TV Restriction Violations

[getdul981]

My wife and I will be moving to TV within the next year and we have a question. (Sorry Tony if this isn't the correct place)

If someone is in violation of one of the restrictions how does TV go about enforcing it? For example, if someone's grand-kid comes to stay 25 days in June and then comes back in August for another 25 days, how is someone to know if it's the same one or a sibling or another or does anyone pay any attention to the 30 days per year rule.

[zcaveman]

If you are in violation of a deed restriction,, you will get a note on your front door the first time. If you are see the guy putting the note on and are quick you can ask him about the violation, If you don't heed the note, you will get a registered letter and you can call and ask what them to explain the violation and then plead ignorance and have them come out and explain it to you.

North of 466, they are going to allow the CDDs to actual fine the homeowners for violations. Somewhere in the www.districtgov.org website there is a page with the fines.

To answer your question, there are many neighbors that keep tabs on the visiting children and will call and complain if they recognize a child that has been here more than 30 days - even in multiple visits. I suspect that if the children are well mannered and do not make much noise, then you might get away with it. Just don't brag or advertise it.

[Talk Host]

I wonder what kind of teeth the CDD has to collect fines. If the finee refuses to pay, what can they do? Specially if this authority was granted after the deed restrictions were signed by homeowners. Seems like they can't institute a new policy after the fact.

[The Great Fumar]

I'm a little surprised that someone hasn't jumped all over this ,,,,,
When your sweet little darling grandchild comes for a visit you have to get him (or her) a visitors pass if they want to go to the pools or Rec Centers..
They are only allowed to visit an accumulation of thirty days a given year.
This is recorded on the Rec Computer and if you exceed that limit it will refuse to issue a pass.......
You can sneak him (or her) in but they won't have a pass to visit the POOLS or Rec Centers......Not to mention the Golf Courses...........

This is my understanding and I suppose its possible that I could be wrong , I was once before in 1969 but later found out they really did go to the Moon.

Fumar

[getdul981]

Thanks a bunch for your replies. We are happy to hear this. We don't have any grand-kids ourselves, but don't really have any objections to others, but rules are rules.

[The Great Fumar]

I wonder what kind of teeth the CDD has to collect fines. If the finee refuses to pay, what can they do? Specially if this authority was granted after the deed restrictions were signed by homeowners. Seems like they can't institute a new policy after the fact.

They can attach fines to your amenities fees , And if you don't pay , You don't play........
Hows that for teeth ,

[BobKat1]

If, when I was a kid, someone would have told me I was being sent to a place like The Villages for longer than a week I'd a hid in my neighbors attic. I can't imagine why any kid would want to spend a month of their summer away from their peers/friends/pals... especially in a community of +55 year olds.

You're probably on to something.....

[mulligan]

Oh great and beneficent fumar, I too was once thought to be incorrect, but mrs mulligan told me I could be right just that one time. That being said, I believe Florida statute allows the county to apply a lien for uncollected fines. One more case when I might be wrong.

[bluedog103]

I'm a little surprised that someone hasn't jumped all over this ,,,,,
When your sweet little darling grandchild comes for a visit you have to get him (or her) a visitors pass if they want to go to the pools or Rec Centers..
They are only allowed to visit an accumulation of thirty days a given year.
This is recorded on the Rec Computer and if you exceed that limit it will refuse to issue a pass.......
You can sneak him (or her) in but they won't have a pass to visit the POOLS or Rec Centers......Not to mention the Golf Courses...........

This is my understanding and I suppose its possible that I could be wrong , I was once before in 1969 but later found out they really did go to the Moon.

Fumar

How do the authorities know it's the same kid. Fingerprints? DNA testing?

[getdul981]

The grand kids was just an example. There are other rules and regulations in place that have to be adhered to. I didn't mean to start up a case for CSI.

[laryb]

We have one grandchild in Florida and one on the way. We will probably be the ones visiting them since there will be a newborn. I truly hope that I'm not in a neighborhood that the neighbors are counting the amount of visits we have from family or watching for things to report to "the authorities". Personally, if my neighbor had a child visiting several times, the visits weren't excessive and the child was well behaved and wasn't bothering anyone or interupting the TV lifestyle, I'm going to ignore it. Now if that child were living there, then that child has to leave.

[getdul981]

But that's one reason we want to move to TV and if one rule is ignored for one reason or another, then it won't be long before the whole comcept fails. Parents and grandparents aren't the best judge of how well behaved their children/grandchildren are.

[laryb]

But that's one reason we want to move to TV and if one rule is ignored for one reason or another, then it won't be long before the whole comcept fails. Parents and grandparents aren't the best judge of how well behaved their children/grandchildren are.
Greg, I agree. What I mean is, I don't want to be next to someone who will take things to the extreme. Like the one watching with binoculars and has counted a child at someones house 31 days in the last twelve months. Personally, I will abide by all the restrictions to the letter. If someone near me is violating a rule, I will talk to that person about it before I report them, and would hope they would do the same. As I said, I do agree with you and am going to TV for the same reasons. And I will have no problem reporting someone who can't be reasoned with.:thumbup:

[getdul981]

OK good enough.

[BUC]

I guess we're done talking about dogs peeing areas and now we're concerned if a kid stays 31 days instead of 30. Hey maybe after 30 days we should put them in a fenced area out back ( I forgot NO fences) O well as long as noone breaks a rule, COMRAD

[redwitch]

I do know of a couple of kids living in TV in direct violation of the covenants. In one instance, the father died and the mother is serving in Iraq. The neighbors are well aware of the grandchild living there. They also know the circumstances. The grandparents are aware they are in violation but everyone felt it was in the best interests of all for the child to stay here. The grandparents actually spoke to each of their neighbors to explain the situation and all are in agreement that the child can stay for two years. The child is quiet and well-behaved and the darling of the block. Pool use is a non-issue -- they have their own pool. Neighbors fight to babysit. I doubt they would be as willing if it were a permanent situation but it is temporary and the child is truly adorable.

In the other situation that I know of, the grandparents were not as forthright and it is creating major issues. Odds are the grandparents will be selling their home and moving away -- they have custody of their grandson, who has some major issues. No one has reported them but the neighbors are pretty unhappy.

There are other rules broken in TV -- some deliberate, some completely unknowingly. I got a notice because my Queen Palm was trimmed on a Saturday but pick up wasn't until Wednesday. I thought it was okay to leave the fronds in the driveway. Apparently not. This was one time I ignored the notice since I knew it would be taken care of before anything could be done.

I have a neighbor working on his antique car in the driveway -- a definite no-no. He'll continue doing so until Community Watch stops it. He cleans up every afternoon and if the car isn't going to be worked on the following day, it goes into the garage. Most of us in this development won't report him. I'm sure one snowbird will if she comes down before the work is done.

The point is rules are broken and, personally, I think things should be taken on a case-by-case basis. A lot will depend on the neighbors as to what happens. Some things (unkempt lawns/weeds/dirty exterior) will be reported by CW when noticed. Some things will only come to light if someone complains. Some things will be discovered by TV because of ID cards, etc., especially now that everyone over the age of 1 must have some sort of card to use any TV facility.

[Talk Host]

I'm curious. Can children in their 30s and 40s live with their parents in The Villages? I know of one young fellow (maybe 35) in Chatham who lives with his parents. He wanders the streets after dark. While he appears to be harmless, people have been startled to see him plodding down the road at all hours of the night. There was one neighborhood report that he became confused and wandered into the wrong house late one evening.

He will be gone for months, then return for months. It's kinda strange.

[skip0358]

An in area guest gets a guest pass good for 1 year, who counts to see how many days in a year their children are here? What's fair is fair. As to the question of why a child would want to stay longer let's figure this out, Mom & Dad aren't here, pools, golf cart, music, eating out, nice weather, staying up late. Sounds pretty good to me. I know my grandaughter can't wait to come down in August.

[Pturner]

Gee, I don't think anybody is talking about 31 days instead of 30. (The specific example in the initial question was about a child visiting for 25 days, leaving, returning for 25 days.)

I have two issues with this. The smaller one BY FAR is: Say only 20 percent of Villagers believe the rules don't apply to them. Today that would be about 16,000 Villagers. Now 16,000 kids overstaying an extra month here and an extra month there, on top of the allowable visitations, is significant.

I agree with Redwitch about isolated hardship cases. But the attitude, oh, who would know if I let my grandchild visit for two months-- no. It adds up. By all means visit your grandkids often. Invite them down for a month. But please, respect your neighbors and the covenance you signed your name to.

The larger issue to me BY FAR is, what the heck are we teaching our children anymore. My parents taught us not to lie and cheat. They set the example. They would never in a million years let us catch them lying or cheating, nor tolerate it if we did. How else do children learn integrity?

YES, we are talking about a little white lie here. Getting a visitor pass under a false name, or however you pull it off. So now the grandchild has a false name on his or her visitor pass. Do you then tell the child to use a different name on the second visit? Do you let your grandchild catch you in a lie!? Can you then teach him or her not to lie and cheat?

Sure, everyone tells little white lies. But in front of the grandchildren? Really?

[graciegirl]

Gee, I don't think anybody is talking about 31 days instead of 30. (The specific example in the initial question was about a child visiting for 25 days, leaving, returning for 25 days.)

I have two issues with this. The smaller one BY FAR is: Say only 20 percent of Villagers believe the rules don't apply to them. Today that would be about 16,000 Villagers. Now 16,000 kids overstaying an extra month here and an extra month there, on top of the allowable visitations, is significant.

I agree with Redwitch about isolated hardship cases. But the attitude, oh, who would know if I let my grandchild visit for two months-- no. It adds up. By all means visit your grandkids often. Invite them down for a month. But please, respect your neighbors and the covenance you signed your name to.

The larger issue to me BY FAR is, what the heck are we teaching our children anymore. My parents taught us not to lie and cheat. They set the example. They would never in a million years let us catch them lying or cheating, nor tolerate it if we did. How else do children learn integrity?

YES, we are talking about a little white lie here. Getting a visitor pass under a false name, or however you pull it off. So now the grandchild has a false name on his or her visitor pass. Do you then tell the child to use a different name on the second visit? Do you let your grandchild catch you in a lie!? Can you then teach him or her not to lie and cheat?

Sure, everyone tells little white lies. But in front of the grandchildren? Really?

I believe that you are completely and absolutely right.

[VT2TV]

Hi,
I am new to these boards, but have to put my 2 cents worth in. :D Pturner, I think you could become my new best friend. I totally agree with your statement, esp. about what we are teaching our children, and the lack of morals overall today. Everyone just wants to do what they want, and no one has any consideration for any one. Slightly off topic for a min. but twice lately, I have been in the ladies room and discovered a mother has brought her son in there with her. OK, normally this does not bother me as I understand some of the risks involved with children and strangers in the restrooms. I can understand Mothers being cautious when in airport BR's or large public areas with more than 1 exit. BUT, both of these instances were at local , family oriented reataurants with smal BR's with only 1 entrance and exits. AND in both cases, the boys wer not little. The first case involved 2 boys at least 13 or 14. And the last case involved a boy who was at least 11 or 12. What if I had spilled something on my blouse and had to remove it to clean the area. HELLO???? Sorry for the long story to make a point that no one cares about anything except what works for them.
In the case of children in TV-my husband and I are moving from the town I grew up in-I have never lived anywhere else except when I was a baby. We are selling our house, and so many things that were so important to us because we want to downsize. We are leaving friends and family, wonderful doctors and vet. to move to an area that is 55 and over. We would not be doing this if we thought the area is going to be less than what we have been told. I don't mean to be unsympathetic to the child that lost his father, and his mother is in the service. But if you let that child live in TV, what will stop someone else having the same story-which is all to common these days-where the grandparents wind up raising their grandchildren for numerous reasons. How can you let one and not the others? And maybe the child is quiet and behaves now, but what about the future. And if that family breaks a rule and gets by with it, how can you truely enforce other rules? Is there a list of rules it is ok to break, and a list of rules that should be enforced?? I appologize for the length of my response, but we are going to a lot of time, money and trouble to move to our wonderful retirement home, and it is not fair for people to decide what rules they individually are going to observe--or not.

[getdul981]

Pturner I agree with you and VT2TV - I HAVE to agree with you.:kiss:

[redwitch]

I'm curious. Can children in their 30s and 40s live with their parents in The Villages? I know of one young fellow (maybe 35) in Chatham who lives with his parents. He wanders the streets after dark. While he appears to be harmless, people have been startled to see him plodding down the road at all hours of the night. There was one neighborhood report that he became confused and wandered into the wrong house late one evening.

He will be gone for months, then return for months. It's kinda strange.

