Jackson Jambalaya

Wow. Hope the residents win this fight. Although it sounds like the fix is in on the zoning board.

A laundry place in Reunion? I've heard it all now.

Wow. Hope the residents win this fight. Although it sounds like the fix is in on the zoning board.

A laundry place in Reunion? I've heard it all now.

if i were a resident, i'd be looking for my torch and pitchfork.

"Just a swangin....."

This is so simple!!

Since the residents want to control how Reunion is developed, they just need to buy the remaining land from Nutt. What do you say "Housewives of Reunion"?
Get those checkbooks out!!!

So the homeowners who believed the story about the Reunion master plan when considering to purchase there should now bailout Nutt because he's gotten himself so over extended he can't make it to the other side of this bad economy? Nutt has screwed his own cash flow pooch and now the homeowners should bend over?

9:19 Isn't that what President Obama would ask us to do?

Some times you feel like a Nutt...

Ms. Sharp's letter is a great affirmation of the old addage: "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."

Did they ever figure out what cause the fire to David's home in Jackson?

The indigent residents of Reunion need a local laundromat because they don't have room for washing machines in those tiny houses?

No. The laundromat is for the Obama guests who will be living a half-dozen to a single wide when the construction phase is in progress.

Don't be mislead by the deception from a few folks, especially K Sharp.

11:24 - ad hominem attacks don't go very far in this crowd. If you can state facts that contradict her lengthy post then please present them as coherently as she has.

If you just want to make personal attacks with no facts, STFU.

Whatever happened to the promised clubhouse?

If David Nutt would buy out Houston Nutt the Reunion problem would go away.

It is George Bush's fault.

1:29 Property values would go up if developer built the clubhouse as promised.

How do you find out about the swinger's clubs out there? My bodacious wife is anxious.

One word....








Shuckers.

Sad to see the state of "bodacious wives" of Jacktown; man proud of that must be ready for the grave.

Man, I went to the kid-boob-fest at Madison Station elementary, what a tremendous showing of faux-tits and spray tans that showed up from Reunion. I went home and had some Pineapple.

The PUD met with the PEZ and TMZ has all the TNA details. The were some really hot POA's there.

The only question here is what is the over/under that in 5 years the Reunion golf course is facing the same drama as the Northbay? It all started out as cow pastures, let the cows back out there to graze that wonderful grass.

Anony 9:19, as a concerned Reunion resident I will be very much obliged if you will back up this statement “Nutt (has) gotten himself so over extended he can't make it to the other side of this bad economy,” with fact(s).

It’s public information Nutt only gets $17,000,000.00 a year from the tobacco settlement so if you can’t back up your loud internet mouth, well this may be one of the dumbest statements ever made on JJ, which would be saying a lot.

"It’s public information Nutt only gets $17,000,000.00 a year from the tobacco settlement"

ONLY 17M? Reunion aside, there is something so messed up about that statement.

... well this may be one of the dumbest statements ever made on JJ, which would be saying a lot.

And yet you still read JJ.

7:47, thanks for the reminder. Which begs the question: Why the rush for rezoning????

Anony 10:52, therein lies one of the ironies of this situation. How many folks in Northbay subdivision do you believe would love to trade the current ownership of that golf course for David Nutt? How about some of the other subdivisions in Madison County where folks are stuck with houses in developments having financial problems? Yet, while the last few years have been the worst for the real estate market in decades, Reunion has not deteriorated one bit.

All of this hoopla is fascinating. As if anybody with as much as a pea brain believes the City of Madison will allow any re-zoning that would negatively impact property values in Reunion. Living within the City of Madison, as long as we are blessed with Mayor Hawkins Butler, protects us from such non-sense.

Regarding the commercial zoning of 463 and Reunion Parkway, if anyone wants to get a good laugh and find out how ridiculous the opposition is, drive out to this corner, then drive from 463, and from Reunion Parkway, and see how far it is to the closest home in Reunion. Then, try and picture in your mind who in the hell would want a home on either of these corners.

