Reading The Declaration Of Restrictions For The Villages Of Sumter Unit No.99

[Laker14]

The recent threads about the "clipboard ladies" and deed restrictions got me thinking more about them. I must admit that when we purchased our home in February 2021, I never bothered to read the document.
Having purchases the home as a "resale" I just assumed that it was in compliance, or close enough, and frankly, among all of the other burdensome legal documents to read, the deed restrictions were pretty low on my list of priorities.
So, I downloaded the "AMENDED AND RESTATED" declaration. A couple of items surprised me in their vagueness, and one surprised me that it existed at all. Among the more interesting to me were the following 3 items. Note that the numbering is mine, and not the same numbers that identify the items in the original document.

Although the original document refers often to "The Developer" I am assuming that at some point the authority ceded to "The Developer" in this document conveyed to the CDD. I am in CDD 5, and this document was downloaded from their page on the "districtgov.org" site.

1. "Lawn ornaments are prohibited except seasons displays not exceeding a 30 day duration."
What surprises me here is that I've read a few times that something that may be prohibited in the sodded area is allowed on a porch, or in a garden bed. I see no mention in the document to that effect, nor do I see any mention of the restriction applying only to ornaments of or greater than a certain dimension.

2. "No tree with a trunk 4" or more in diameter shall be removed or effectively removed through excessive injury without first obtaining permission from the Developer."
I was unaware of this restriction. I see palm trees coming down often. I'd be really surprised if the CDD is often advised of these removals. I had been told that only the oak trees were protected.

3.(Here's a personal favorite of mine, of which I was unaware: ) "All owners shall notify the Developer when leaving their property for more than a 7-day period shall simultaneously advise the Developer as tho their tentative return date."

This one got me to thinking about all of the posts I've read stating essentially "Well, if you read your deed restrictions, and follow the rules, you've got nothing to worry about." I have a hard time imagining even these strict rule followers bother to advise the CDD that they are leaving their homes for a week. And I have an even harder time imaging the reaction of whoever it is who is supposed to receive this notice, upon receiving this important information from the loyal rule follower.

I have no issue with the deed restrictions. I think they serve a useful purpose. I have seen my share of front yards in other areas, outside of TV, with more crap in the yard than I'd like to look at in my neighborhood, so I get the value of having deed restrictions, and I appreciate that to a significant degree, what I like about my neighborhood is protected by the deed restrictions.
Having said that, I don't see the value in riding around in remote neighborhoods looking for violations that evidently pass the standards of the immediate neighbors, and I do see a value in allowing a certain degree of artistic expression in the landscaping and adornment of one's property.
It strikes me as a shame that some people can't see their way to letting other people live their lives in peace, as long as they're not bothering their neighbors.

[retiredguy123]

I think your No. 1 is the result of people interpreting a loophole in the definition of the "lawn". If something is placed under the eave of the house, technically it is not on the lawn. Or so they say.

[Bill14564]

The restrictions can be slightly different in each district (and probably each unit). There is a paragraph in my CDD10 restrictions between your 2.6 and 2.7 that you don't have and your paragraph 2.20, about leaving the property, does not exist in mine (phew!).

[Bogie Shooter]

Read on here many times a palm is not a tree. I’m too lazy to do the Google thing.😃

[Djean1981]

Read on here many times a palm is not a tree. I’m too lazy to do the Google thing.😃
The palm tree is classified as a weed..

[Two Bills]

Palms are considered as grass in the horticulture world.
So you can mow them down anytime!:icon_wink:

[Toymeister]

Retired Contracting Officer here

In any situation where two 'reasonable businessmen' can come two or more conclusions on the meaning of contract document, then the inconsistency is ruled against the drafter of the document (contract).

In other words the meaning must be contained within the four corners of the contact.

There are caveats to this, naturally. First is the cost to resolve any disagreements. Second, two reasonable business persons are difficult to find. If you have read this forum for any length of time there are some true idiots here, certainly not reasonable or of very high awareness.