Sounds like he may have a mental illness. Anyway, the simple answer is yes -- so long as the child is over 19, they can live permanently with their parents, friends, lovers, on their own .....

[dpingram]

As a teacher I agree that parents and grandparents are not always the best judge as to whether a child has good behavior.

[redwitch]

Hi,
I don't mean to be unsympathetic to the child that lost his father, and his mother is in the service. But if you let that child live in TV, what will stop someone else having the same story-which is all to common these days-where the grandparents wind up raising their grandchildren for numerous reasons. How can you let one and not the others? And maybe the child is quiet and behaves now, but what about the future. And if that family breaks a rule and gets by with it, how can you truely enforce other rules? Is there a list of rules it is ok to break, and a list of rules that should be enforced?? I appologize for the length of my response, but we are going to a lot of time, money and trouble to move to our wonderful retirement home, and it is not fair for people to decide what rules they individually are going to observe--or not.

Do remember that this child is not using any TV facilities and all neighbors are in total agreement to this child staying until the mother comes back. I'm not saying it is right to break the rules, but I do believe that there should be exceptions to rules, especially if those affected by this breaking are not only okay with it but are thrilled that the rule is being broken (the neighbors LOVE this child and are happy to be its great-aunts and uncles -- they literally fight to babysit). Sorry, folks, but sometimes I think compassion is more important than any rule (I will stop on the side of a road to help a lost animal even though signs are posted saying no stopping). Also, this child does not have an ID card that I know of. The grandparents aren't lying to anyone, they're just not informing TV that a child is living with them and the neighbors are happily keeping silent as well. So far as I know, had even one neighbor objected, they would have found another solution to having their grandchild live with them.

[getdul981]

I don't know about you, but I have been told that omitting to tell something is the same as lying. I believe it is called lying by omission. The neighbors are just as guilty as the violators. Those grandparents should take that grand-child and move/rent in an appropriate location until the child can be with his/her parent.

[bluedog103]

I'm with Redwitch on this one. If all those affected are ok with this, and no facilities are used, why on earth would anyone care if this child is there?
Compassion is a wonderful thing. I think a lot of folks should lighten up or find another ax to grind, preferably one which affects them.

[The Great Fumar]

You either have rules or you don't . If you start making exceptions then the rules are gone.......Our community is a beautiful place because of the rules .start braking them and there goes the neighborhood....There are hardship cases everywhere so we have to be careful how we lean..
We pay a high premium for our houses here because of our unique lifestyle , and I for one don't want to get very flexible on the rules...There will always be a neighbor who wants to plant a milkweed in the middle of his front yard and convince you that he will dig it up as soon as the season is over....Now I know this couldn't really happen because some dog would pee on it anyway ...
Rules are rules folks , if we ignore them we'll all end up living like they do in New York, or Chicago or Wildwood... oops , well you know what I mean...

by the numbers fumar ............:22yikes:

[VT2TV]

Do remember that this child is not using any TV facilities and all neighbors are in total agreement to this child staying until the mother comes back. I'm not saying it is right to break the rules, but I do believe that there should be exceptions to rules, especially if those affected by this breaking are not only okay with it but are thrilled that the rule is being broken (the neighbors LOVE this child and are happy to be its great-aunts and uncles -- they literally fight to babysit). Sorry, folks, but sometimes I think compassion is more important than any rule (I will stop on the side of a road to help a lost animal even though signs are posted saying no stopping). Also, this child does not have an ID card that I know of. The grandparents aren't lying to anyone, they're just not informing TV that a child is living with them and the neighbors are happily keeping silent as well. So far as I know, had even one neighbor objected, they would have found another solution to having their grandchild live with them.

No, I did not forget that the child is not using any facilities. That is not the issue. First of all, unless you are not only the grandparent in question, but also every neighbor in the area in question, you really cannot speak as to how they truely feel about the child and also about him staying there. There are many people who would go along with what they are told to do in fear that they would be ostracized by the grandparents and the grandparents friends. I agree with previous poster that not telling TV is in itself lying and blatently disregarding the rules. If they think what they are doing is ok, what would be the harm in disclosing the facts to TV? Secondly, keeping the child at TV is not really a good environment for the child if you are being honest. Even infants and toddlers need the social interaction of their age group--even if it is only for a couple of years. Keeping the child around adults and seniors for an extended period-even those who adore the child will adversly affect the child's developement. I do agree that we all need to be compassionate, and if letting in children did not affect anyone but the g-parents, I would say --good luck. But if one breaks the rules, I can guarantee that it will only snowball, and if you do it for one, you must do it for everyone.
Lastly, I learned tonight that one family member does not even need to be 55 because of some 80/20% law. So actually there is nothing to stop people in their 20's, 30's, or 40's from moving into the villages. When you start bringing in people of that age, I guess you can expect many children to follow, and perhaps provide that interaction for that chld living in TV. I am not happy about that, and the sales people certainly didn't tell us that. I personally want to move to TV to get away from children running around. All this is JMHO. BTW---I am glad you stop to help animals:thumbup:, and i honestly don't think anyone is doing the child a favor by keeping him in TV-perhaps the g-parents could move somewhere nearby where the child could be with others his own age.

[BBQMan]

any more than we obeyed all the laws in the state and municipalities from which we came. How many of us have had a man with a lantern walk in front of our cars at night? Everyone of us have lived or driven through states or communities where this is still the law. Sodomy, both homosexual and heterosexual, remains illegal in a number of states even if it is between consenting adults or husband and wife. Here in Florida, for example, it is against the law to tie your elephant to a parking meter or take your shower naked. There are literally thousand of such laws in every state in the Union as well as for the nation. Google 'dumb laws' in Google - you can be very amused by the seeming idiocy by today's standards of most of these laws.

So what does this have to do with The Villages? Everything! 99% of us ignore the rule on post signs that specifies the size, shape and coloring of sign background and letters. Illuminated post lamps signs are strictly a no-no. I discovered this when a went to a local merchant and tried to order a sign. He had a copy of the rules and would make only signs that conformed to them. Go look it up. Other rules are simply ignored if they are occurring for only a short time. My neighbor parks his boat in the drive the day before and the day after a race. In the meantimes he parks it off property. Should I object? It would kill his lifetime passion. How many lawn mowers to you hear fired up before 8 AM? Do I report my neighbor for wanting to complete his lawn work before the heat of the day? Another one of my neighbor's lawn became overgrown while he was in the Hospital and his wife did not know what to do. Should we have reported the situation or simply do what we did - a group of us going out mowing, edging, trimming and weeding?

What we need is not rigid adherence to the rules but rather a little bit of common sense and neighborliness. All of us came to the Villages to enjoy ourselves. To those who disagree, I recommend the 'Golden Rule'.

JMHO

[BUC]

What's wrong with you folks? The kids Dad is dead and his Mom is serving this country overseas. We should be helping not threating to report for breaking a rule.
In Russia they used to have a person on each block to keep awatch on everything done and said, anything out of line or in conflick with the rules of the state was reported to the K.G.B.


"FRIENDILY?" O.K.

[BobKat1]

I wonder if TV has just become too big too effectively monitor/enforce restrictions and convenants? With over 70,000 people and 30,000 households maybe it's just not feasable.

I'm all for them and feel if you have them they need to be enforced fairly for everyone. Might be easier in smaller communities?

[spk7951]

Do remember that this child is not using any TV facilities and all neighbors are in total agreement to this child staying until the mother comes back. I'm not saying it is right to break the rules, but I do believe that there should be exceptions to rules, especially if those affected by this breaking are not only okay with it but are thrilled that the rule is being broken (the neighbors LOVE this child and are happy to be its great-aunts and uncles -- they literally fight to babysit). Sorry, folks, but sometimes I think compassion is more important than any rule (I will stop on the side of a road to help a lost animal even though signs are posted saying no stopping). Also, this child does not have an ID card that I know of. The grandparents aren't lying to anyone, they're just not informing TV that a child is living with them and the neighbors are happily keeping silent as well. So far as I know, had even one neighbor objected, they would have found another solution to having their grandchild live with them.

Ok, I find this is be an interesting issue and I am not taking sides here but what happens when you make an exception to a rule and someone down the road gets turned in? Is the answer it was ok then but not now? Point I am trying to make is that when you make one exception you quite possibly are opening a can of worms.

[graciegirl]

Oh Buc.

That is sad indeed. BBQman your examples are silly. Rules are made for us here to be comfortable in a retirement community. Who among us does not love children?

Please read again P.Turners post.

Redwitch, if this place were administered on a case to case situation it would be hopelessly mired in red tape just like the rest of this country. Who decides what? I believe that if it were MY grandchild, I would rent out my house, it is not that hard in TV. All of us have unforseen difficult circumstances that occur from time to time.

And truly, as it has been stated, the houses do cost more than in other areas. If we wanted to live with different rules, we could get a lot more house elsewhere.

I am really not as heartless and mean as this sounds. It is just the kind of thing I wanted to escape in TV. There are so many problems calling out to any of us who have been raised to be responsible and especially those with kind hearts.

P.S. The rules say that boats and campers and RVs can be parked for a short time.... I think.

[bluedog103]

Yes, that is why we are attracted to the Villages. We live in a wild west type neighborhood and are searching for structure. Civility seems to be something old-fashioned. We want to embrace the rules and restrictions and are willing to pay the above market prices to accomplish this.
There are many family friendly developments. Every child needs to grow up with his peers.

Compassion seems to be old fashioned as well, at least on this thread.
It's doubtful that anyone really wants the child to live with the grandparents. This is a temporary state until his mom returns from her overseas tour.
Apparently it would be preferable for the child to live in a box, under a bridge, as long as there were other kids around so he could be properly socialized.
Oh, yeah, they can rent out the house and move for a few months. That'll serve them right. Imagine them having the nerve to inconvenience their neighbors. Wait a minute, the neighbors support this living arrangement. Who's being hurt? Doesn't matter does it. Rules are rules. Never, ever, ever bend a break a rule, no matter what the reason. Next thing you know, we'll have folks moving in here who'll go through the express line with 16 items. Before you know it people will be taking a mulligan on the golf course.
If anyone has never broken a rule and will never, ever break a rule, step forward. Anyone ever have another person look the other way when they broke a rule? If a trooper fails to write you a ticket when you passed him or her doing 45 in a 40, how often do you turn around and insist that they issue you a summons. Rules are rules, right?
A world without compassion would be a sad place. Give these folks a break.

[bluedog103]

I believe that has been discussed. The neighbors support this living arrangement. Whether or not you believe them is another story. All we know is what they say.
I suspect the only thing you would believe is that the neighbors told a big, fat lie and would really like the kid on the next thing smoking out of TV.

[BobKat1]

That's where things get sticky.

Should there be a disclaimers in all of the restrictions that reads "unless all of the neighbors agree?".

[Ohiogirl]

Back to how they enforce violations: yesterday at the pool our id's got checked - we asked what they do if you don't have your id. The answer sounded like "It depends."

For instance, this guy said he would note it on his report pad (I think just for himself) and if a day or two later the same thing happens with the same people, he might write a warning.

If he thinks someone has guests consistently from the 3 counties that I don't think can qualify for guest passes, or for flagrant flaunting of the id rule (such as he said he has one guy that is refusing to carry/show his pass just because he doesn't like the rule), then it is possible to have someone's ID use rescinded for a period of time in punishment. Couldn't play golf, use pools or use rec centers. I don't think he can do it on his own, probably has to go thru channels and someone higher up or some committee may have to approve this, not sure.

I think that rescinding IDs is what they have done to those residents found cheating the golf system in the past.

[redwitch]

I really didn't mean to start such an issue. I was simply trying to say that sometimes the rules are broken and, if they are, it is frequently up to neighbors to do what they feel is necessary. In the one instance, the child is here for the two years. End of conversation. In the other, the child will probably be gone pretty soon because a neighbor will report the child living there (he is totally out of control -- probably has foetal alcohol syndrome or effect), plus the grandparents do have their house on the market -- this child will grow up with the grandparents. It is not a temporary situation.

Given a choice, I would much rather live next door to a child than next door to an adult child/grandchild who just got out of drug rehab, is taking psychotropic drugs for a severe mental illness or is on parole/probation. Yet, these examples can stay here because they are all over 19 and I personally know of a few cases (one of whom lives two doors from me -- YUCK).

For visible violations, Community Watch will take action. If the weeds or lawn are out of control, a notice is left on the door. If not taken care of within the time limits, TV will have it done for you; you will get billed for the work plus a fine of some sort (you don't pay and it goes on your amenity bill and then a lien on your home).