Anony 8:19, well tell us what is "so messed up about that statement."

Anony 8:19, yes I read JJ because the info we get here is top notch. As for the moronic posts of some, any successful blog will attract a certain # of fruitcake posters.

7:47 wants us to believe that Nutt is bathing in annual free ca$h flow to the tune of millions and yet the damn clubhouse still isn't built.

If success is measured by fruitcakes then the Clarion-Ledger online should be considered as nothing less than wildly successful.

As a resident of Reunion, who has attended all the informational meetings pertaining to his PUD change, I'm not convinced this is all Bad.  Talking to builders who have approximately $1mm investment in their personal homes, they are supportive, and view this with a different light than K. Sharp.  (they have more to lose than I do)  Now, I am not naïve enough to know a builder in this economy would love to build something that sells, however I doubt they want to destroy the value of their personal homes. 

As far as commercial development is concerned, anyone who believes a laundry mat is coming really needs to get real and get a life.  Really, the next thing you will hear is a pawn shop and a pay day lender is coming too. These are simply scare tactics.   A nice deli/gas station, dry cleaner drop-off, restaurant,  maybe. 

Let's face it, commercial development is coming this way.  the parcels in consideration for commercial development would be terrible residential lots anyways. Look at the other newer development along 463.  No residential lots at the corners or intersections of 463.  Needless to say, if and when Reunion interchange gets completed the traffic count will be astounding and no one would want to sit on their back deck and watch thousands of cars drive by all hours of the day and night.

Further, the parcel of land on the Northeast corner of Gluckstadt rd and Hwy 463 is zoned commercial and is in the COUNTY.  i.e. little to no covenants, oversight, or restrictions. This would be a ripe location for a pawn shop or a pay day lender with a little "campaign" contribution to an ethical supervisor......

Repeating, I am a resident of Reunion and if commercial development is coming this way, I would rather have it in the city limits with Mayor Mary's hand on top of what and who is coming in as opposed to having the wild, gun-slinging posse we call the Board of Supervisors overseeing the project.  This to me would be a supervisors next cash cow if they were to oversee this type of project.

Has anyone asked themselves why residential and commercial developments in Mississippi so often have problems?
It's not just golf courses and now this with Reunion.
Look at the conditions of the streets in Annadale. Some developments have had sewage problems or poor drainage.Some have spec homes that are so poorly built they don't hold up and later can't sell.
There are developments in other places that don't experience such problems.
Or has anyone wondered if in other states, a commercial developer can require the business to pay for building out the space and then get not just rent but 5% of monthly profits on top of the rent and if the rent per square foot is as consistent in cost?

Repeating, I am a resident of Reunion and if commercial development is coming this way, I would rather have it in the city limits with Mayor Mary's hand on top of what and who is coming in as opposed to having the wild, gun-slinging posse we call the Board of Supervisors overseeing the project.

If you feel as you are efforting to convince you do why aren't you advocating that this whole process wait for the Madison zoning to take over? You can't say on one hand you don't trust the county while on the other push to move forward right now. There's an interesting similarity to your comment and that of September 20, 2011 11:24 AM.

Having over 50 percent of the remaining homes built on 6000 sq. foot lots is my biggest concern as a long time resident. Also, even if commercial comes to the parkway, what is going to prevent the "unregulated" commercial development proceeding on Gluckstadt Rd. and 463. I don't know about everyone else but I do not like making decisions based on fear. All it seems the developer has communicated is "If we don't do it this way someone else will then watch out, or if we don't start selling these small homes/lots everything will stagnate and property values will go down.
I would also like to address the fact that builders who live in Reunion support the PUD amendment. Yes, a lot of them have high end homes in the neighborhood. Honestly most flip their houses every couple of years. They would certainly stand to make tremendous profits building scores of smaller spec homes with less re-sell risk which would more than offset the decline in property value their personal home would incur. What about those of us who are not builders though and who do not have a direct way to offset the decline in our properties value. The commercial development to me is a smoke screen to keep everyone distracted from the real issue which is the tiny square footage lots containing smaller houses than the majority of the existing homes in the neighborhood.

