If you read the two articles entitled, "VCCDD Favors Advisory Board" and "Freedom Pointe Granted Access To Village Amenities" in the February 8, 2007, edition of The Villages Daily Sun, you might think it was an amicable meeting with the VCCDD Supervisors reaching out to do the right thing.  THIS WAS FAR FROM THE CASE. 

This Bulletin article summarizes what really transpired at that VCCDD meeting.

First, the Board decided to ignore the wishes of a majority of residents who wanted decision-making authority for recreation amenity decisions. 

Then, although many residents were concerned about aggravating the already overcrowded situation with our golf courses and swimming pools, the VCCDD decided to allow Freedom Pointe residents to access Village amenities. 

Let's look closely at the Straw Vote issue:

Mr. Moyer, a member of the VCCDD Board and a Vice President in the developer’s corporation, said that although the VCCDD was not going to be able to proceed with the Resident Authority Board (RAB), he felt we should proceed with a Resident Advisory Council since the original intent of the VCCDD in proposing the authority was to allow resident decision-making on the amenity programs offered by the VCCDD. 

Bill Garner, a resident, recommended to the Board that we continue as originally outlined by Mr. Moyer and let CDD1 and CDD2 join in later.  He asked the Board to select someone from CDD1 that was not on the CDD1 Board. 

Don Deakin, a resident, asked how would Mr. Moyer's proposed Resident Advisory Council be any different from what is going on now.  Specifically, he wanted to know what authority or recourse would we and the Resident Advisory Council have if the VCCDD does not agree with the recommendations of the Resident Advisory Council.  None of the VCCDD Board members tried to answer this question.

Brian Evans, a resident, spoke in favor of continuing with the discussions even if a residential CDD did not want to participate.

Irving Yedwab, a resident and attorney, said that he has never seen a situation in a democracy where one small part of that democracy can overrule the wishes of the majority, such as is being done here. 

Numerous suggestions were made to proceed without the CDD1 and/or CDD2 Boards and select a resident from each district to proceed with the development of the proposed Interlocal Agreement.  Elaine Dreidame, Jim Murphy and Joe Gorman, all residents, each suggested alternate ways that the VCCDD might be able to proceed to develop a governing body to fulfill the wishes of the majority of Village residents in the Straw Vote. 

However, 45 minutes later, when audience comments were cut off, Mr.  Moyer expressed his appreciation of all the suggestions, and said they would consider them.  Then he moved to have staff proceed with developing the framework for the Resident Advisory Council.

It was obvious that the supervisors’ minds were already made up and that the pleas of the residents were going to be ignored.

After questions from a resident about the status of the proposed Interlocal Agreement, Mr. Moyer stated that his intent was perfectly clear, that he was not moving on through an Authority Board, but was moving on in a similar direction (The Advisory Council).

At this point there were more comments from the audience accusing The Village government (VCCDD) of not being a democracy -- that the numerous requests for further attempts to modify as needed and move forward with the pursuit of making the straw ballot issue a reality fell on deaf ears.

The Board unanimously passed Mr. Moyer's motion to pursue the development of a Resident Advisory Council, thus leaving the Interlocal Agreement concept dead in the water EVEN THOUGH a majority of residents said let's do it -- let's make the change. 

As disenfranchised as residents were over the straw ballot issue, it got worse when the Freedom Pointe proposal was addressed. 

It was obvious from the start that approval from the VCCDD was a DONE DEAL. 

Mr. Todd Castner from the American Retirement Corporation (ARC) said that they purchased the Freedom Pointe site in July of 2005 and that during that year they worked with the developer to confirm the availability of The Villages amenities to Freedom Pointe.  He stressed that they had conversations and understandings and thought that the issue regarding the amenities was settled.

And the truth of the matter is that it was settled – through talks with the developer of The Villages.  But not with the VCCDD.

We all know that the developer controls the VCCDD board and that the Supervisors will rubber stamp anything the developer wants.  Thus, it was a DONE DEAL.