As to the ID card issue, it really is up to whomever is checking IDs. Some will absolutely deny you entrance to the rec center or pool, although there is a form you can/should fill out if you forgot your ID. If it is flagrant and ongoing, the odds are you will be reported and your ID suspended for a certain period of time. Again, it is up to whomever is doing the checking.

I've been known to forget my ID when playing bridge. Sometimes I have had to fill out a sheet stating that I am a legal resident and entitled to use the facilities (name, address, signature required). Sometimes I've just been waved through. It depends who is working, how well they know me, what their mood is.

Basically, TV is not perfect nor are its residents. Some will break the rules (heck, we all break one rule or another at one time or another -- it's the nature of our beasts). The majority here are over 55, law-abiding, respectful and, sadly, conservative. :throwtomatoes: :wink: Some homeowners are under 55 (still less than 20%, I believe). Some homeowners have children and/or grandchildren over 19 living with them for various reasons (temporary until child finds a job or recovers from an illness; temporary until child gets into trouble with the law or starts using drugs again; permanent due to illness -- physical or mental). The vast majority are truly wonderful people regardless of their age and political bent.

If you truly want to live in a society where rules are never broken, where everything is exactly as promised, I suggest you move to Arlington National Cemetary -- it might be one of the few places where the inhabitants truly are 100% in compliance.

[Talk Host]

If a person has their ID rescinded, do they have any redress? Can they appeal the decision? Is there a hearing? Is the decision of the CDD final and irreversible? Is it done by a committee, a arbitrator or a resident? Who determines the length of the sentence?

[VT2TV]

Well, this thread certainly has gone on for a while. I would like to readdress a few things. First, and FOREMOST in this particular instance-most people are not thinking about the child. It is being covered up in discussions about whether he should be here or not because of "the rules". This situation is NOT optimal for the child!!! It is merely convenient for the grandparents, who I suppose don't want to rent out their home or move, because this is "only" fr 2 years. This is really what is wrong with the situation. It is NOT in the child's best interest to spend 2 of his very formative years surrounded only by adults, and older adults at that. It will affect his social skills and his ability to interact with children his own age. Any child developement specialist will agree with that. Children need to be with other children their own age. Not only it important for their social skills, but it is important to be around authority figures that will not consistently indulge them, and if like most grandparents speak "baby talk" to them. So the child staying at TV is only convenient for the grandparents and not in the best interests of the child. Also, since the father is deceased, what is to stop the mother from deciding that she wants to continue to stay on at TV when she gets out of the service After 2 years, how could you then say that they cannot stay because the child is not supposed to stay more than 30 days a year.
And how can anyone ask the rowdy child to leave just because someone doesn't like the way he acts. Sorry, but things don't work that way. If you allow one person to break the rules, you can't suddenly try to apply them to another person. What happens if someone moves near the sweet child that does object to a child living with the grandparents?
I agree that this is a sad situation with the father dead, and the mother in the service. But this world is VERY much full of sad, sad situations. If you start letting emotions make decisions for such a large area with this many people, it won't be long before everyone will want an exception made because of..........(fill in the blank). Rules are made to protect the rights of the majority of the people. Every single one on you on this board knew the rules and regulations before you moved into the area, and there is no reason to be offensive by making references to "comrades" or "conservatives" just because they are trying to do the RIGHT thing by respecting these rules. I would very much like to thank the young mother who is serving our country. My own husband also served our country in Vietnam, and was blown up by a booby trap. He suffered severe injuries, and has had cancer and diabetes directly related to time spent in the infantry. He is now retired, and I have never seen him so excited about almost anything as he is about moving to the Villages. I imagine most of the people who move here are looking forward to moving to an area that they have been told was severly child restricted to 30 days a year. People of this age have raised their children, and are not as tolerant of children as they used to be. Should there be any less compassion offered to them by not expecting the rules everyone has agreed to to be enforced for EVERYONE equally. Again, every one has or has had a sad situation.
I agree with whoever said that with such a large area, once you start letting things slide, TV will start falling apart. Not because of one situation, but that one situation will beome 2 and the 2 will become 3, and etc..... Maybe every household in the Villages can each choose 1 rule to break that they don't like-because that is what is being done now by the grandparents. If you don't like the rules, just ignore them. And if TV knows that the rules are being broken, and they do nothing, then any time they try to enforce any rule could be deemed discrimination, and talk about stirring things up then!!!!!
Again, it boils down to 2 main things: 1. EVERYONE who moves here is aware of the rules, and if they should not have come if they were not going to abide by them. 2. If you are not happy with the rules, then I would think you would be putting your house on the market for sale, because why would you want to live with rules you don't agree with.

[redwitch]

1. Why would you assume the child has no interaction with other children? There are pre-schools, schools, day care, all kinds of activities for children in and out of TV, other children visit their grandparents in this neighborhood. This little one is very active in activities from preschool to gymnastics to dance -- all of which ensure playtime with other children.

2. I truly doubt TV is aware this child is living here. I know that when my daughter lived with me, someone reported that I had a 17 YO living with me. She had to show her driver's license to Community Watch to prove she was 22 not once but twice. If TV knew, there is no doubt in my mind that the grandparents would have to come up with another solution.

3. Quite frankly, it doesn't matter how much anyone here objects to this child living here. You don't know where the child lives and, thus, you cannot report it to anyone. It is up to the neighbors to do what they deem is appropriate -- no one else can. You can rail about the grandparents breaking the rules until you're blue in the face. Doesn't matter -- the child will still be here until the mother returns.

While the grandparents love their grandchild and their daughter, they want their lives back, too. They bought into TV lock, stock and barrel. There is no way that the mother or child would be here a day longer than necessary -- two years was the maximum time. Should something happen to the mother, I'm sure the grandparents would find another solution. It is one thing for a pre-schooler (or younger) to live in TV for a set period of time, it is another for a child in school with friends visiting, etc. to live here. The grandparents know and understand this.

4. If a rule is being broken and you object to that rule being broken, you do have recourse -- contact Community Watch. It will be checked out and proper steps will be taken.

The only point I was trying to make was that rules are broken. We ALL have choices, especially when it comes to rules -- follow them, ignore them, deliberately break them, move to another locale if you don't like those rules. We also have choices when we see a rule is broken -- explain to the individual what the rule is and hope they quit breaking it; go along with the offender by allowing the rule to be broken; call an authority to stop the breaking of the rule. You do have recourse if you choose to take them. The choice really is up to you.

I don't want to get into a discussion about the morality of breaking a rule or condoning the breaking of a rule. It is an individual choice. In this case, I choose to stand with the grandparents and the neighbors who have opted to let the child stay. Yes, we are all culpable but I can live with my choice and, obviously, so can the neighbors. I could not live with forcing these loving people to choose between their dream (TV) or their grandchild.

Everyone breaks rules of some sort -- sometimes knowingly, sometimes out of ignorance. Some rules are truly important (not murdering someone is a pretty rule); some are minor (no jaywalking in my mind); some are downright silly (showering in the nude). Regardless, we all decide which rules we choose to follow and which ones we choose to break. But I doubt there is one person who can say (and honestly believe) that they follow every rule every time (think of the small piece of paper you threw on the ground; the time you drove a little too fast; ....). So far as we know, only one person has been perfect and even He had a heck of temper and knowingly broke some rules (He was arrested, tried and crucified).

[SABRMnLgs]

I'm stiill waiting for a reply to the question regarding how do you know which kid is which, DNA, fingerprints?
Here's one no one thought of, how about twins or triplets,. et al.? How abow the pregnancy plant that had eight kids, octomom? Who keeps score and what kind of scorecard would they use?
Personally, IDC. I keep my nose in my own home.

[Pturner]

If a person has their ID rescinded, do they have any redress? Can they appeal the decision? Is there a hearing? Is the decision of the CDD final and irreversible? Is it done by a committee, a arbitrator or a resident? Who determines the length of the sentence?


TH, I don't see where a formal process is specified on TV website.

http://www.districtgov.org/departments/community-standards/deedrestrict.aspx (http://www.districtgov.org/departments/community-standards/deedrestrict.aspx)

I found a link that provides a good overview of how deed restrictions are typically handled. As you can see, it's not TV-specific:

http://www.cityofbartlesville.org/caffeine/uploads/files/CommDev/Restrictive%20Covenants%20Brochure.pdf

Since a deed restriction is basically a contract between the developer and property owners, I would guess that if a homeowner didn't agree with a ruling by the deed compliance office, his or her recourse would be filing a civil suit. That is, unless a different method is specified in the deed restriction itself. I don't remember.

Absent any other method specified in the contract (i.e., deed restriction), civil court is how contract disputes are settled. At least that's what I think, TH. Do you see it differently?

[Pturner]

I'm stiill waiting for a reply to the question regarding how do you know which kid is which, DNA, fingerprints?
Here's one no one thought of, how about twins or triplets,. et al.? How abow the pregnancy plant that had eight kids, octomom? Who keeps score and what kind of scorecard would they use?
Personally, IDC. I keep my nose in my own home.

Hi SABRMnLgs,

You are right. You don't alway find out when somebody cheats. Just as some people get away with crimes, some people get away with contract violations. It happens.

We are required by our deed covenant to register our guests under 19 years old. We are contractually bound (by our deed agreement) to attest to our guests' age, identity and length of stay. A guest pass would be denied for an under-aged person who had already stayed 30 days during the calendar year.

Some people cheat. Some people don't register their under-aged visitors or lie on their registration forms. No one takes a DNA sample when you register a guest. Maybe it will come to that if enough break the rules.

Some people break the rules and don't get caught. If Community Watch or a neighbor reported a suspected violation, it would be investigated. Maybe if asked questions, the violator would lie. Maybe the violator would get away with it. It happens in criminal court. It happens in civil court. No doubt it happens in TV deed compliance cases.

The fact that some people break the rules is no excuse in my book to break the rules. It's no excuse for law enforcement, civil authorities, deed compliance officers or affected neighbors to throw up their hands and forget about trying to enforce the rules they are trying to live by.

[VT2TV]

1. Why would you assume the child has no interaction with other children? There are pre-schools, schools, day care, all kinds of activities for children in and out of TV, other children visit their grandparents in this neighborhood. This little one is very active in activities from preschool to gymnastics to dance -- all of which ensure playtime with other children.

I assumed that the child had no interaction with other children because you yourself posted that the child was not using any TV facilities.


2. I truly doubt TV is aware this child is living here. I know that when my daughter lived with me, someone reported that I had a 17 YO living with me. She had to show her driver's license to Community Watch to prove she was 22 not once but twice. If TV knew, there is no doubt in my mind that the grandparents would have to come up with another solution.

If they could have come up with another solutions they should have-it is called being respectful of others and doing what is right.


3. Quite frankly, it doesn't matter how much anyone here objects to this child living here. You don't know where the child lives and, thus, you cannot report it to anyone. It is up to the neighbors to do what they deem is appropriate -- no one else can. You can rail about the grandparents breaking the rules until you're blue in the face. Doesn't matter -- the child will still be here until the mother returns.

Are your fingers in your ears going "naw, naw naw naw naw naw" What a very "I don't care about anyone except me and my friends" even if we are wrong.



While the grandparents love their grandchild and their daughter, they want their lives back, too. They bought into TV lock, stock and barrel. There is no way that the mother or child would be here a day longer than necessary -- two years was the maximum time. Should something happen to the mother, I'm sure the grandparents would find another solution. It is one thing for a pre-schooler (or younger) to live in TV for a set period of time, it is another for a child in school with friends visiting, etc. to live here. The grandparents know and understand this.

When the rules are broken for one they are subject to being broken by anyone. Who are you to decide which rules are ok to break and which ones are not?

4. If a rule is being broken and you object to that rule being broken, you do have recourse -- contact Community Watch. It will be checked out and proper steps will be taken.

The only point I was trying to make was that rules are broken. We ALL have choices, especially when it comes to rules -- follow them, ignore them, deliberately break them, move to another locale if you don't like those rules. We also have choices when we see a rule is broken -- explain to the individual what the rule is and hope they quit breaking it; go along with the offender by allowing the rule to be broken; call an authority to stop the breaking of the rule. You do have recourse if you choose to take them. The choice really is up to you.

When the rules broken do not affect anyone except you, that is one thing. But the rules you have chosen to break afffect many more people, and goes against the rules/policies YOU CHOSE to abide by when you moved here.


I don't want to get into a discussion about the morality of breaking a rule or condoning the breaking of a rule. It is an individual choice. In this case, I choose to stand with the grandparents and the neighbors who have opted to let the child stay. Yes, we are all culpable but I can live with my choice and, obviously, so can the neighbors. I could not live with forcing these loving people to choose between their dream (TV) or their grandchild.