Well, I see that the past Reunion POA presidents have made an appearance. Let me ask the this: why won't you urge that consideration of this amended PUD be done under City ordinances, which require more open space and greater setbacks? That is the basis upon which the City convinced the courts that annexation was in our best interests--that is, to give us the benefit of superior City zoning ordinances. If this amendment is approved under the County zoning ordinances now, they will be grandfathered in and we will never, ever get the benefit of the superior City zoning ordinances when and if the City of Madison ever decides to adopt them.

"It’s public information Nutt only gets $17,000,000.00 a year from the tobacco settlement"

This is news to me - can anyone fill in the back story? Was this a Michael Moore kickback to a campaign contributor? It's impossible for me to see how anything at Reunion would decrease smoking by kids, which was the whole point of the tobacco settlement, wasn't it?

And re: the C-L and fruitcakes - hell, it's Christmas every day in their comments sections ;-)

If you're not happy with what the developer has built in Reunion, you can always leave. The few stirring this pot would not be missed.

Wow! Good luck Reunion residents! I would be more nervous about the small no lot line homes on small lots than the commercial developments. Mayor Mary will not allow anything too "shady" to be built on the commercial side.

What is hilarious to me is that most of these folks in Reunion are probably Republicans but want to regulate every last thing with other people's property. Oh save us Mayor Mary! Hahahaha.

Zoning is a crock. Wise up.

10:01, I'm very happy with what the developer has done so far. I just don't think it's fair to pay City taxes and have inferior County zoning applied to the changes that are proposed. If all of the residents who agree with me leave, there won't be many of you left.

where does one find a pineapple...

i am neither a resident of Reunion nor a citizen of Madison the City, nor a Jackson resident. I am not a hater of any of the above, and no hidden agendas. so looking at this from an "arms-length" standpoint, it seems to me that a lot of this could be resolved if the residents, HOA, developers etc. would work on better messaging and communications. In today's world, you cannot just "hope" to shove things through. Social media will zap you every time. I hope the Reunion developers wake up and smell the coffee and start developing an "informed" plan of action. None of this is good publicity for Madison or the Development.

So, 10:52, you think it would be 'fair' to change the rules on the developer half way through a development. The developer already agreed to higher minimum square footages and fewer total number of lots than under the existing PUD. What more do you want?

11:25, it is the developer who is trying to change the PUD. What more do I want? I want the City of Madison to live up to it's obligation to give us the benefit of City zoning ordinances that we have been paying taxes for these past 41 months. If the developer doesn't want to comply with City zoning, he can proceed to develop under the current PUD. He is certainly entitled to do that, and I wish him well, but I'm not going to sit idly by and have my quality of life destroyed by his sock puppets in Reunion, and that obviously includes you and the POA Board, current and past.

9:18, Wrong information. It's 9,000 sq ft lots.
11:42, Changing the complexion of an already successful development would do more harm than good. This would directly affect property values. Common sense musr prevail. The Mayor isn't going to allow anything to be built that will adversely effect the residents or the City of Madison.

12:10 you are mistaken. The minimum new lot square footage is 6000 square feet. The proposed PUD changes would have over 1000 new lots/houses built to these minimums. Under Madison the City ordinances, this type of construction would be impossible due to the City's more stringent set back requirements. Also, why is everyone putting such faith in Mayor Mary. Don't get me wrong, I think she has done a fantastic job but she won't, unfortunately, be our Mayor forever. As residents we need ironclad ordinance protections that will govern the neighborhood development well into the future. We are only 10 years into a 25 year project.

LOL @10:39 . Sounds like a certain (R)Alderwoman running around Clinton wanting to form an HOA. I guess that new THIRTY TWO page city sign ordinance just isn't enough to protect little ole Clinton. So much for republicans wanting smaller government.