The Freedom Pointe brochure which has been distributed for almost three months specifically states that residents will be entitled to the Villages amenities and that the cost for that will be included in their monthly maintenance fee.  (That had all been worked out with the developer prior to ARC coming before the Board.)

Additionally, and there are two more major issues here with the Freedom Pointe proposal:

First, the impact on the services that were promised to the residents was not a factor in the developer’s original deal with ARC.  Residents expressed their concerns about giving 700 more Freedom Pointe residents -- and their guests -- use of our executive golf courses, swimming pools, card rooms, etc., all of which are already overcrowded.  It is difficult to get tee times now and many of the pools near residents are already at capacity. 

Second, the proposal came before the VCCDD without any study or research, and the supervisors were ready to act on it.  Residents urged the Board to table the decision and do some research on the impact this would have on the residents.  Research may indicate that in order to accommodate another 700 residents and their guests that the developer needs to provide us with another executive golf course and swimming pool. 

Other issues addressed were the concern about the size of the facility -- seven stories, the fact that only one board member is a resident (and he works full time so they really are not able to look at the situation from the position of the residents), and the fact that the developer owns other property and what is to keep him from building another facility and giving away more of our amenity services and use of our recreational assets. 

The only reaction to residents by the VCCDD Board was from Mr. Wise who responded that this project was going to provide a minimum of $388,000 annually of amenity fee income to the VCCDD without any additional costs.  He stated that this is a large amount of money the District can use, saying that just from a financial perspective this is a super deal for the VCCDD. 

Jeers - To the Deed Compliance Office of The Villages for its inconsistent and sometimes irritating enforcement of covenants and restrictions which are often vague, inconsistent, and confusing.  The idea of the covenants and restrictions is a good way to maintain our community and property values according to given standards.  The problem is the way in which those rules are promulgated to residents and enforced, or not enforced in an even-handed way.

Jeers - To people who leave a phone message for a callback, then afterwards tie up their phone line for hours with their dial-up internet service provider.

Cheers - To the Rialto Movie Theater for their new and comfortable seats that are starting to replace those uncomfortable and squeaky seats in many of the theater rooms.  Thanks for making the investment in the comfort of your customers.

Jeers - We said it once before – we’ll say it again: Please don’t allow fertilizer granules to sit on the street after you fertilize your lawn.  These eventually get washed into our ponds causing undesirable algae growth.  Please, either blow or sweep the granules back onto your lawn.

Cheers - To the golf division for the generally great conditions of the golf courses.  Now, if we could just get golfers to repair their ball marks on the greens, we would be in even better shape.

The POA now has the updated Sexual Offender Database 3-ring binder available for review at the monthly meetings.  If you have not been able to review this recently, it may be worthwhile for you to do so now.

The updated binder shows sections for The Villages (20 individuals), Lady Lake (21), Oxford (5), and Summerfield (40).

May I suggest that in light of the supervisors of CDD1 and CDD2 taking it upon themselves to trash the democratic practice of majority rule, that you post the names, businesses and phone numbers of those who voted to deny us the right to have input on how our money is spent so that we may thank them for saving us from ourselves.  I'm sure that we can think of many ways to show our appreciation.

Eugene Hildreth

I read all the comments on the straw vote and wondered if any of us have all the facts or have considered all the ramifications of both sides of the issue. 

For instance, I read people who say they "would rather deal with the devil they know," or there are those of us who have come from other areas and seen the difficulties when developers leave and we want to avoid that. 

But.... Doesn't it seem negative to assume that what I don't know contains a devilish aspect.  Struggling to build a community is difficult, but maybe it would be to our financial advantage.  Does it not seem that the developer is essentially pulling out already?  Doesn't the fact that the developer is selling off so much of the amenities that we all came here for proof that they are divesting themselves of the responsibilities that are in the sold out areas?  Do we have any reason to believe that will not continue?

So isn't the real question this.  When the developer completes his mission (to build and develop) and divests himself of restaurants, weight rooms, recreation centers, pools, and golf courses:  Isn't the question then who will control the amenities fees that we all are required to pay and what will we be receiving for that fee?