[drcar]

The recent threads about the "clipboard ladies" and deed restrictions got me thinking more about them. I must admit that when we purchased our home in February 2021, I never bothered to read the document.
Having purchases the home as a "resale" I just assumed that it was in compliance, or close enough, and frankly, among all of the other burdensome legal documents to read, the deed restrictions were pretty low on my list of priorities.
So, I downloaded the "AMENDED AND RESTATED" declaration. A couple of items surprised me in their vagueness, and one surprised me that it existed at all. Among the more interesting to me were the following 3 items. Note that the numbering is mine, and not the same numbers that identify the items in the original document.

Although the original document refers often to "The Developer" I am assuming that at some point the authority ceded to "The Developer" in this document conveyed to the CDD. I am in CDD 5, and this document was downloaded from their page on the "districtgov.org" site.

1. "Lawn ornaments are prohibited except seasons displays not exceeding a 30 day duration."
What surprises me here is that I've read a few times that something that may be prohibited in the sodded area is allowed on a porch, or in a garden bed. I see no mention in the document to that effect, nor do I see any mention of the restriction applying only to ornaments of or greater than a certain dimension.

2. "No tree with a trunk 4" or more in diameter shall be removed or effectively removed through excessive injury without first obtaining permission from the Developer."
I was unaware of this restriction. I see palm trees coming down often. I'd be really surprised if the CDD is often advised of these removals. I had been told that only the oak trees were protected.

3.(Here's a personal favorite of mine, of which I was unaware: ) "All owners shall notify the Developer when leaving their property for more than a 7-day period shall simultaneously advise the Developer as tho their tentative return date."

This one got me to thinking about all of the posts I've read stating essentially "Well, if you read your deed restrictions, and follow the rules, you've got nothing to worry about." I have a hard time imagining even these strict rule followers bother to advise the CDD that they are leaving their homes for a week. And I have an even harder time imaging the reaction of whoever it is who is supposed to receive this notice, upon receiving this important information from the loyal rule follower.

I have no issue with the deed restrictions. I think they serve a useful purpose. I have seen my share of front yards in other areas, outside of TV, with more crap in the yard than I'd like to look at in my neighborhood, so I get the value of having deed restrictions, and I appreciate that to a significant degree, what I like about my neighborhood is protected by the deed restrictions.
Having said that, I don't see the value in riding around in remote neighborhoods looking for violations that evidently pass the standards of the immediate neighbors, and I do see a value in allowing a certain degree of artistic expression in the landscaping and adornment of one's property.
It strikes me as a shame that some people can't see their way to letting other people live their lives in peace, as long as they're not bothering their neighbors.

To answer one of your questions, palms are NOT trees, they are ferns and can be removed at anytime.

[Stu from NYC]

One of these days should find this document and be one of the small majority of people living here who has actually read it.

[Mortal1]

Actually believing that some people ride around in "remote" neighborhoods just to point out restriction violations appears to be a creation of someones imagination. Never seen it happen and assume as do those who might believe this action might be a tad bit paranoid....personally I have no issue with folks who do this(if they exist at all)because deed restrictions aren't typically addressed unless pointed out by someone. So having a person, who for whatever reason(nothing else to do, fed up with those who could care less about restrictions, or just ignorant)decides it's a worthy past time has my thanks.

[Stu from NYC]

Actually believing that some people ride around in "remote" neighborhoods just to point out restriction violations appears to be a creation of someones imagination. Never seen it happen and assume as do those who might believe this action might be a tad bit paranoid....personally I have no issue with folks who do this(if they exist at all)because deed restrictions aren't typically addressed unless pointed out by someone. So having a person, who for whatever reason(nothing else to do, fed up with those who could care less about restrictions, or just ignorant)decides it's a worthy past time has my thanks.

If they dropped off a note about this at someone's home would not have a problem.

Doing this at district is something else entirely.