Anon@957 am
Tobacco case was Mike Moore v. American Tobacco, plenty of $ to go around.

Attys involved in MS case were:
Scruggs, Millette, Lawson, Bozeman & Dent; Barrett Law Office; Pittman, Germany, Roberts & Welsh; Paul T. Benton; Fredrick B. Clark; Lewis & Lewis; Cumbest, Cumbest, Hunter & McCormick; McTeer & Associates; Ness, Motley, Loadholt, Richardson & Poole, Charleston, S.C.; Oswald and Reed; Rhoden, Lacy, Downey & Colbert. Keep in mind, $ got doled out to others, even non attorneys (Scruggs deposition when asked by P. L. Blake was getting $10 million then a % of tobacco fees calculated at $468,450 per quarter.)

An old report on the master settlement agreement stated-Since 1998, a panel has awarded some $12 billion in fees to attys who represented the states. In MS that was $1.4 billion to Scruggs and Ness Motley. 17 states listed, totaling over $8 Billion, with the same names over and over: Scruggs, Ness Motley, Lieff Cabraser, Milberg Weiss.

Nov 2009-Feds busted folks who had illegal cigarettes in the state. US Attys did press release about prosecuting them. From Case Details: “Both groups of Participating Manufacturers must pay under the MSA [master settlement agreement] approximately $5.00 per carton of cigarettes manufactured in or imported into the United States to the National Association of Attorneys General.” So $5 for every single carton of cigarettes goes to the Attorney General group NAAG.

During prosecution of Paul Minor etal, one of the newspapers reported, “Moore delivered Scruggs to the back door of the federal courthouse when he testified before the federal grand jury that indicted Minor two months later.” Moore, whose vehicle was spotted by the media, said he just happened to be on his way to work…

Supreme Court decision in Partnership case (2006-SA-01088). If you really want to know how Moore set up the Partnership organization after the tobacco settlement, read that Supreme Court opinion. It appears that there was $20 Million a year getting transferred from the tobacco settlement funds to Moore’s Partnership. The lawsuit had Mike Moore and his Partnership and Jim Hood on one side while Governor, Medicaid, and the Health Care Trust Fund (HCTF)were on the other side. (continued)

(continued, part 2)
Moore, Hood, and Partnership said the court shouldn’t allow Governor, Medicaid or the HCTF to get involved in the $20 million being transferred—it could ‘possibly jeopardize’ the settlement agreement. Justices said-uh, no, they are intervening to get the settlement agreement enforced according to its terms; settlement agreement would not be jeopardized, it would be enforced. Side note, Moore was the CEO or whatever of the Partnership.

“This Settlement Agreement, approved by the chancery court, provided, inter alia, that (1) $170,000,000 initially would be paid into the State Treasury; and (2) an additional $61,818,000 would be paid for a 24-month pilot program focusing on the reduction of tobacco use by our state's youth. In June 1998, the duly-created, private, non-profit Partnership properly received the $61.8 million for the twenty-four-month pilot program. The Settlement Agreement also provided for various sums thereafter to be paid annually by the tobacco companies into the State Treasury. It was for the receipt of these subsequent annual payments from the tobacco defendants that the Legislature in 1999 statutorily created the Mississippi Health Care Trust Fund within the State Treasury”

“Inasmuch as the state of Mississippi is now recovering such tobacco funds as a result of monies spent by the Division of Medicaid, we find somewhat disingenuous the Partnership's argument that the Division of Medicaid has no authority to intervene because MHCTF [Mississippi Health Care Trust Fund] is purportedly beyond the scope of the Division of Medicaid's statutory authority. Therefore, we hold that the Division of Medicaid had authority to intervene, especially since the theory and purpose of the litigation was to replace money appropriated to and expended by the Division of Medicaid”