Your way of thinking is part of what is wrong with the world today. Everyone is trying to make up their own rules, and want everything to revolve around themselves and their wishes and wants. Morality is not a choice of the individual. It is doing what is best for the majority. It is about what is right and wrong, and not delibertly doing what you know to be wrong. It is not up to you and/or your neigbors to go against rules you agreed to abide by. I could go on, but I don't think you would understand.



Everyone breaks rules of some sort -- sometimes knowingly, sometimes out of ignorance. Some rules are truly important (not murdering someone is a pretty rule); some are minor (no jaywalking in my mind); some are downright silly (showering in the nude). Regardless, we all decide which rules we choose to follow and which ones we choose to break. But I doubt there is one person who can say (and honestly believe) that they follow every rule every time (think of the small piece of paper you threw on the ground; the time you drove a little too fast; ....). So far as we know, only one person has been perfect and even He had a heck of temper and knowingly broke some rules (He was arrested, tried and crucified).

Of course everyone breaks some small rules at times. That should just involve yourself though and not anybody else. And if you break the rules, hopefully you are caught and corrected, and learn what you did wrong as a lesson.



Having written this, I will not be participating in this thread anymore. You and/or others certainly may continue it, but don't expect a response from me. You and your thoughts will never be changed, and I feel we will never agree. This is my first experience with the boards, and actually my first interaction with any of the residents of TV, and I have to say that I am very disappointed. Regardless of what I have said (and I still stand by what I have said), I am not as upset by the child living here as much as the attitudes I have experienced on the boards. It makes me question whether I really want to move to TV. When we visited and toured, it truely looked like Mayberry with everyone happy and living their dream. What I have discovered on this board is that people not only disregard the rules and regulation, but have no guilt in doing so. I wanted to move to a retirement, over 55 community. I honestly have to wonder not only how many children live in TV, but am very sad to discover that there are so many people sneaking around, lying and happily doing things they have agreed not to do. For RedWitch, I feel sure you are only one of many that are hiding children. Maybe next time a goup of teen boys will move beside you-will you keep that secret? Would it conversley be ok to have a Meth lab in the neighborhood as long as everyone agrees it is ok. If people are breaking one rule, you can bet there are many, many more secrets than even you know. Remember that what goes around, comes around. And if you remeber Abe Lincoln's comment that "A house divided against itself cannot stand" When everyone starts doing their own "thing" in such a large place, many problems will ensue.
My last comment will be to be careful. When you go against the rules, you could be inviting problems. Imagine this scenerio: a fire breaks out at the g-parents house at night or when all the people who know "the little secret" are gone. Suppose the g-parents are unresponsive from smoke, or have a heart attack trying to fight the fire. The child is hiding because he is afraid-maybe he even started the fire playng with matches. The fire dept comes and the only person around is ignorant of the child. The firemen get the g-parents out as the fire becomes hotter. They ask the neighbor if anyone else lives there and they say No because that is the rules. So the firemen do not go back into the house, and the child dies. Don't say it could not happen. I have spent many years on rescue squads, and emergency services. IT CAN HAPPEN. I have seen it.
OK, that's all, like I said, I will not respond anymore.

[Annabelle]

Some excellent points have been made by PT, VT and Gracie. You Go Girls!

A retirement community is no place for a child to reside on a permanent basis. The argument that those of us who oppose the child's residency lack compassion is ridiculously weak.

As a former educator I have seen similar cases whereby a grandchild and grandparents have bonded to the point that the grandparents have sued for custody when the absentee parent has returned. So all those "faux" aunties and uncles today, could possibly find themselves permanent members of this child's extended family in a few years.

I have no grievance with the grandparents raising the child, but since they made that choice, they should also make the move to a place outside TV and either rent or sell their home.

I think this family has selfishly shown an utter lack of regard for their neighbors by involving them in their little scheme. I agree with the person who posted that some of the neighbors may have reluctantly gone along with this venture perhaps because they didn't want to be "ostracized" or for the sake of living peacefully amongst their neighbors.

If I were shopping for a home in TV I would never buy any home on a street that had children as permanent residents. I dare say I am the only one who feels this way.

Thank goodness for TOTV, I am learning new things every time I visit this site.

Annabelle

[Bryan]

Twice, maybe three times, in all these posts the questions have been asked about the fines, how much, who imposes them, what is the process. No where did an answer ever come up. Someone gave the district gov link, which I went to, and could not find the info.

Fines imply some sort of penalty. In this country, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. If anyone is fining me, they have to go to court (civil or criminal) and prove their case. I get a chance to confront my accusers and present my side. Then there is a ruling. You can't just add a fine to my Amenity Fees because you feel like it.

Like Talk Host, I sure would like to know the process, the fines, and the system to this.

On a slightly related subject, someone said Community Watch checked the ID of a guest for their age twice. Details were lacking. Community Watch has no policing powers so if they checked the ID "on the street" or at the home, you should have refused to even speak to them, kicked them off your property. If they checked it at a pool or rec center, that is different - that is one of their duties. But all they can check for is the Guest Pass or Village ID - not an ID for age proof.

Way too often I think the "squeaking wheel" approach is used to address deed and covenant violations. No complaint equals no enforcement. Complaints equals action (most of the time). What we need is evenhanded, consistent enforcement of the rules - not spotty enforcement on a whim.

Furthermore, times change. What made sense five or ten years ago may not make sense today. That is why googling "silly laws" gets so many hits. We never go back and repeal invalid or outdated rules. Maybe that is what we need today - a review and rewriting of some of our rules to reflect current times. Get rid of outdated or useless rules, repeal them, trash them, or change them to fit today's world.

[cometgirl]

we are new to TV but also believe in following the "rules". if i knew of a similar situation i would report it.

we did ask about such a posibility when we were searching for a house in TV and were told of a similar situation. could it be the same one being referenced?? we were told TV was award of the issue, and it was being addressed. the grandparents were going to move and had agreed to a time frame.

i am sure there is more then one child living in TV, and if were aware of one, so would the powers that be in TV.

[dillywho]

Twice, maybe three times, in all these posts the questions have been asked about the fines, how much, who imposes them, what is the process. No where did an answer ever come up. Someone gave the district gov link, which I went to, and could not find the info.

Fines imply some sort of penalty. In this country, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. If anyone is fining me, they have to go to court (civil or criminal) and prove their case. I get a chance to confront my accusers and present my side. Then there is a ruling. You can't just add a fine to my Amenity Fees because you feel like it.

Like Talk Host, I sure would like to know the process, the fines, and the system to this.

On a slightly related subject, someone said Community Watch checked the ID of a guest for their age twice. Details were lacking. Community Watch has no policing powers so if they checked the ID "on the street" or at the home, you should have refused to even speak to them, kicked them off your property. If they checked it at a pool or rec center, that is different - that is one of their duties. But all they can check for is the Guest Pass or Village ID - not an ID for age proof.

Way too often I think the "squeaking wheel" approach is used to address deed and covenant violations. No complaint equals no enforcement. Complaints equals action (most of the time). What we need is evenhanded, consistent enforcement of the rules - not spotty enforcement on a whim.

Furthermore, times change. What made sense five or ten years ago may not make sense today. That is why googling "silly laws" gets so many hits. We never go back and repeal invalid or outdated rules. Maybe that is what we need today - a review and rewriting of some of our rules to reflect current times. Get rid of outdated or useless rules, repeal them, trash them, or change them to fit today's world.

Bryan, guests must not only present their guest card but their picture ID as well. That is stated right on the pass. The person checking ID's can do the math. CW does have the power to ask them to leave the facility. Children under 19 are not allowed at the facilities alone and, in most instances, will not have a picture ID; they must be accompanied by an adult (someone over 19 with proper ID). For instance, you cannot drop the grandkids off at the pool and return for them later.

There is a "family section" in TV. It is the Village of Spring Arbor. They are allowed to have children there but do not get the ammenity privileges (at least the kids don't). I don't know all the particulars, but maybe the grandparents in question could check that out.

[KayakerNC]

**snip**
If I were shopping for a home in TV I would never buy any home on a street that had children as permanent residents.
Annabelle

:agree: And would a seller have to disclose that information?

[graciegirl]

I am afraid that this thread is giving the impression that this sort of thing occurs frequently in The Villages.

I believe that it does not.

[The Shadow]

Let me put a new twist on the child in TV question.

When you buy a house in TV it is your house. You can choose to sell it when you wish. You can sell it to whomever your wish regardless of age. What if a financial stable young couple buys a resale home and a year later has a child? Does the child get deported or is he grandfathered in seeing he arrived after the purchase of the home?:police:

[BobKat1]

I am afraid that this thread is giving the impression that this sort of thing occurs frequently in The Villages.

I believe that it does not.

GG you are probably correct. It's also probably at the point of not going anywhere...

[graciegirl]

Let me put a new twist on the child in TV question.

When you buy a house in TV it is your house. You can choose to sell it when you wish. You can sell it to whomever your wish regardless of age. What if a financial stable young couple buys a resale home and a year later has a child? Does the child get deported or is he grandfathered in seeing he arrived after the purchase of the home?:police:

The restrictions are on the DEED. They transfer.

[The Shadow]

The restrictions are on the DEED. They transfer.

I have talked to a homeowner on the historic side that is far short of being a senior citizen. I would guess that the lesser price houses on the historic side would be a selling feature for first time home buyers.

[dillywho]

Let me put a new twist on the child in TV question.

When you buy a house in TV it is your house. You can choose to sell it when you wish. You can sell it to whomever your wish regardless of age. What if a financial stable young couple buys a resale home and a year later has a child? Does the child get deported or is he grandfathered in seeing he arrived after the purchase of the home?:police:

They are called covenants and everyone has to abide because they are legal contracts. Yes, there are some younger ones here and not all on the "historic" side. Up to 20% are permitted by law. They do have to sign the covenant contract which does not include children younger than 19.

[BUC]

So what have we learned? If you think that a kid has over stayed there time limited or if a dog pees on the right of way in front of your house, no ,I remember the dog can stay over 30 days and the kid can pee on your yard for 30 days a year, wait Oh I give up "CAN"T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG" to quote Roddy King ( the drunk driver that started the L.A. Roits several years ago)

[Annabelle]

Newbee,
I could not agree more. If the residents of the Villages don't band together and see to it that the rules and restrictions in their deeds are enforced then those few with their "I am above the rules" mentality can be damaging to he entire community and not just the street on which they live. We all know that "it only takes a few bad apples to spoil the barrel."

Kayacker,
Before purchasing a home, I would have the seller sign a statement that they have no "knowledge" whatsoever of children residing on their street or village. I would also go to all the neighbors, introduce myself, ask the same question..."do any children live on this street." Finally, I would ask the same information from the real estate agent. If I moved in and found that children do indeed live full time on my street or in my village, my next step would be to consult with an attorney.

Annabelle

[redwitch]

Newbee, kids living here full time is few and far between. However, kids visiting grandparents is very common. So, there will be children of one age or another in TV on almost year round -- you'll see them in the Town Squares, etc. -- the same is true of any retirement community. The 80/20 rule is also true of any retirement community -- it is federal law.

I really wouldn't go asking about kids living in a village -- I think it would just make the neighbors wonder if you're going to complain when their grandkids come to visit and make you seem a little less friendly than you probably are. There are covenants to prevent children living here. You can ensure these covenants are enforced (the developer is very pro-active in keeping people in compliance when it is known that someone is breaking a restriction) by simply notifying the developer of the facts.

Do check out the village -- visit at different times of the day; look carefully at the lawn maintenance; find out how many on your block are snowbirds, frogs, rental properties; if you like block parties and the like, find out if your mini-community has them. These are actually things that will much more affect you than full-time children.

[BUC]

I don't understand. If the concept of having children around is what your interested in, there are hundreds if not thousands of them to choose from.

The concept of age restricted communities is rather obvious, to most people, anyways.

That is what I am searching for....I should not be mocked for my efforts.

Oh, the "comrad" remark is very cute (not). I believe in democracy, which means I have the choice to live where I want.

Hey lighten up, don't be so stressed, just having alittle fun.

[Pturner]

I am afraid that this thread is giving the impression that this sort of thing occurs frequently in The Villages.

I believe that it does not.

Newbie and Annabelle, I think Gracie is right. I can understand your concerns and hope you are not getting a wrong impression.

One case of a child living in TV has been revealed in this thread. In that hardship case, the child's presence is apparently known by the neighbors. Any neighbor at any time could choose to anonymously file a complaint. I suspect this might happen if the child stays longer than the two years promised.

