funded by the amenity fee.

The argument against that idea, is that only a small percentage of people who get it automatically, actually want it, and a large percentage is wasted. Wasted paper, wasted man-hours, wasted ink and natural resources to run the machines, and hundreds of thousands of dollars in amenity fees being tossed, unwanted, into the trash.

A suggestion to appease both sides of the argument, is to allow people who DO want it, to continue to get it - for an additional fee. And everyone else stops getting it, thus being ecologically more responsible adults, and saving amenity fee money that can be spent on other things.

By this logic the trash cans should be removed from the postal areas due to the amount of waste that people put in them from mail and not recycling the mail at home. There are a lot of things that are wasted by a lot of people in TV. There should be a survey to determine how many people want to receive it, use it vs do not. Then offer alternatives to be voted on, not forced upon everyone by what could be a minority of people. Adding charges would be just as hard as giving discounts because I do not have a dog, so why should I pay for a dog park.

Also need hard, real numbers and facts about what the savings or lack of, would be for each alternative provided. Do not know the answer but unsubstantiated hyperbole is for sure not the answer.

Just my humble opinion, for what it is worth.
  #39  
Old 08-01-2019, 09:24 PM
OrangeBlossomBaby OrangeBlossomBaby is online now
Sage
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,334
Thanks: 4,069
Thanked 5,662 Times in 1,736 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eyc234 View Post
By this logic the trash cans should be removed from the postal areas due to the amount of waste that people put in them from mail and not recycling the mail at home. There are a lot of things that are wasted by a lot of people in TV. There should be a survey to determine how many people want to receive it, use it vs do not. Then offer alternatives to be voted on, not forced upon everyone by what could be a minority of people. Adding charges would be just as hard as giving discounts because I do not have a dog, so why should I pay for a dog park.

Also need hard, real numbers and facts about what the savings or lack of, would be for each alternative provided. Do not know the answer but unsubstantiated hyperbole is for sure not the answer.

Just my humble opinion, for what it is worth.
The creation of a park is not a recurring yearly expense. Once it's there, it just gets maintained.

Printing a newspaper incurs recurring expenses. Once it's printed, it gets discarded, and then printed again a week later.

There will be *A* savings. How much of a savings? I don't know. But it will be money saved that can be used for other things.

As someone said - just because something has been done the same way for years, doesn't mean it can't be improved and do it even better in the future. It doesn't mean that old ideas for improvement that were not addressed, are useless ideas.

It's a matter of saving money AND of being less wasteful with our natural resources. Why would you feel we SHOULD waste all the paper from people who just toss it in the trash, when there are ways to reduce that waste, that would actually save money in the process?

Why are people so dead set against that? I'm really confused and perplexed about that.
  #40  
Old 08-05-2019, 03:03 PM
eyc234 eyc234 is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 289
Thanks: 373
Thanked 318 Times in 109 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jazuela View Post
The creation of a park is not a recurring yearly expense. Once it's there, it just gets maintained.

Printing a newspaper incurs recurring expenses. Once it's printed, it gets discarded, and then printed again a week later.

There will be *A* savings. How much of a savings? I don't know. But it will be money saved that can be used for other things.

As someone said - just because something has been done the same way for years, doesn't mean it can't be improved and do it even better in the future. It doesn't mean that old ideas for improvement that were not addressed, are useless ideas.

It's a matter of saving money AND of being less wasteful with our natural resources. Why would you feel we SHOULD waste all the paper from people who just toss it in the trash, when there are ways to reduce that waste, that would actually save money in the process?

Why are people so dead set against that? I'm really confused and perplexed about that.
You must have skipped the part where I said get the true facts and see what people want in the majority. It has been said multiple times that most people do not want the Rec News, where does all this data reside so it can be submitted to the powers that be for a cause to effect this change. I really do not care how it is done as long as it is done well with savings that are worth it now and in the future. None of the supposed savings everyone keeps coming up with, has been confirmed or for that matter truly quantified. If it is truly a huge savings it will not be hard to get people to get behind it. We currently have two electronic examples that I would dare say you could not get even a consensus that they are well done and people would want to pay for them. If you tell people that the savings is $10,000, how much agreement do you think that will garner.

A park is a one time cost to develop but the ongoing maintenance is not by any stretch of the imagination free or at a fixed rate. As far as change, should it not be for the better and not just for change sake? If you want to attack the waste of natural resources & waste how about eliminating grass for lawns that waste water and fill up the land fill with grass clippings. Not to mention the chemicals that are poured on them.

I agree the Rec News process could be changed for the better but have not heard anything factual, except the $800,000 to print it, that shows positive movement forward.
Closed Thread

Tags
database, news, online, recreation, year

Thread Tools

You are viewing a new design of the TOTV site. Click here to revert to the old version.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:27 PM.