“Since settlement monies were received on an annual basis by the Partnership, the State was continuing to suffer a loss each year because the payment of $20 million was disbursed, not to the state treasury, but to a private entity, namely the Partnership”

“The Settlement Agreement never restricted $20 million of the tobacco installment payments for the program which is currently run by the Partnership. In fact, the granting of $20 million to the Partnership each year explicitly contradicts the Settlement Agreement, which directs that the annual installment payments are to be paid into a special account for the benefit of the State of Mississippi. In addition, according to the very terms of the Settlement Agreement, the pilot program was set to ‘last for a 24-month period.’ The continued funding of the initial pilot program through the Partnership occurred only after an ex parte proceeding attended by the chancellor and the then-Attorney General”

“The $20 million given annually to the Partnership has never been appropriated. Instead, the chancery court entered the December 2000, order on an ex parte motion by the Attorney General. However, the chancery court is not authorized by law to make such a modification. The tobacco installment payments are monies that unquestionably belong to the state of Mississippi, and all of these payments, including the annual payments which were diverted to the Partnership, should have been placed in the Health Care Trust Fund”

“Consistent with this opinion, the Partnership for a Healthy Mississippi shall forthwith transfer to the Health Care Trust Fund all funds derived from the chancery court orders of December 22, 2000, January 17, 2002, November 20, 2003, and December 21, 2004, as well as any other chancery court order which otherwise diverted any of the tobacco settlement funds into the Partnership account, contrary to the judicially approved Settlement Agreement”

Somebody has gotten a little side tracked with an "agenda" I am sure ......

If you join the country club do you get an automatic membership in the swangers club?

That's two heaping, stinking, off-topic mounds of bovine barnyard excreta that don't answer my question, unless you are suggesting Mike Moore and Jim Hood are silent partners in developing Reunion.

Can anyone answer the original question - does any tobacco settlement money have anything to do with Reunion, as was alleged many comments ago?

Anony 6:13, on 9/20/11 at 9:19 AM someone (you???) posted: “So the homeowners who believed the story about the Reunion master plan when considering to purchase there should now bailout Nutt because he's gotten himself so over extended he can't make it to the other side of this bad economy? Nutt has screwed his own cash flow pooch and now the homeowners should bend over?"

The tobacco settlement money, $17,000,000.00 annually to Nutt, means he ain’t as Anony 9:19 stated: “so over extended he can't make it to the other side of this bad economy.” It means he ain’t over extended at all. It means Reunion residents need to be thankful they are in a development with a developer who can weather the bad times, unlike some of the other Madison developments with developers who are broker than the Ten Commandments!!!

WAKE The F___ UP!!!

You don't know 6:57. Pull your HEAD out.

The pro-Nutt crowd (har, har, har)...meh, the pro-developer crowd still cannot/will not answer one salient question:

WHY THE RUSH????

52 reunion comments with NO pics of the "puppies"?

8:09, they can't answer that question because they would have to admit that they are rushing to get this approved under County zoning ordinances, because if City ordinances apply to the requested change, they will have to have more open space (nearly 300 acres more) and greater setbacks, which means fewer houses. Also, spot zoning is illegal, so if commercial is not a permitted land use on the PUD, they will have a hard time satisfying the criteria for rezoning residential property to commercial.

Ironically, all the BS about the PUD and zoning is only going to turn potential buyers off further. Who the hell wants to buy into that shatstorm? Especially at 300K and up. Way too many properties in that price range, in that area, to choose from without the uncertainy of whether or not a laundromat will spring up uninvited. Or maybe one of those check-cashing places. Wouldn't that look awesome in downtown Reunion? Cash to Payday! First check free! There's no way, no how would I deal with that cast of characters in trying to reach a satisfactory resolution.

Nobody answers “WHY THE RUSH” because it’s a K3 question.

But keep bringing it and the Laundromat, check cashing places, etc. up; comments like these prove a real point.