There are roughly, what, 35,000 homes in TV. I doubt if half a dozen children live in TV. Where would they play? Where would they go to school? There is almost no way they could be in TV full time and not get caught. I think 90-plus percent of Villagers would report a child living in their neighborhood, this one hardship case notwithstanding.

Violations of the 30-day visit rule no doubt happen. It would be harder to catch violators. Unfortunately, anywhere you live there probably will be some people who think the rules don't apply to them and who have no regard for how their actions affect others. I think they are the exception.

If you read some of the other threads on TOTV, you will learn that most posters strongly support the deed restrictions and want them enforced.

[getdul981]

WOW!!! I had no idea that I was opening such a kettle of worms. I'm just glad my question about the hoagie wasn't nearly as controversial. But I guess the answer to my initial question is, unless someone complains then probably nothing will be done. If that is done, the powers that be will approach the family and ASK them to leave or make other arrangements. I'm almost afraid to ask, but can they legally make them do that?

[graciegirl]

wow!!! I had no idea that i was opening such a kettle of worms. I'm just glad my question about the hoagie wasn't nearly as controversial. But i guess the answer to my initial question is, unless someone complains then probably nothing will be done. If that is done, the powers that be will approach the family and ask them to leave or make other arrangements. I'm almost afraid to ask, but can they legally make them do that?

yes.

[BBQMan]

In a previous post, I pointed out that we all ignore both laws and Villages Rules. This is not a suggestion for anarchy but rather one for common sense and compassion.

I gave several examples, but let me get closer to home. Approximately 20%, perhaps greater, will have a spouse with Alzheimer's. I know you do not know but based on national statistics, do you want the community to embrace your loved one and overlook their foibles? I have had two of my neighbors wander into my house hunting for home, my wife has similarly wandered, others I know of have undressed in the middle of the street. Do you (1) take them kindly and lovingly back to their home or (2) call the police and demand their immediate imprisonment? BTW, there is no middle path.

I have no objection to rules, regulations and laws. What I do have is objection to applying these rules in a manner that ignores the golden rule. Justice tempered with mercy must prevail over the blind acceptance of the law. Solomon taught us this in the case of one baby and two mothers

[Annabelle]

BBQ,
Yes we should all try to follow the Golden Rule...."do unto others as we would have them do unto us." As one who was raised for 12 years with a solid Catholic education ... believe me.... "compassion for the less fortunate members of society" was a huge part of our curriculum.

Today you have given a perfect example (Alzheimers) as to why I, VT, Newbee and others feel that a child rearing in TV is inappropriate.

Young children, teens and even young adults are very impressionable and I do not think it is healthy for them to see or hear of neighbors with illnesses such as Alzheimers on a daily basis.

When hubby and I visited TV last year, I had the opportunity to speak with a saleslady in a store in SS. She mentioned that she had lived in TV when she first married her husband (who was already living there), but they left because she didn't like hearing that someone had developed cancer, or had a heart attack, or had even passed away on such a frequent basis.

I could understand why this may have been depressing for her, because she was still in her 40's and in her own words it made her feel "old before her time."

Of course, as seniors we know this is part of life, but why expose young children (and I include teens and young adults) in this "Senior World".....on a daily basis? There has to be a better alternative.

On the other side of this coin there are a lot of seniors (hubby and I included) who are in great health, and we want to move to a retirement community and not have children living close by.


Annabelle

[Russ_Boston]

I'm curious. Can children in their 30s and 40s live with their parents in The Villages? I know of one young fellow (maybe 35) in Chatham who lives with his parents. He wanders the streets after dark. While he appears to be harmless, people have been startled to see him plodding down the road at all hours of the night. There was one neighborhood report that he became confused and wandered into the wrong house late one evening.

He will be gone for months, then return for months. It's kinda strange.

TH - I'm surprised at you. You used to live here so I can only assume you ask to stoke the conversation? You know the answer because you once signed/read your deed restriction.

[Russ_Boston]

I have talked to a homeowner on the historic side that is far short of being a senior citizen. I would guess that the lesser price houses on the historic side would be a selling feature for first time home buyers.

Jeez Shadow, get with the program. You've been on this site long enough to know that by FLA law up to 20% of homeowners can be under 55 at purchase.

[JimJoe]

I have lived my entire life in the Wild West environment of small town upper midwest, where people live generally within the few rules written. My initial response to the deed restrictions in TV was, YOU GOTTA BE KIDDING.
On Fox News this morning ( which I am liking less all the time), I learned and now understand the necessity of deed restrictions. Lead in to the story was a deputy sheriff was told he would have to remove a sign on his garage door that said God Bless America. I am not religious but I respect free speech and freedom of religion. The intro implied by calling him a deputy sheriff that his employer had ordered removal of the sign.
When he was interviewed it turned out he lived in a home owner association that had a rule against signs. The response to the story by the association was VERY good.. Your sign and its message are very appropriate to many people but if signs are not prohibited, signs and language that offend many people will also be put up. WOW, can you see it.. God Bless America, next door to God hates America, next door to God caused 911, etc etc. My sign would read, God hates signs. Signs everywhere on every issue... who wants to live in that kind of mess. NOT me. I have learned my lesson. Deed restrictions are a very good thing, and if you don't like them, don't move there.
But I am still going to paint my house with purple and yellow stripes.
:)

[graciegirl]

I have lived my entire life in the Wild West environment of small town upper midwest, where people live generally within the few rules written. My initial response to the deed restrictions in TV was, YOU GOTTA BE KIDDING.
On Fox News this morning ( which I am liking less all the time), I learned and now understand the necessity of deed restrictions. Lead in to the story was a deputy sheriff was told he would have to remove a sign on his garage door that said God Bless America. I am not religious but I respect free speech and freedom of religion. The intro implied by calling him a deputy sheriff that his employer had ordered removal of the sign.
When he was interviewed it turned out he lived in a home owner association that had a rule against signs. The response to the story by the association was VERY good.. Your sign and its message are very appropriate to many people but if signs are not prohibited, signs and language that offend many people will also be put up. WOW, can you see it.. God Bless America, next door to God hates America, next door to God caused 911, etc etc. My sign would read, God hates signs. Signs everywhere on every issue... who wants to live in that kind of mess. NOT me. I have learned my lesson. Deed restrictions are a very good thing, and if you don't like them, don't move there.
But I am still going to paint my house with purple and yellow stripes.
:)

uh.....ummmm, before you do that, why don't we buy a big canvas for you and you can join my art class???:laugh:

You are right JimJoe. I think you will love it here.

[JimJoe]

uh.....ummmm, before you do that, why don't we buy a big canvas for you and you can join my art class???:laugh:

You are right JimJoe. I think you will love it here.

Gracie, I think you are right. And I think I will keep my home here in corn country where I can paint, saw, and shoot em up at the local saloon in the summer and live in peace and quiet, lift, run, and golf, in the winter. See you all in October.
JJ

[VT2TV]

I was involved in this thread early on, and had to stop because I was just beating my head against a brick wall. The people on here involved with hiding this child are knowingly breaking the very rules EACH and every person who moves into the Village has to agree to abide by. They are even so very proud of thmselves for doing what they think is for the greater good. And someone keeps bringing up The Golden Rule which is a wonderful thing to practice. But what they are talking about are actually acts of kindness, and have nothing to do with delibertly going against the very rules that have allowed the Villages to be somewhere people are so eager to live. If everyone were allowed to "do their own thing", the Village would not be a uniformally beautiful place, because everyone would want everything to suit themselves.
In keeping any children here, you are opening yourselves up to all sorts of problems. It was mentioned that this particular child was well behaved, and loved by everyone on the street, so it was ok for him to live here for at least the 2 years. But what about the children who are not well behaved??? Is there a test kids have to take, and who decides which ones are well behaved. Parents and friends are NOT the best judges of which children are well behaved. And now that the rules have been broken, you have no recourse when other children are moved into the Villages. I read on another thread that the demographics of the Villages are changing, and more and more slightly younger adults are moving into the Villages. And with these younger adults often come children who have not graduated from high schools yet, and will be driving up and down the streets with radios blaring. It also may come with more and more younger children who will be selling for school fundraisers, going door to door. Also brings in the trick or treaters. Once you let any children live here, you can't say "NO" to any of them. Can we say DISCRIMINATION?????? Then comes the extra taxes for schools in the neighborhoods, and a constant line of "mommy traffic" taking kids to school and picking them up, and then taking them to all the fields, parks, etc in the Villages for soccer, baseball, and other outdoor games. All the public areas will be taken up with games and practices. Then comes all the school buses running up and down the streets. Is that what people here want?? Again, once you let one family have a child, you can't say no to the next. Now, let's talk about property values. There will probably be a mass exit of people who really wanted to live in a retirement community WITHOUT children, and the ones who can afford to take a loss on the home will be gone, and the rest will have a lot of problem finding anyone to buy theirs-or the whole concept of retirement will be gone, and the Villages will have become anywhere, USA.
Now, there may be those unhappy with my posting, let me say that it is NOT my intention to annoy anyone on this thread. I am just trying to have everyone see what could happen if even 1 child is knowingly allowed to live in the Villages, and also if people start breaking the very rules they agreed to abide with. Do I expect this to happen??? Gosh, I hope not, but.... Don't say this couldn't happen-it only takes 1 child to ruin everything.

[redwitch]

VT2TV, you are incorrect in thinking that the breaking of a rule means there is no recourse for future rule breakers. That would be like saying if someone was pulled over for speeding but didn't get a ticket, that officer wouldn't be able to give a ticket to another party.

Please understand that had anyone in TV management known about the situation, the child would have been forced to leave here. This was a NEIGHBORHOOD decision. Any neighbor could have chosen to ANONYMOUSLY call Community Watch and that would have ended the child living here immediately. This neighborhood opted for compassion rather than strict enforcement of a rule. (BTW -- The mother has come home and has taken her child and moved near here but not in TV.)

As to kids driving with radios blaring, that does happen. I dread Thanksgiving weekend when one set of grandkids comes to visit. These teens are rude, arrogant, destructive and noisy. I grit my teeth and remind myself they will leave soon. If they ever get seriously out of line and I can catch them in the act, I won't hesitate to call the police, let alone Community Watch.

I don't care who we are, we all knowingly break some rules. Some of us break little rules that truly hurt no one (like having 3 indoor cats rather than the allowed 2 or jaywalking on a street where there is absolutely no traffic at that time). Some of us break rules that we know could be dangerous to others but feel we can control the risk (speeding, driving while impaired), not always a correct thought but it is what it is. Some of us choose to break major rules and deliberately cause harm.

So, I'm really not sure what your issue is about this child, unless it is confusion thinking that TV allowed the child to live here. The fact this one group chose to break the rules does not mean that it can become a widespread problem in TV. It would be different if one of the CCDs or the developer or anyone involved in the practices and development of rules within TV agreed this family could have the child stay with them. Then others would clamor for the right to break the rule and would probably have legal standing to do so. However, this was not the case. The Villages was not aware this was happening. It was not condoned by The Villages. The reality is that most neighborhoods would have at least one if not several neighbors objecting and voicing their objections to TV management. Heck, when my daughter was living with me (she was 22 at the time), it was reported twice that I had someone under 19 living with me (she looks young). She had to show her driver's license on both occasions. Have no fear, deed restrictions are very strictly enforced when it is known they are being broken.

[Bogie Shooter]

VT2TV, you are incorrect in thinking that the breaking of a rule means there is no recourse for future rule breakers. That would be like saying if someone was pulled over for speeding but didn't get a ticket, that officer wouldn't be able to give a ticket to another party.

Please understand that had anyone in TV management known about the situation, the child would have been forced to leave here. This was a NEIGHBORHOOD decision. Any neighbor could have chosen to ANONYMOUSLY call Community Watch and that would have ended the child living here immediately. This neighborhood opted for compassion rather than strict enforcement of a rule. (BTW -- The mother has come home and has taken her child and moved near here but not in TV.)

As to kids driving with radios blaring, that does happen. I dread Thanksgiving weekend when one set of grandkids comes to visit. These teens are rude, arrogant, destructive and noisy. I grit my teeth and remind myself they will leave soon. If they ever get seriously out of line and I can catch them in the act, I won't hesitate to call the police, let alone Community Watch.

I don't care who we are, we all knowingly break some rules. Some of us break little rules that truly hurt no one (like having 3 indoor cats rather than the allowed 2 or jaywalking on a street where there is absolutely no traffic at that time). Some of us break rules that we know could be dangerous to others but feel we can control the risk (speeding, driving while impaired), not always a correct thought but it is what it is. Some of us choose to break major rules and deliberately cause harm.

