Enough of our banter about the Presidential election. Most have made up their minds and all the back-and-forth here isn't accomplishing much other than to get people agitated. How about some discussion of a ballot proposal that does have the potential to effect many of us in the very short term?

As in 2004, Sumter County voters are being asked how they want their county commissioners elected. "Reverse One Sumter," a political committee, has gotten enough signatures to place the question on the general-election ballot in November. The Reverse One Sumter committee is largely comprised of residents that live outside The Villages and several of the former county commissioners who were replaced in the 2004 elections.

Voting "yes" on the ballot proposal will mean that voters choose only the commissioner in their district. Voting "no" will mean that voters can choose all 5 county commissioners.

County Commissioner Doug Gilpin from The Villages has voiced his support of the current system. “As a county commissioner, I serve the whole county, not just part of it,” Gilpin said during Tuesday’s regular commission meeting. “I enjoy being accountable to the whole county and work for all the taxpayers. Why in the world would anybody want to return to the bad, old days of higher taxes, poor service and pork-barrel politics?”

However John Campbell, Reverse One Sumter spokesman, thinks elections can be improved. Voting on only one commissioner gives citizens in smaller districts “more ability to deal with that commissioner,” Campbell said. After the initial passage of One Sumter in 2004, elections brought new people to the commission to replace commissioners who had served in that position for years. The property tax rate has gone down annually, Lake Panasoffkee residents witnessed canal dredging activities (which were previously not done for "financial reasons"), the county is in the midst of jail and office expansion projects, many new road improvements have been completed or are underway, and Villages residents are starting to see a more efficient and equal return use of their taxes. Gilpin says that this is can all be credited to the change four years ago to One Sumter. Campbell disagrees. In reference to the dropping tax rate, he says, “It’s dropped because of the growth.”

Pay attention to this ballot proposal, folks. Many years ago there was a tea party somewhere up north having to do with taxation without representation. If the Sumter County good old boys are successful in overturning One Sumter, we'll being going back in that direction--with the good old boys grabbing and spending our tax dollars a long way away from The Villages.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Enough of our banter about the Presidential election. Most have made up their minds and all the back-and-forth here isn;t accomplishing much other tha n to get people agitated. How about some discussion of a ballot proposal that does have the potential to effect many of us in the very short term?

As in 2004, Sumter County voters are being asked how they want their county commissioners elected. "Reverse One Sumter," a political committee, has gotten enough signatures to place the question on the general-election ballot in November. The Reverse One Sumter committee is largely comprised of residents that live outside The Villages and several of the former county commissioners who were replaced in the 2004 elections.

Voting "yes" on the ballot proposal will mean that voters choose only the commissioner in their district. Voting "no" will mean that voters can choose all 5 county commissioners.

County Commissioner Doug Gilpin from The Villages has voiced his support of the current system. “As a county commissioner, I serve the whole county, not just part of it,” Gilpin said during Tuesday’s regular commission meeting. “I enjoy being accountable to the whole county and work for all the taxpayers. Why in the world would anybody want to return to the bad, old days of higher taxes, poor service and pork-barrel politics?”

However John Campbell, Reverse One Sumter spokesman, thinks elections can be improved. Voting on only one commissioner gives those citizens “more ability to deal with that commissioner,” Campbell said. After the initial passage of One Sumter in 2004, elections brought new people to the commission to replace commissioners who had served in that position for years. The property tax rate has gone down annually, Lake Panasoffkee residents witnessed canal dredging activities (which were previously not done for "financial reasons"), the county is in the midst of jail and office expansion projects, and Villages residents are starting to see a more efficient and equal return on their taxes. Gilpin says that this is can all be credited to the change four years ago to One Sumter. Campbell disagrees. In reference to the dropping tax rate, he says, “It’s dropped because of the growth.”

Pay attention to this ballot proposal, folks. Many years ago there was a tea party somewhere up north having to do with taxation without representation. If the Sumter County good old boys are successful in overturning One Sumter, we'll being going back in that direction--with the good old boys grabbing and spending our tax dollars a long way away from The Villages.

A "NO" vote causes more accountability and cuts "district pork" trades and alliances. That's how I'm voting.

I agree with your thoughts on this proposal Kahuna. I would like to see some open discussion on all the proposals and hope we could keep civil on this and the others on the ballot.

Union, I doubt you will get any dissenters on this one..if they live in TV. We will all be voting "NO".

I think we are all in agreement on voting NO. But nothing would surprise me.

Kahuna has it exactly right. I have heard a concern by some Villagers more engaged than most of us, in Sumter politics, that the wording of the proposal may confuse some voters who want to maintain One Sumter. They may believe a yes vote will preserve One Sumter. That is not the case.

