Quote:
Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby
There was a brouhaha a couple years back about a resident who gained custody of their young grandchild (or grandchildren). Exceptions were made, the Developer signed off on it. There have been other exceptions made. And, as long as exceptions have been made, there will continue to be exceptions, until - eventually - the exception will become the rule.
|
To me, there is a difference between a situation where a resident gains custody of a grandchild and allowing a family with children to purchase in the Villages. This would also be the difference between tolerating a case-by-case exception to the restrictions and not enforcing the restrictions.
Yes I know, when you see the same child come out of the same house on day 31 that is a violation of the deed restrictions and is certainly a case where the restrictions are not being enforced. But has that child really been there for a year or are they in a temporary emergency living situation while searching for a better solution? While the Developer is not enforcing the restrictions to the letter, are they maybe enforcing the spirit of the restrictions in a compassionate way?
Traveling 57mph is absolutely violating the 55mph speed limit, no question about it. Having a child in the home on day 31 is violating the restrictions, no question about it. But is traveling 57mph, perhaps when rushing an injured person to the hospital, really the same as traveling 85mph to get to the bar before happy hour is over? Is allowing temporary housing of a grandchild to avoid a placement in foster care really the same as not enforcing the restrictions and allowing a family to live in a home full time?
But to the question I asked originally, technically those are cases where the deed restrictions were not strictly enforced.