So, I'm really not sure what your issue is about this child, unless it is confusion thinking that TV allowed the child to live here. The fact this one group chose to break the rules does not mean that it can become a widespread problem in TV. It would be different if one of the CCDs or the developer or anyone involved in the practices and development of rules within TV agreed this family could have the child stay with them. Then others would clamor for the right to break the rule and would probably have legal standing to do so. However, this was not the case. The Villages was not aware this was happening. It was not condoned by The Villages. The reality is that most neighborhoods would have at least one if not several neighbors objecting and voicing their objections to TV management. Heck, when my daughter was living with me (she was 22 at the time), it was reported twice that I had someone under 19 living with me (she looks young). She had to show her driver's license on both occasions. Have no fear, deed restrictions are very strictly enforced when it is known they are being broken.

Who gave the neighorhood hood the authority for this decision? What if my neighborhood decided to all park junk cars in our backyards? Come on, rules are rules!

[villa2]

I guess I'll just have to find the neighborhood with the rules that will fit my criteria. Where does one go to get the neighborhood rules? I thought the rules were the same for every village.
Between this thread and the IRS thread, you guys are scaring me. I think I'll go back to my book now.

[graciegirl]

Please not to worry Villa.

The rules are the same for everyone...except north of 466 the rules allow lawn ornaments without permission from the Architectural Review Committee.

Everywhere, North or South, East or West, in The Villages, children under the age of 19 can stay no longer than 30 days, even if their mom and dad are serving in the military or if there is terrible illness in the family. That is what the rule says.

It may sound harsh to some, but no one forces anyone to live here.

[villa2]

Ah, the voice of reason. Thank-you Gracie. I feel much better now. But I must go back to my book because I only have about 70 pages left and it is getting real good.

[zcaveman]

[QUOTE=graciegirl;288737]Please not to worry Villa.

The rules are the same for everyone...except north of 466 the rules allow lawn ornaments without permission from the Architectural Review Committee./QUOTE]

GG - That is only the older parts of 466 north. Any village established after June 2001 has the no lawn ornament rule. It was the older sections that forced that rule due to some of the garish displays.

And permission was never required from the Architectural Review Committee for lawn ornaments in the older areas.

[VT2TV]

VT2TV, you are incorrect in thinking that the breaking of a rule means there is no recourse for future rule breakers. That would be like saying if someone was pulled over for speeding but didn't get a ticket, that officer wouldn't be able to give a ticket to another party.

Please understand that had anyone in TV management known about the situation, the child would have been forced to leave here. This was a NEIGHBORHOOD decision. Any neighbor could have chosen to ANONYMOUSLY call Community Watch and that would have ended the child living here immediately. This neighborhood opted for compassion rather than strict enforcement of a rule. (BTW -- The mother has come home and has taken her child and moved near here but not in TV.)

As to kids driving with radios blaring, that does happen. I dread Thanksgiving weekend when one set of grandkids comes to visit. These teens are rude, arrogant, destructive and noisy. I grit my teeth and remind myself they will leave soon. If they ever get seriously out of line and I can catch them in the act, I won't hesitate to call the police, let alone Community Watch.

I don't care who we are, we all knowingly break some rules. Some of us break little rules that truly hurt no one (like having 3 indoor cats rather than the allowed 2 or jaywalking on a street where there is absolutely no traffic at that time). Some of us break rules that we know could be dangerous to others but feel we can control the risk (speeding, driving while impaired), not always a correct thought but it is what it is. Some of us choose to break major rules and deliberately cause harm.

So, I'm really not sure what your issue is about this child, unless it is confusion thinking that TV allowed the child to live here. The fact this one group chose to break the rules does not mean that it can become a widespread problem in TV. It would be different if one of the CCDs or the developer or anyone involved in the practices and development of rules within TV agreed this family could have the child stay with them. Then others would clamor for the right to break the rule and would probably have legal standing to do so. However, this was not the case. The Villages was not aware this was happening. It was not condoned by The Villages. The reality is that most neighborhoods would have at least one if not several neighbors objecting and voicing their objections to TV management. Heck, when my daughter was living with me (she was 22 at the time), it was reported twice that I had someone under 19 living with me (she looks young). She had to show her driver's license on both occasions. Have no fear, deed restrictions are very strictly enforced when it is known they are being broken.


My issue with the child,(and I am sure you will forgive me if I don't believe that this child has miraculously disappeared, and problem solved. When the thread started they were going to be here for 2 years, and the mother was overseas-hard to believe that all this has changed in this short time. And, but your own admission, you have no problem lying) is that you signed a contract in which you agreed to abide by the rules and regulations. Neither you, nor anyone else in the neighborhood, has the right or authority to change those rules.You delibertly not only broke the rules, you are actually proud of yourself, and have set yourself above the rules. You have made yourself judge and jury when you did not have the right. Plus you then have the nerve to be upset about visitors of neighbors-are these neighbors the same one who aided you in your deception?
I won't keep debating this back and forth. It will not serve any purpose, because you are proud of yourself, and don't think you did anything wrong. If people keep hiding children, it will impact this entire village. And yes, your action actually could cause problems for everyone. Does TV want to be known as the place to go if you want your kids or grandkids to live with you, and people will be glad to help you hide them. Again that would certainly impact everyone. And even your one little action could be the one that causes problems. Remember Rosa Parks?? One example of 1 woman in a little town who changed the course of history. Now that WAS for the greater good of many.
Lastly, the example you gave about the police office and the tickets is not applicable in this case. Police are allowed some autonomy to make specific decisions about the penalities on speeding. People in TV are not allowed that autonomy.
And Graciegirl, you sound like such a nice person. I enjoy your posts. I don't know if the post about no one being forced to live here was directed to me or not, but truely, we want very much to live in the Villages. The first time we were there it seemed so much like paradise this side of Heaven. My husband especially seemed happier to move here than I have ever seen him move anywhere. WE WANT to live here, we WANT to be great neighbors, we WANT to be honest and honorable, and actually, we WANT to be friends to everyone, and I include REDWITCH in that. But it has made me very sad to read some of these posts that threaten to change this wonderful place to live. And I am not just referring to this thread. But fortunately, it seems to still be so much still like paradise here, we really do WANT to live here. i can't imagine a nicer place to live. Signing off...

[villa2]

Amen VT2TV. I owned a home in a 55+ community and I have seen all kinds of controversy because a few believed the rules weren't made for them. I do not want to go through that ordeal again.

[redwitch]

My issue with the child,(and I am sure you will forgive me if I don't believe that this child has miraculously disappeared, and problem solved. When the thread started they were going to be here for 2 years, and the mother was overseas-hard to believe that all this has changed in this short time. And, but your own admission, you have no problem lying) is that you signed a contract in which you agreed to abide by the rules and regulations. Neither you, nor anyone else in the neighborhood, has the right or authority to change those rules.You delibertly not only broke the rules, you are actually proud of yourself, and have set yourself above the rules. You have made yourself judge and jury when you did not have the right. Plus you then have the nerve to be upset about visitors of neighbors-are these neighbors the same one who aided you in your deception?
I won't keep debating this back and forth. It will not serve any purpose, because you are proud of yourself, and don't think you did anything wrong. If people keep hiding children, it will impact this entire village. And yes, your action actually could cause problems for everyone. Does TV want to be known as the place to go if you want your kids or grandkids to live with you, and people will be glad to help you hide them. Again that would certainly impact everyone. And even your one little action could be the one that causes problems. Remember Rosa Parks?? One example of 1 woman in a little town who changed the course of history. Now that WAS for the greater good of many.
Lastly, the example you gave about the police office and the tickets is not applicable in this case. Police are allowed some autonomy to make specific decisions about the penalities on speeding. People in TV are not allowed that autonomy.
And Graciegirl, you sound like such a nice person. I enjoy your posts. I don't know if the post about no one being forced to live here was directed to me or not, but truely, we want very much to live in the Villages. The first time we were there it seemed so much like paradise this side of Heaven. My husband especially seemed happier to move here than I have ever seen him move anywhere. WE WANT to live here, we WANT to be great neighbors, we WANT to be honest and honorable, and actually, we WANT to be friends to everyone, and I include REDWITCH in that. But it has made me very sad to read some of these posts that threaten to change this wonderful place to live. And I am not just referring to this thread. But fortunately, it seems to still be so much still like paradise here, we really do WANT to live here. i can't imagine a nicer place to live. Signing off...

I think you misunderstood a couple of facts -- this was not my neighborhood. I said I knew of two children living in TV. One child is unruly, the grandparents are selling their home and moving out of TV. The other child was here for two years while her mother finished her tour of duty. The grandparents have moved out even before their house sold because they were reported. I do know the other child's mother has come home and they have moved out. The girl did live here for two years.

When I told of these two stories, it was to let people know that there are times the rules are broken. TV cannot do anything if the neighborhood condones the breaking. TV can do something about ornaments in the front although some people have gotten around those rules, too (at least to an extent) and does when they notice the problem. Other rules (children, too many pets) can only be enforced when known.

In a community the size of TV, I'm sure there are others who have and are breaking the rules regarding children under 19 or more than 2 pets. Personally, I feel that if the neighbors don't care, I'm going to stay out of it -- they are the ones inconvenienced. As I said, I know that in my neighborhood it would not be condoned and would be reported and I believe this is true in most neighborhoods.

But I do resent you calling me a liar. I can understand the misunderstanding, but not the accusations that I would lie about the girl still living here; that I lied when she did live here. True, I did not report her living here; it was not my neighborhood and it was the choice of the neighborhood and, thus, not my business, IMO.

[Talk Host]

"...in the neighborhood" What is the neighborhood? At what geographic point does the neighborhood end. If there was a code violation of some significance 3 doors away, would you report it? 10 doors away? 50 doors away. Or, is "The Villages" your neighborhood?

Isn't this like the old "Domino Theory" Allow a ceramic bunny on the front porch and pretty soon, we'll have abandon trucks in the front yard and goats grazing in the side yard. :jester:

[getdul981]

VT2TV and TH.

:thumbup: :BigApplause:

[VT2TV]

As someone who takes pride in trying to do the right thing (and I certainly have plenty of other faults) I really should not have called REDWITCH a liar on a public forum. Regardless of what I think about her actions, liar was probably not the CORRECT word. The reason myself and others feel like it is your neighborhood is because you have intimate knowledge about the entire situation. So, although I still stand by my postings, I publicly apologize to REDWITCH for calling her a liar. I have no problems admitting when I am wrong.

[redwitch]

Okay, I promise this will be my last post on this. First, could you please point out where I said I would have no problem lying. That is so not in my character that I'd love to see where I might have said it.

I watch homes all over TV. I make it a practice to get to know the neighbors -- that way they know I'm supposed to be there and also so that they can call me if something happens in between my visits. Both instances of the children living on these streets are in areas where I watch homes. If the neighbors and my homeowner were okay with things as they were, I was not about to report it, any more than I would be willing to report lawn ornaments in the front or back yard. If someone who lives near the lawn ornament placer objects, they can take the necessary steps to have the items removed. The neighbors of these children could have taken the necessary steps to stop the actions.

Personally, I understand the rules about children and the logic behind them. I also understand that sometimes this rule will be broken (the grandmother who babysits her grandchild every day while mom works; the grandchildren who visit for the entire summer or a month during the summer and then come for Christmas; etc.). We all have to do what we feel is right. Regardless of how I personally feel, it would never have been right for me to turn these families in, even if they lived in my neighborhood: (1) none of my business; (2) compassion for the grandparents put in these horrible binds; (3) I didn't see the true harm since I understood it to be a temporary situation in both cases (and, so far as I know, both were).

And what is considered a major violation to one person may be a minor irritation to another. Trash should not be put out days before pick up, yet it is constantly -- especially lawn clippings, which can sit out all week. Bicyclists and golf cart drivers who don't stop at stop signs is a far worse violation to me than a child living in TV. Trash can and does draw vermin. Speeders and stop sign runners frequently cause accidents. Lawn ornaments may not be my thing (they're not) but other than being an eyesore to me, they do no harm. A child staying over the time limits is not right, but sometimes circumstances cause things to happen that are totally unplanned. And, quite frankly, I'm not about to report any of these violators. (I will call 911 if I think someone is drunk and driving or driving completely recklessly, but not just speeding or running a stop light.) It is all a matter of perspective, I guess.