The ballot question is significantly confusing enough to siphon off votes from Villagers who don't fully understand the question. It is important enough to make sure our friends and neighbors understand a NO vote is necessary.

The advocates for reversal can only win if:

A low voter turnout in the Villages occurs.

A number of Villagers misread the question.

VOTE NO

Finnaly we all agree VOTE NO

I know I'm an outsider here, and have no dog in this fight at all, but for the sake of healthy argument, in that book, Leisureville, this topic is discussed, and the prevailing opinion there is that "One Sumter" is bad......

Good for TV, but they paint the picture that TV is being a big bully that is usurping all the power in county politics, and the people in the county who live miles from TV have no voice any longer.

Politically, the book made TV look pretty bad.

As I said, I like all you good people and I will live miles from you all in Lake county...i'm just throwing it out for a healthy discussion so I can hear both sides....

Respectfully, Frank D.

I'm recalling a report from the first county board meeting after One Sumter resulted in the election of enough commissioners from TV to gain control of the board in 2004. I can't provide a reference, but here's what I recall.

When the board chairman, one of the old commissioners, asked for new business on the agenda, Doug Gilpin of TV introduced the issue of the county funding of fire departments. The facts (as I recall them) were that the county spent about $3 million funding the 28 separate fire departments in the county--one in TV and 27 others. TVFD got about $700,000 from the county, the other 27 got about $$2.3 million. When the sources of county tax revenues were considered, something a little less than 80% came from Villages taxpayers. So the "sources and uses" of who paid the taxes and who got the benefits were completely reversed. The Villages got back only a little more than one-third of the taxes we paid to the county.

But the story is better. It turns out that even with the underfunding, the public ratings of TV fire department by national agencies were among the best in the country, well above any other department in the county. And, the new Villages commissioners had done a study that the county could be properly protected with significantly fewer than 28 separate fire departments--I think the national guidelines for proper coverage suggested that something like seven properly-equipped and manned fire departments would provide adequate protection.

So, the new Villages commissioners offered a proposal that the 28 fire protection districts in the county be reduced to two--one for TV and another for the rest of the county. Further, the proposal was that funding of the two new districts come from the areas protected--we'll pay for ours, the rest of the county pays for theirs. After initial wailing and moaning by the good old boys, they had some discussion wherein one observed, "But with that plan, we'll have to shut down a great many fire departments." The Villages representatives replied..."Exactly."

Frankly, I don't know how all this ever turned out. The proposal might not have been passed. But I think a tone was set from the beginning that more fiscal discipline was needed in the county. Since then many public works projects have been completed and are underway and our real estate taxes have actually decreased fairly substantially two years in a row. Even with the rapid growth of TV and increased tax revenues, that never happened before One Sumter. From all that I have read and all that I can see when traveling around the county, this place is very well managed. Is The Villages viewed as the Evil Empire by old time residents? Sure. But when someone comes in and changes your bucolic farm and ranch community to the "big city", that's probably unavoidable. The increase in jobs and average income gets ignored, but that's probably to be expected, as well.

Hmmm, maybe we ought to send some of our commissioners to Washington. If we could keep the special interest lobbyists away from them, the One Sumter approach might work better there too.

K,

Yes, all of us should think carefully and evaluate the merits of 'One Sumter.'

However, using Doug Gilpin as a reliable spokesman for One Sumter should also be carefully 'thought through.' Gilpin arrived here from Michigan with no political experience or significant educational or business experience. He also arrived broke (as he stated) burdened 'in credit card debt.' He received a large home (with a small herd of buffalo in the back yard) and a (six figure) job from one of The Villages largest contractors. He then was supported with a phenominal six figure political election fund with multiple donations from TV contractors and employees. He then received heavy support in the TV media. He was elected with huge support from the One Sumter structured voting. I had 'concerns' as I saw this 'political process.'

Hope this will contribute to a continued dialogue here. Our site is one of (if not the only) the sites where we can dialogue 'respectfully' with each other as we make decisions which will impact the future of our community (home).

Originally Posted by GMONEY

Finnaly we all agree VOTE NO

Yes, because it effects us.

Things that make you go HHUUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

VK,

Good post. I knew you would have some good info. That was the reason I threw out the other viewpoint, so discussion would take place and people could understand WHY they should vote one way or another.

From an outsiders view, I see it as a classic example of the struggle between funds being spent by population density vs. funds spread out by square miles....something like that.

Even where I live here in NY, (for 1007 more days), I pay more in property taxes then some whole streets in the poorest parts of the city, a few miles away.....do I get my share?? Sometimes not.

Anyway...good discussion.

Frank D.