[njbchbum]

mikeod - you wrote:

First, the absence of complaints does not, in itself, mean everyone in the district agrees with not enforcing the restriction.
- but it does mean that no one in the district is concerned enough to make it an issue
Should the board have conducted a survey/vote to get the actual opinion of the residents?
- we don't know that they did not - they may have done a random sampling by phone and/or by asking residents in person; they were each elected to their positions, so they must know a lot of people they could ask
What about residents who bought because of the restrictions in the deed. Ignore them, too?
- is that not part of doing due diligence before one buys a property
Second, as stated previously, what other restriction is next to be ignored or not enforced?
- lawn ornaments, parking, noise after 10pm, yard maintenance by absent owners and yard sale signs
And what prevents that philosophy from being adopted by future boards without resident input since the precedent has been set.
- that ASSumes there was no resident input; and in these particular areas my ASSumption is that there has been lots of input over the course of 20+ years
Does not enforcing the restriction mean that if someone in the district complains, their complaint will be ignored? After all, the district has chosen to not enforce it. To me, it is a very slippery slope.
- that's a fair concern

my bigger concern is where does the developer come off enforcing something he should not be enforcing because he gave that responsibility to enforce to a board of supervisors. in my book he has forfeited his responsibility to even be involved in enforcement activity much less enforce deed restrictions. perhaps future villages areas can act to "protect" themselves by forfeiting their anticipated right to govern themselves and remain under the governance of the developer?