A previous issue of the Bulletin commented on the Spaghetti Dinner of the VHA. Some took this as a criticism of the charitable objectives of the dinner.  The POA’s comments were not intended as a criticism of the VHA’s effort which serves a worthwhile charitable purpose.  Actually, the VHA should be commended for its charitable work.

The story was intended to point out that the VHA seems to favor distractions like the Spaghetti Dinner when it should be focusing its energies and attention on Residents' Rights issues like those pursued by the POA.

Let’s consider what the VHA didn’t do recently that it should have done in its position as a homeowners’ organization.

The VHA did not support the POA on its call for the developer to pay for the sinkhole repair on the Nancy Lopez golf course rather than trying to stick residents with the $165,000 repair bill.

The VHA did not support the POA on its call for the Central Districts to rescind the oppressive Activity Policy which tried to restrict the Free Speech and Free Assembly Constitutional Rights of residents.

The VHA did not take a Resident’s Rights position on the Straw Vote and support residents in their efforts to take over VCCDD voting authority north of highway 466.

These are three very important Residents’ Rights issues – about which the VHA said nothing in support of residents. 

It is nice and commendable that the VHA engages in its charitable work – we just wish it made it a priority to support the Rights of Residents here in our hometown.  It can do both – it is not an either/or situation. 

We just don’t understand why the VHA doesn’t speak out in favor of Residents’ Rights issues.  Guess they are just too busy cooking spaghetti....

*******************************

On another topic, the VHA Board is planning to meet after its March general membership meeting in a closed-door session to pick the VHA officers for the next year.

Members will not be able to question the candidates selected by the Board.  Members will not be told beforehand of the views and future plans of the candidates.  Members will not be able to vote for the candidates.  Members will have to wait and be told afterwards who the Board has selected to run the organization for the next year.

It’s too bad the Board doesn’t trust the membership to select the next officers of the VHA.

This is our neighborhood, not the contractors’ or the developer’s.  We want respect for our community and its residents from the developer, the contractors and the workers.  These are issues about community respect.

We don’t want full construction dumpsters sitting around, especially without a tarp, because of the trash blown around by the wind, and because they are such an unnecessary eyesore.  When they’re full, move ‘em out. 

We residents are getting tired of picking up the lunch plates, cups, sandwich wrappers, cans and bottles, as well as house wrap, roof shingle wrap, sheetrock pieces and other construction debris that blows into our yards and into the retention ponds from the work sites. 

Just because there is ongoing construction does not mean that the whole area should be a giant dump site. 

Contractors need to make sure that all dumpsters are tarped and removed as soon as they’re full.

Any time there is a construction site next to a residential area there should always be a plastic wind screen put up to prevent the dirt, sand and trash from blowing around and cluttering our neighborhoods. 

We residents abide by many deed restrictions that are intended to help neighbors respect each other.  The contractors also need to respect us.  We are their bread and butter and their customers.

The workers need to act responsibly to clean up after themselves, both at meal time and when handling materials & supplies. 

Contractors need to make sure the work sites are cleaned up every day before the workers leave the sites.  It wouldn’t take much: just one man assigned to do 15 minutes of clean up at the end of each work day to make the site look better. 

There need to be consequences if the rules are not followed.  It’s not that difficult!

Road crews also need to respect the community by cleaning up after themselves.  It is a sign of sloppy, shoddy workmanship to leave asphalt debris dropping off the tailgate as they drive down the street.  These piles and drips of asphalt leave bumpy, unsightly roadways for years to come. 

The solution is simply to clean off the back of the truck after dumping the load.  Now these bumps will have to be scraped off of the pavement.  The contractor should have the drivers come back and clean up their mess.  We want neat, clean streets.  We  pay top dollar to live here in a neat and clean community

Not only the developer and contractors need to have respect; we also need to respect ourselves and each other.  This includes dog walkers picking up after their dogs.