[Diane K Gatlin]

I need answers (premove) to TV questions. How much of your property can you enclose with a birdcage. And, if you have three dogs (Mother and 2 adult off springs) is it ever overlooked. I have 5 dogs and have found homes for two, but Mama and pups are inseparable. I believe in adherence to rules, but my heart will break if I have to leave Lola as well as her heart. We have had her since she was 6 weeks old and she is now 10. All three are poms with papers, but fixed. No more babies. Lola barks too much but we have a shock collar which ends the problem when we put it on her. We now live on 26 acres which we are selling so we can move to TV. We are 69 and 67 and don't want to completely wear ourselves out keeping up with it. If anyone has an answer to my questions. Please let me know.
DianeKKG

[Rob Stevens]

Redwitch I think that you seem to be OK with rule breaking as long as it doesn't upset your understanding of the rules. I have to side with the others who wonder why you have rules if any one person can decide which rules he will follow. Everyone knows the score when they move in.

[graciegirl]

Diane, I think that you can keep three if you have them when you come here but when they pass over the rainbow bridge you should have no more than two.

That is my understanding.

Someone will clarify this.

[jebartle]

After reading this thread, I'm blurry eyed, I'm afraid that VT2TV will find rule breakers where ever they go, that is human nature....The Villages is a great place, and I know you will love your friends and neighbors here and they will love you, but I have to say, a lot can be said for compassion and kindness to your fellow man irregardless of the rules...BBQman you have my vote!..I guess you have to decide if a rule has "wiggle" room for exceptional cases.

[getdul981]

Diane, I think that you can keep three if you have them when you come here but when they pass over the rainbow bridge you should have no more than two.

That is my understanding.

Someone will clarify this.

I thought I had read that somewhere too, but I don't know for sure either.

[Indydealmaker]

I think that the "glass house" rule should apply here. If you live in one, stop throwing stones. From what I have seen here in my first month of residency, at least half of the residents live in those glass houses by breaking rules that are far more deadly than residency violations. Speeding is rampant and I have seen dozens of near accidents involving golf carts and autos because the golf cart drivers assume incorrectly that golf carts have the right of way. The best policy is to trust the system and stop trying to manipulate it. If a situation does not directly impact you, ignore it. Leave the policing to those directly and negatively impacted.

[iandwk]

We all know the rules. It's our choice to keep them or not, but we should be prepared to accept the consequences of our actions if we choose to break the rules for whatever reason.

I don't always come to a complete stop at stop signs. It isn't unsafe, because I am positive no one is coming and I am clear to make my turn. If I get caught by law enforcement, I don't have a leg to stand on. I know the law and I know I broke it. I will pay the fine. I think the same principle applies to this thread.

Right or wrong, when we knowingly or unknowingly break a rule, we may have to pay the price.

[Annabelle]

Interesting that those who post here in support of certain TV residents (who flagrantly ignore their deed restrictions) say it is out of a sense of "compassion" for these people.

I would like to know where is your sense of "compassion" for the residents who move to TV and discover they are living next door to someone who offers daycare in their home..... or even worst.....has underage children residing in their home on a permanent basis.

While "reckless" golf cart drivers, "inconsiderate" pet owners and "connoisseurs" of yard art may also be guilty of violating their deed restrictions, these infractions are hardly as serious as harboring an illegal resident in one's home.

VT2TV, Villa2, Iandwk and the others on this thread who believe that the long term success of TV depends greatly on the desire and willingness of it's residents to accept and honor the restrictive covenant set forth by the developers of TV:

"would you be mine, could you be mine, won't you please be my neighbor!"

Annabelle

[Barefoot]

.

[springfield illinois]

I have found that if my neighbors start being concerned about my business... (notice i didnt say breaking the rules) if they are worried about me,, the best cure is for me to walk around in my house in my underwear, or put on my NINJA outfit, and jump off the furniture, and act like I slaying the dragons! REALLY give them something to worry about when they are looking thru my windows with binoculars.

[Bogie Shooter]

I have found that if my neighbors start being concerned about my business... (notice i didnt say breaking the rules) if they are worried about me,, the best cure is for me to walk around in my house in my underwear, or put on my NINJA outfit, and jump off the furniture, and act like I slaying the dragons! REALLY give them something to worry about when they are looking thru my windows with binoculars.

You've seen people looking thru windows with binoculars??

[memason]

I think someone might be hearing voices again... :loco:

[Challenger]

I think that the "glass house" rule should apply here. If you live in one, stop throwing stones. From what I have seen here in my first month of residency, at least half of the residents live in those glass houses by breaking rules that are far more deadly than residency violations. Speeding is rampant and I have seen dozens of near accidents involving golf carts and autos because the golf cart drivers assume incorrectly that golf carts have the right of way. The best policy is to trust the system and stop trying to manipulate it. If a situation does not directly impact you, ignore it. Leave the policing to those directly and negatively impacted.

I bought in TV in part because of the deed restrictions. I for one want to see them enforced strictly everywhere and don't mind calling infractions to the attention of enforcing authorities. This is in everyone's best interest even if they don't believe so. If you bought here you agreed to the terms of ownership. A broken agreement is not good neighborship. :rant-rave:

[LI SNOWBIRD]

I do know of a couple of kids living in TV in direct violation of the covenants. In one instance, the father died and the mother is serving in Iraq. The neighbors are well aware of the grandchild living there. They also know the circumstances. The grandparents are aware they are in violation but everyone felt it was in the best interests of all for the child to stay here. The grandparents actually spoke to each of their neighbors to explain the situation and all are in agreement that the child can stay for two years. The child is quiet and well-behaved and the darling of the block. Pool use is a non-issue -- they have their own pool. Neighbors fight to babysit. I doubt they would be as willing if it were a permanent situation but it is temporary and the child is truly adorable.

In the other situation that I know of, the grandparents were not as forthright and it is creating major issues. Odds are the grandparents will be selling their home and moving away -- they have custody of their grandson, who has some major issues. No one has reported them but the neighbors are pretty unhappy.

There are other rules broken in TV -- some deliberate, some completely unknowingly. I got a notice because my Queen Palm was trimmed on a Saturday but pick up wasn't until Wednesday. I thought it was okay to leave the fronds in the driveway. Apparently not. This was one time I ignored the notice since I knew it would be taken care of before anything could be done.

I have a neighbor working on his antique car in the driveway -- a definite no-no. He'll continue doing so until Community Watch stops it. He cleans up every afternoon and if the car isn't going to be worked on the following day, it goes into the garage. Most of us in this development won't report him. I'm sure one snowbird will if she comes down before the work is done.

The point is rules are broken and, personally, I think things should be taken on a case-by-case basis. A lot will depend on the neighbors as to what happens. Some things (unkempt lawns/weeds/dirty exterior) will be reported by CW when noticed. Some things will only come to light if someone complains. Some things will be discovered by TV because of ID cards, etc., especially now that everyone over the age of 1 must have some sort of card to use any TV facility.

Thanks for being the voice of reason and sharing.:wave:

[skyguy79]

Thanks for being the voice of reason and sharing.:wave:
http://www.easyfreesmileys.com/smileys/free-sign-smileys-968.gif It's common sense and not narrow mindedness that helps makes TV paradise for most of us!

[Challenger]

so we can brake some rules for some people some times , if we like the people who are breaking them , or if we agree that their cause is worthy, but not for others with whom we do not agree. My point is that this is a very slippery slope and can cause invalidation(if not enforced) of certain or possible all deed restrictions.

Not meant to be negative about extreme circumstances, but understanding about the ultimate course (unintended consequences)is important. Rather than ignoring the rules, there is or should be an appeals process that is fairly administrated to hear and pass on exceptions.

Obviously there are some very minor issues that occur and are rectified in a short period and making a big tado would be counterproductive.

[downeaster]

so we can brake some rules for some people some times , if we like the people who are breaking them , or if we agree that their cause is worthy, but not for others with whom we do not agree. My point is that this is a very slippery slope and can cause invalidation(if not enforced) of certain or possible all deed restrictions.

Not meant to be negative about extreme circumstances, but understanding about the ultimate course (unintended consequences)is important. Rather than ignoring the rules, there is or should be an appeals process that is fairly administrated to hear and pass on exceptions.

Obviously there are some very minor issues that occur and are rectified in a short period and making a big tado would be counterproductive.


I agree, Challenger. I have been down "the slippery slope" in two prior subdivisions. The consequences were not nice. Among other things, property values were effected.

I think we are better protected in a CDD of the magnitude of The Villages. The CDD has the wherewithal to enforce the restrictions.

I am not sure an appeals process would help. Once an exception was granted it could apply to all similar cases. If I obtain an exception to raise my grandchildren here why can't everyone do the same? (Don't worry. I have no intention of raising my grandchildren.)

[Challenger]

[QUOTE=downeaster;353603]I agree, Challenger. I have been down "the slippery slope" in two prior subdivisions. The consequences were not nice. Among other things, property values were effected.

I too have seen nasty result from good intentioned variances from the rules. Two particular areas that were a real problem were fence and satelite dish violations .

[Harry Gilbert]

I understand that this is an old topic but let me add a new wrinkle to the fracus.

There is a possibility that TV was aware of the youngster at some point ( I have no info that they did) Keep in mind that TV is in the business of selling houses, With the tough market over the past few years the last thing they would want would be negative publicity.

Imagine they did give the boot to Mom Mom ,Pop pop and the young child of a soldier serving in the middle east who's father had just died. How would that play out in the media. (anyone can drop a reporter a note) I can just see them on one of the morning fluff news shows. Can you imagine the fallout from senior groups, veteran groups, parent groups and so on. "Americas friendliest hometown" would take a beating publicly.

If it were me faced with the choice of kicking them out. Or riding it out and no one is raising a stink about it......

Technically it was against the rules but given the choice with the potential consequences with either choice what would you do?

And a side note if/when I buy there that's the neighborhood I want to be in!

[cabo35]

It would appear that we are on the slippery slope of one of the oldest legal debates in the world. Montesquieu's masterpiece, The Spirit of the Laws is a fascinating treatise on the social, cultural and political implications of law.

A biblical reference can be found in Romans 2:29 (New American Standard Bible)

29But (A)he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and (B)circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the (C)Spirit, not by the letter; (D)and his praise is not from men, but from God.

The best explanation for the debate I can find is from an author unknown in Wikipedia.

The letter of the law versus the spirit of the law is an idiomatic antithesis. When one obeys the letter of the law but not the spirit, one is obeying the literal interpretation of the words (the "letter") of the law, but not the intent of those who wrote the law. Conversely, when one obeys the spirit of the law but not the letter, one is doing what the authors of the law intended, though not adhering to the literal wording.

My best guess is that each of us selectively subscribes to the position that fits are comfort zone as defined by our personal values, experience and biases. That is not to say we might be for the letter of the law in some matters and for the spirit in others. Maintaining 25 mph in a 25 mph zone comes to mind.

By the way.....I am predominately a spirit of the law advocate.

4thekids

[graciegirl]

It would appear that we are on the slippery slope of one of the oldest legal debates in the world. Montesquieu's masterpiece, The Spirit of the Laws is a fascinating treatise on the social, cultural and political implications of law.

A biblical reference can be found in Romans 2:29 (New American Standard Bible)

29But (A)he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and (B)circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the (C)Spirit, not by the letter; (D)and his praise is not from men, but from God.

The best explanation for the debate I can find is from an author unknown in Wikipedia.

The letter of the law versus the spirit of the law is an idiomatic antithesis. When one obeys the letter of the law but not the spirit, one is obeying the literal interpretation of the words (the "letter") of the law, but not the intent of those who wrote the law. Conversely, when one obeys the spirit of the law but not the letter, one is doing what the authors of the law intended, though not adhering to the literal wording.

My best guess is that each of us selectively subscribes to the position that fits are comfort zone as defined by our personal values, experience and biases. That is not to say we might be for the letter of the law in some matters and for the spirit in others. Maintaining 25 mph in a 25 mph zone comes to mind.

By the way.....I am predominately a spirit of the law advocate.

4thekids

I am having a dickens of a time understanding your great mind Cabo.

I do know that if we have a bunch of kids living here, than it is not a retirement community...to me anyway.

[harbor53]

I know the Villages are not exactly the liberal center of the universe. Indeed, there is a rumor that many of you (hopefully, soon to be "us") are a wee bit on the conservative side.

If this is true..I find it very interesting that everyone is OK with the concept of "Big Developer" and "Big Covanent Rules" that intrude on individual liberty.

I'm not judging. Heck, I wanna join you. But - the willingness to surrender personal liberty in exchange for the greater good....well, that's a pretty lefty concept. Maybe the Villages will add a health insurance mandate. Sal'right by me. Villages Care!

Please - I am not trying to offend or judge anyone. It's all OK from my perspective - we need to understand our differences and celebrate what each brings to the table (I'm liberal in that way). But - it is an interesting contradiction and one that I see as slightly ironic.