[villagetinker]

Actually believing that some people ride around in "remote" neighborhoods just to point out restriction violations appears to be a creation of someones imagination. Never seen it happen and assume as do those who might believe this action might be a tad bit paranoid....personally I have no issue with folks who do this(if they exist at all)because deed restrictions aren't typically addressed unless pointed out by someone. So having a person, who for whatever reason(nothing else to do, fed up with those who could care less about restrictions, or just ignorant)decides it's a worthy past time has my thanks.

Having been a 'victim' of this I disagree, our neighborhood had 35 complaints phoned in in one day, now understand many of the items reported were there for YEARS with non of the neighbors complaining.

[Stu from NYC]

Having been a 'victim' of this I disagree, our neighborhood had 35 complaints phoned in in one day, now understand many of the items reported were there for YEARS with non of the neighbors complaining.

Sorry this happened to you some people should just get a life

[Keefelane66]

Why would the Developer need to know if you left for a week or more?

[Stu from NYC]

Why would the Developer need to know if you left for a week or more?

Makes no sense to me either

[Marathon Man]

... I must admit that when we purchased our home in February 2021, I never bothered to read the document...


A perfect illustration of a big part of the problem. People do not bother to read the documents.

Cudos to you for taking the time to inform yourself. It is the first step in being a good neighbor in a deed restricted community.

[Bonanza]

Why would the Developer need to know if you left for a week or more?

So they know they can take all the time they want to rob you and trash your house??!?
Why else?

[MartinSE]

The recent threads about the "clipboard ladies" and deed restrictions got me thinking more about them. I must admit that when we purchased our home in February 2021, I never bothered to read the document.
Having purchases the home as a "resale" I just assumed that it was in compliance, or close enough, and frankly, among all of the other burdensome legal documents to read, the deed restrictions were pretty low on my list of priorities.
So, I downloaded the "AMENDED AND RESTATED" declaration. A couple of items surprised me in their vagueness, and one surprised me that it existed at all. Among the more interesting to me were the following 3 items. Note that the numbering is mine, and not the same numbers that identify the items in the original document.

Although the original document refers often to "The Developer" I am assuming that at some point the authority ceded to "The Developer" in this document conveyed to the CDD. I am in CDD 5, and this document was downloaded from their page on the "districtgov.org" site.

1. "Lawn ornaments are prohibited except seasons displays not exceeding a 30 day duration."
What surprises me here is that I've read a few times that something that may be prohibited in the sodded area is allowed on a porch, or in a garden bed. I see no mention in the document to that effect, nor do I see any mention of the restriction applying only to ornaments of or greater than a certain dimension.

2. "No tree with a trunk 4" or more in diameter shall be removed or effectively removed through excessive injury without first obtaining permission from the Developer."
I was unaware of this restriction. I see palm trees coming down often. I'd be really surprised if the CDD is often advised of these removals. I had been told that only the oak trees were protected.

3.(Here's a personal favorite of mine, of which I was unaware: ) "All owners shall notify the Developer when leaving their property for more than a 7-day period shall simultaneously advise the Developer as tho their tentative return date."

This one got me to thinking about all of the posts I've read stating essentially "Well, if you read your deed restrictions, and follow the rules, you've got nothing to worry about." I have a hard time imagining even these strict rule followers bother to advise the CDD that they are leaving their homes for a week. And I have an even harder time imaging the reaction of whoever it is who is supposed to receive this notice, upon receiving this important information from the loyal rule follower.

I have no issue with the deed restrictions. I think they serve a useful purpose. I have seen my share of front yards in other areas, outside of TV, with more crap in the yard than I'd like to look at in my neighborhood, so I get the value of having deed restrictions, and I appreciate that to a significant degree, what I like about my neighborhood is protected by the deed restrictions.
Having said that, I don't see the value in riding around in remote neighborhoods looking for violations that evidently pass the standards of the immediate neighbors, and I do see a value in allowing a certain degree of artistic expression in the landscaping and adornment of one's property.
It strikes me as a shame that some people can't see their way to letting other people live their lives in peace, as long as they're not bothering their neighbors.

