njbchbum,
Quote:
i question the applicabilty of the nar report:
1] it is from 2010 - what is the actual date of the statistics despite its publication date?
2] it reflects nation-wide data - aren't such statistics significantly different from the sales in the villages? after all, how many of us are relocating due to employment? based on many forum posts, i am of the opinion that real estate sales in the villages is considerably more unique that the market 'beyond the bubble'.
|
I can't answer your questions
Quote:
|
you posted, "Each of Districts 1-5 will have the choice of ignoring the deed restriction or enforcing it." so am i correct in assuming that the bottom line to riling up all of the concerned realtors and villagers is that nothing has changed and each of the districts will still be allowed to govern themselves through the wishes/wants/needs of their residents; and that the villagers who do not live in the impacted cdds and the developer will not have any impact on their decisions?
|
Seems so.
Quote:
|
what i have not yet seen is the resolution to the developer's action to eliminate all real estate signage effective june 15th. are the impacted cdds still permitted to display real estate for sale signs until such time as they hold a meeting/vote on the matter or are they still strangled by the developer's edict?
|
I have not seen any real estate signs outside of villas north of 466 in some time. According to Janet Tutt at the meeting on Monday, notices are being given to any resident who displays a sign on their property asking them to remove the sign. I have not actually seen one of the notices, so I don't know what it says.
I favor the restriction on real estate signs for aesthetic reasons, and having learned that I actually signed a covenant (I didn't know until all the hub bub.), I am completely content to comply with it. I'm not interested in getting into an argument about whether a home owner ought to have a "right" to put up a sign or whether the NAR report applies to The Villages.
District 5 has never allowed real estate signs and the District 5 supervisors present at the meeting on Monday were unanimously in favor of continuing their compliance with the deed restriction that prohibits signs. Their response reinforces my conviction, and I am hopeful that my District 3 supervisors will vote to comply and I hope that all other Districts north of 466 do likewise.