Cheers!

Harbor

[cabo35]

I am having a dickens of a time understanding your great mind Cabo.

I do know that if we have a bunch of kids living here, than it is not a retirement community...to me anyway.

Are we "Florida's Friendliest Hometown" or, "Florida's Friendliest Retirement Community Except When Kids Are Involved".

I totally understand the restrictions on kids. I agree that those restrictions are important. If by magic they were lifted, the negative implications on schools, taxes, and lifestyle would be significant.

However, the spirit of the restrictions addresses those issues squarely and adequately. Some Villagers have advocated the letter of the law and speak of doomsday for the Villages if a rare exception, as in the example posted, is tolerated. They infer that it puts us on an exaggerated "slippery slope" ....a lame, worn out turn of words......and erroneously suggest calamitous consequences for a single breach or false step. It conjures and deviously excites alarm that presupposes inevitable disaster. Those who use it do not recognize a vast middle ground where the community as a whole.....you know...Florida's Friendliest Hometown.....may be better served by the spirit of law.

I am delighted that children are allowed (tolerated) by the covenants. I enjoy the sound of children playing and hearing their laughter. I smile when I see young families walking downtown. There is so much joy and hope in their exploration of life. I also get the "retirement" component you mention. Surely we are not in danger of the slippery slope that will overnight take our lifestyle away by exploring the middle ground or making a reasonable accommodation under exigent circumstance. I doubt the sky will fall or our lifestyle will be compromised. I am aware of the strong feelings regarding kids in paradise, therefore, I will retreat to an undisclosed bunker and await incoming.

Great mind????? Nahhhhhh........just a wannabe golfer between rounds with to much time on his hands.:wave:

[graciegirl]

I see you in your bunker.:wave:

I like kids too. No I love kids, always will. It is just when they are around I worry about them. I like being with my peers. I don't want to worry.

Most of us are sensible...and kind. I guess we can debate this ad infinitum, but give an exception and you have a mess.

And you do have a great mind Cabo.

[collie1228]

For the record, I have two kids and two grandkids, and love them all without reservation. That being said, there are people who don't like kids, or like them fine but don't want them living next door during retirement. I respect that attitude, even if I don't share it. The person who doesn't want kids living next door moves to The Villages partly because he knows that the rules don't allow his next door neighbor to have kids living there full time. By allowing exceptions to the rule, aren't we are infringing on this person's rights as a homeowner in The Villages? As far as I'm concerned, he should have the ability to force the powers that be to enforce the rules. That's JMHO.

[Challenger]

For the record, I have two kids and two grandkids, and love them all without reservation. That being said, there are people who don't like kids, or like them fine but don't want them living next door during retirement. I respect that attitude, even if I don't share it. The person who doesn't want kids living next door moves to The Villages partly because he knows that the rules don't allow his next door neighbor to have kids living there full time. By allowing exceptions to the rule, aren't we are infringing on this person's rights as a homeowner in The Villages? As far as I'm concerned, he should have the ability to force the powers that be to enforce the rules. That's JMHO.

he can

[2BNTV]

Are we "Florida's Friendliest Hometown" or, "Florida's Friendliest Retirement Community Except When Kids Are Involved".

I totally understand the restrictions on kids. I agree that those restrictions are important. If by magic they were lifted, the negative implications on schools, taxes, and lifestyle would be significant.

However, the spirit of the restrictions addresses those issues squarely and adequately. Some Villagers have advocated the letter of the law and speak of doomsday for the Villages if a rare exception, as in the example posted, is tolerated. They infer that it puts us on an exaggerated "slippery slope" ....a lame, worn out turn of words......and erroneously suggest calamitous consequences for a single breach or false step. It conjures and deviously excites alarm that presupposes inevitable disaster. Those who use it do not recognize a vast middle ground where the community as a whole.....you know...Florida's Friendliest Hometown.....may be better served by the spirit of law.

I am delighted that children are allowed (tolerated) by the covenants. I enjoy the sound of children playing and hearing their laughter. I smile when I see young families walking downtown. There is so much joy and hope in their exploration of life. I also get the "retirement" component you mention. Surely we are not in danger of the slippery slope that will overnight take our lifestyle away by exploring the middle ground or making a reasonable accommodation under exigent circumstance. I doubt the sky will fall or our lifestyle will be compromised. I am aware of the strong feelings regarding kids in paradise, therefore, I will retreat to an undisclosed bunker and await incoming.

Great mind????? Nahhhhhh........just a wannabe golfer between rounds with to much time on his hands.:wave:

cabo35:

:agree: Great Post. Eloquently expressed thoughts. :BigApplause:

[jgbama]

For the record, I have two kids and two grandkids, and love them all without reservation. That being said, there are people who don't like kids, or like them fine but don't want them living next door during retirement. I respect that attitude, even if I don't share it. The person who doesn't want kids living next door moves to The Villages partly because he knows that the rules don't allow his next door neighbor to have kids living there full time. By allowing exceptions to the rule, aren't we are infringing on this person's rights as a homeowner in The Villages? As far as I'm concerned, he should have the ability to force the powers that be to enforce the rules. That's JMHO.

It's raining here at our golf course (place I work) so, I've read through this entire thread. I risk labeling myself as a masochist. To lighten everyone up a little, this (for some reason) brings to mind a definition my "grandpappy" told me of a "brat". He said, "Son a brat is a kid who behaves like yours but belongs to a neighbor"!

Isn't it funny that I don't remember being annoyed when our son cried, but went bonkers when we are around other kids crying! Now that he is 26, I'm crying because he still has his hand too close to my wallet!! Guess that is why I'm ready to be around people my own age. . . play lots of golf, and enjoy my afternoon "bourbon and branch waters", and love on his mamma!!!

I think TV has and will survive an occasional infraction. I understand the rules and haven't moved there yet. I respect all the differing opinions expressed here and regret some new readers of TOTV get the wrong opinion of the residents there. No Chicken Little, the sky isn't falling!

I plan to be as protective as most "frogs" are and will probably want the squares restricted to residents and card carrying guests! After all it is YOUR hometown once you move there!!

It quit raining and I have to sign off and vacuum the Pro Shop. So. . . my times up and I thank you for yours!:ho:

[Barefoot]

I plan to be as protective as most "frogs" are and will probably want the squares restricted to residents and card carrying guests! After all it is YOUR hometown once you move there!!



:confused::confused::confused: The public is welcome in the Squares, shops, movie theatres and restaurants. Without people from surrounding communities, many business would probably end up closing. The roads are owned by the County, not by The Villages.

[Bill-n-Brillo]

..... Without people from surrounding communities, many business would probably end up closing. .....

Ditto.

Bill :)

[jgbama]

:confused::confused::confused: The public is welcome in the Squares, shops, movie theatres and restaurants. Without people from surrounding communities, many business would probably end up closing. The roads are owned by the County, not by The Villages.

Ditto.

Bill :)

My comment was in jest. I understand the need for the local community, especially in the summer months and certainly don't purport closing the squares to just residents or card carrying guests!! (Oh, my.) In hindsight, it was probably a bad idea to attempt and lighten some folks up with a bit of humor. :oops: I guess I'm becoming a little too comfortable on TOTV and forget none of you have met me yet.

It just bothered me to read emotions getting so out of hand to the point that new members were stating they were having second thoughts about considering TV!!

[Bill-n-Brillo]

All is forgiven, John. Now put that pointy little hat on and go sit in the corner for a while..................... :jester:

Bill :wave:

[Barefoot]

My comment was in jest.

It just bothered me to read emotions getting so out of hand to the point that new members were stating they were having second thoughts about considering TV!!

Sorry, I didn't get that you were jesting. Lots of peeps think that residents "own" the Town Squares. When we first purchased in TV, we were under the misconception that TV was a totally gated community.

I think it is healthy when potential buyers question whether TV is right for them. Not everyone is comfortable with deed restrictions. I personally love them, but there are lots of "free spirits" out there who want to do their own thing. TV isn't for everyone. I know at least 20 couples and some singles who moved to TV, and then regretted their purchase. Not because of Deed Restrictions, but because of lifestyle issues. It's a small percentage of the peeps who are estatic about their decision. But TV doesn't suit everyone's needs, and potential buyers are wise to think twice.

[gomsiepop]

For every rule created there is someone that will find a way to circumvent that rule. Unless someone is being hurt or bothered I don't see a problem.

[BettyCrocked]

Not trying to derail the topic, but I thought I'd share a funny thing my son said. My first weekend down here after closing on my home, I went for a ride in the golf cart with my sister and my son (he's 21). We rode past the town square just after 9 Pm when things were winding down and passed a group of women who were late 20's to early 30's. I'll put this as nicely as possible but they were dressed like hookers. My sister said "why would they want to come here to party?" My son quickly replied "lookin for a sugar daddy!" I guess he's wise beyond his years.

[mulligan]

Once again, I must remind you to read your declaration of covenants. The last section states that you, as an owner, have an obligation to see that the restrictions are enforced, up to and including litigation.

[Bogie Shooter]

Not trying to derail the topic, but I thought I'd share a funny thing my son said. My first weekend down here after closing on my home, I went for a ride in the golf cart with my sister and my son (he's 21). We rode past the town square just after 9 Pm when things were winding down and passed a group of women who were late 20's to early 30's. I'll put this as nicely as possible but they were dressed like hookers. My sister said "why would they want to come here to party?" My son quickly replied "lookin for a sugar daddy!" I guess he's wise beyond his years.

Derail a three year old thread?
Not sure what this has to do with "TV Restriction Violations".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[BettyCrocked]

I was replying to the post about only allowing TV residents at the live entertainment at the squares. I don't look at the age of a thread on the front page, I just read the ones that may contain a topic of interest to me. Sorry if my post touched a nerve.

[OnTrack]

I don't look at the age of a thread on the front page, I just read the ones that may contain a topic of interest to me. Sorry if my post touched a nerve.

I made the same mistake the other day. :o

Apparently, there is a statute of limitations on threads. :oops:


.

[NIPAS K-9]

I do know of a couple of kids living in TV in direct violation of the covenants. In one instance, the father died and the mother is serving in Iraq. The neighbors are well aware of the grandchild living there. They also know the circumstances. The grandparents are aware they are in violation but everyone felt it was in the best interests of all for the child to stay here. The grandparents actually spoke to each of their neighbors to explain the situation and all are in agreement that the child can stay for two years. The child is quiet and well-behaved and the darling of the block. Pool use is a non-issue -- they have their own pool. Neighbors fight to babysit. I doubt they would be as willing if it were a permanent situation but it is temporary and the child is truly adorable.

In the other situation that I know of, the grandparents were not as forthright and it is creating major issues. Odds are the grandparents will be selling their home and moving away -- they have custody of their grandson, who has some major issues. No one has reported them but the neighbors are pretty unhappy.

There are other rules broken in TV -- some deliberate, some completely unknowingly. I got a notice because my Queen Palm was trimmed on a Saturday but pick up wasn't until Wednesday. I thought it was okay to leave the fronds in the driveway. Apparently not. This was one time I ignored the notice since I knew it would be taken care of before anything could be done.

I have a neighbor working on his antique car in the driveway -- a definite no-no. He'll continue doing so until Community Watch stops it. He cleans up every afternoon and if the car isn't going to be worked on the following day, it goes into the garage. Most of us in this development won't report him. I'm sure one snowbird will if she comes down before the work is done.

The point is rules are broken and, personally, I think things should be taken on a case-by-case basis. A lot will depend on the neighbors as to what happens. Some things (unkempt lawns/weeds/dirty exterior) will be reported by CW when noticed. Some things will only come to light if someone complains. Some things will be discovered by TV because of ID cards, etc., especially now that everyone over the age of 1 must have some sort of card to use any TV facility.

That's the least we can do , since the mother is putting her LIFE ON THE LINE FOR OUR FREEDOM..........

[BettyCrocked]

I made the same mistake the other day. :o

Apparently, there is a statute of limitations on threads. :oops:


.

I'm working on learning to ignore the message board police. I wasn't watching for the statute of limitations thing. Never understood why someone posts to complain about how old a thread is. Umm, you just bumped it up to the top, when it may have drifted right off the front page without your bump! Lol!

[OnTrack]

I'm working on learning to ignore the message board police. I wasn't watching for the statute of limitations thing. Never understood why someone posts to complain about how old a thread is. Umm, you just bumped it up to the top, when it may have drifted right off the front page without your bump! Lol!

I didn't mean to bump it.


Dang.......I just did it again!! :oops:


:a20: :a20:



.

[BettyCrocked]

Lmao!