Will Landrum be the next Burwell? Will Tim Johnson be hired as a Reunion consultant? Has Mary Hawkins hired a mercenary team to dynamite cell towers west of the city? Has Robert Graham secretely installed a recording and tracking device under Stuart Irby's car?

Will KF let some of my posts slip through?

To guy or gal asking what tobacco settlement has to do with reunion: David Nutt helped finance the tobacco litigation in its early stages. According to the Curtis Wilkie book, he put in 2.5 million in exchange for a fairly hefty percentage. If my recollection serves his total cut at the end of the day was over 400 million to be paid out over 25-30 years. Some have said when you factor in all the cuts Dickie promised to people along the way, Nutt will actually haul in more than Dickie or anyone else. Hope this helps. -Russ Latino

According to the land roll, Nutt just completed a massive "improvement" to his estate last year. I find it interesting that the developer does not live in the high-end neighborhood he is bent on changing...quickly.

But the builders do live there.

Interesting quandary, indeed.

Still doesn't get what the tobacco settlement has to do with any of this ........ The bottom line is a development should look out for their homeowners not their bottom line.

As an Ingleside homeowner backed up to the Reunion land, I have an interest in what goes on in Reunion and how it gets built out. The main point is that this proposed amendment to Reunion's Planned Unit Development (PUD) would essentially allow the more liberal Madison County zoning rules that were in place prior to annexation to be in force, regardless of Madison the City's more restrictive zoning. While it is likely true that Mayor Mary would try to enforce the stricter standards on any development out here, it may not be possible if the amendment is approved.

It is not what we THINK would occur (all the scary commercial ventures folks have been suggesting might happen, plus the zero lot-line scenario; versus the very reasonable track record that the developers have apparantly followed to date), but what COULD occur legally if the amendment is approved by the Madison Planning and Zoning Commission. We need to think about what anyone would be ALLOWED to do, NOT what they SAY they will do or what we THINK they will do. Ultimately it will come down to the existing law, the written contracts, and rulings of the various regulatory boards.

The way to have the tighter City of Madison zoning rules in place instead of the looser County ones is to deny the proposed amendment to the Reunion PUD on October 10. Allow the City the 2-3 months of time to finalize the adoption of City zoning rules for the newly-annexed areas like Reunion.

--JLINMS39

Anony 9:35, if you aren’t the knucklehead who made the ridiculous unsubstantiated allegation above, and have not read this entire thread, you not understanding what the tobacco settlement has to do with Reunion, well, is understandable.

Some Fruit Cake poster posted above that the developer, David Nutt, is “so over extended he can't make it to the other side of this bad economy.” This is an unsubstantiated lie.

To make this simple stupid let us just forget about the $17 million per year Nutt draws from the tobacco settlement, and put it in another, more simple way: The Developer, Nutt, is richer that 4 foot up a Bull’s Ass and has the ability to weather the bad times, i. e. the worst real estate market since the Great Depression, unlike some of the other Madison developments with Developer’s who are broker than the Ten Commandments; and this is a good thing!

I am a resident and would like to read the PUD for myself. Does anyone know where to find a copy?

Some Fruit Cake poster posted above that the developer, David Nutt, is “so over extended he can't make it to the other side of this bad economy.” This is an unsubstantiated lie.

How do YOU know? You are nothing more than another anonymous nobody posting an opinion.

Gotta love those ambulance chasers!Excuse me... plaintiff's attorneys. Now where is my pineapple?

All of the stats about small lots,less rules etc is all wrong. Go read the document filed. The city has NO minimum square footage on lots in a PUD. The city minimum house is 2200 sf. Reunion would be 2400. Also only around 130 lots on the 6000 sf minimum lot size. For an area that is to be the cream of the crop educated in Madison, I do not think anyone can read, much less understand zoning. You should make your elected officials tell you which is stricter. The proposed reunion pud or the cities pud zonning that is on record. Con kingfish, research and tell the truth to them

Anon. 10:47 How can you be so wrong! If you would bother to read what was submitted you will see over 1000 proposed lots in the new PUD with a MINIMUM size of 6000 square feet. That is 1/7th of an acre. The City's set back ordinances for the front of a property is 50 ft. In Reunion's new PUD request it is only 20 feet. That is the only way you could shoehorn in a 2400 sq ft house on a zero lot line, postage stamp size lot. Reunion knows this and shame on you for not knowing it too. How could anybody who has taken the time to get the facts straight support the new PUD request unless they have a hidden agenda ( builder, commercial nursing home developer, low level politician looking to gain favor with a deep pocketed sugar daddy) The PUD is a DUD!

No, 12:47, you are wrong. The new PUD specifies 130 new lots in 6,000 sq ft minimum areas, not "over 1,000" as you keep repeating. 

Despite you paranoid delusions about your neighbors' motives, people support the developer's new PUD, including the current neighborhood reps on the POA and ALL of the past POA Presidents, because it is a continuation of what has already been built in Reunion. Requiring something new or different from the developer half-way through would be unfair and inconsistent with the existing development. 

Your demand for 50 foot setback minimums in a master planned neighborhood full of 20 foot set back areas is ridiculous, and your demand that the developer set aside 390 acres (!) of the remaining undeveloped land as green space is just plain silly. 

Also, your decision to air your grievances and misrepresentations on an internet blog is dumb and dangerous to all of your neighbors. Again, if you are unhappy with what has been built in your neighborhood, or if you are just hell-bent on being divisive, please LEAVE!

6:40 thank you for making the PUD is a DUD's point. You are right, requiring something new and different would be unfair and inconsistent with what homeowners purchased when they bought into a RESIDENTIAL development, not a commercially zoned neighborhood with gas stations, laundry mat, doughnut shops whatever. I find it VERY interesting that our current POA Board PRESIDENT's hubby sits on the BOARD and is a Vice President of the Mississippi Association of Affordable Housing Providers and now they want to put 1235 LOTS of 6000-9000 square foot minimums in the amended PUD. Hmmmm..... The next thing you know we'll find out he builds Nursing Homes. Wait,... Surprise, Surprise... He does! I encourage everyone to dig a little deeper here. We are!

As long as you are anonymous 6:40 your opinion is the same as any other anonymous opinion. If you don't care for the opinions others are sharing here you are free not to read them. Authoritarian admonishments from an anonymous nobody are laughable. See you in court.

You pot stirrers may want to be careful with your anonymous internet character attacks, based purely on speculation and innuendo, on good, respected neighborhood leaders, especially given your own colorful history in the neighborhood.

The current POA Board and past POA presidents have done such a poor job that the HOME OWNERS are having to form a home owners association so that they can be heard. The POA Board represents the views of only a handful of the people who actually live here. I don't know why they support this PUD amendment. Stupidity or corruption, who know?

Don't worry. The lawsuit will stop all of this dead in its tracks until Madison zoning kicks in. There is an abundance of expert legal firepower available right now. Face it, Reunion homeowners have the money to hire the best. The rush, for all intents and purposes, will be headed off at the pass. Keep your powder dry.

7:48. Admonish if you will..BTW, didn't see your name either..So, we should laugh at your comments, also?

Great HOA meeting last night. It was pure American Democracy at work. Let the people know the facts and allow us to make our own decisions, not have something shoved down our throats. By the way who was that guy that showed his ^&*^ last night? How dare he say well the "Leaders" of the neighborhood support the PUD so we should. What arrogance. The loud mouth couldn't even put two cohesive thoughts together and the fat boy with him... what a country bumpkin. It was pretty obvious they came looking for a fight and left with their tails between their legs. The only they accomplished was to prove the POA Past and Present didn't study the facts or they would never support this ridiculous PUD thing.

Wow!

I think most people are overlooking something in this fight; attorneys. How many current Reunion property owners are attorneys? A healthy 40%. They will sue until Jesus comes if the developer tries to pull this bs.