The covenants were not well written, and appear to be copies of each other with only minor changes between areas. One of my favorite is the pet restrictions - if you have a fish bowl, do the fish count? If so, you can only have one fish and one cat. Or two fish and no cats. The working is borderline hilarious.

But, for me, I prefer to not follow the rules are rules crowd, since the rules are written in such a way that it is up to interpretation. I prefer to just try to live by the intent of the rules, which are in place to help stop practices that can impact neighbors property values. As such, if I change anything that is visible (I am in a CYV) I contact the ARC committee first.

But, just so you know, those are not all the restrictions - there are also restrictions around the utilities and their easements. For example the power company patrols and will "clear out" the area around their transformers if you plant too close to them. (They warm first).

[Stu from NYC]

So they know they can take all the time they want to rob you and trash your house??!?
Why else?

The developer?

Does this mean we should booby trap our houses when we go away?

[vintageogauge]

Sorry this happened to you some people should just get a life

And others should just follow the deed restrictions.

[Bogie Shooter]

Why would the Developer need to know if you left for a week or more?

Makes no sense to me either

Think back to when The Villages was a little trailer park and Harold Schwartz walked through the community. He probably knew most residents by name. So naturally the neighbors wanted to know when someone was going to be gone. I read that deed restriction back in 2002 after our first purchase and just smiled. As I saw it as part of The Villages legacy.
Maybe that’s why it continues………

[Laker14]

And others should just follow the deed restrictions.

and nobody should drive over the speed limit.

[Laker14]

Some rules are best followed precisely, and others are best looked upon as a mechanism for controlling the most egregious violations.
For example, "no alcohol on the beach". OK, so I'm walking down the beach, quietly with my wife, and in my Yeti cup I have a gin and tonic. I'm minding my own business, I'm bothering nobody. Was that ordinance really aimed at me with the idea that there would be patrols out, spot checking quiet people who aren't causing any problems?
Or, was the ordinance enacted to provide law enforcement with a means to break up loud, raucous gathering, fueled on cans of beer that now litter the sand?
Any rule, foolishly enforced, can become oppressive beyond it's intended effect. People calling in violations simply because they lie outside of the written rule, which are in fact not bothering anybody, are going beyond the scope of what was intended.

[Stu from NYC]

Some rules are best followed precisely, and others are best looked upon as a mechanism for controlling the most egregious violations.
For example, "no alcohol on the beach". OK, so I'm walking down the beach, quietly with my wife, and in my Yeti cup I have a gin and tonic. I'm minding my own business, I'm bothering nobody. Was that ordinance really aimed at me with the idea that there would be patrols out, spot checking quiet people who aren't causing any problems?
Or, was the ordinance enacted to provide law enforcement with a means to break up loud, raucous gathering, fueled on cans of beer that now litter the sand?
Any rule, foolishly enforced, can become oppressive beyond it's intended effect. People calling in violations simply because they lie outside of the written rule, which are in fact not bothering anybody, are going beyond the scope of what was intended.

Well said

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

There are also deed restrictions which -cannot- be legally enforced, even if someone complains about them.

1. Clotheslines in the back yard. It is against the law to forbid it. That deed restriction is invalid.
2. Antenna on top of the house. It is against the law to forbid it. That deed restriction is invalid.

There are a couple of others but those two stand out.

[MartinSE]

There are also deed restrictions which -cannot- be legally enforced, even if someone complains about them.

1. Clotheslines in the back yard. It is against the law to forbid it. That deed restriction is invalid.
2. Antenna on top of the house. It is against the law to forbid it. That deed restriction is invalid.

There are a couple of others but those two stand out.

You are very close to right. But, the law about tv antennas does allow community regulations about where the antenna can be placed. The Antenna can not be "banned" but it can be regulated.

Again, I do think the point is to maintain property values, which is in all our best interest.

[Bill14564]

There are also deed restrictions which -cannot- be legally enforced, even if someone complains about them.

1. Clotheslines in the back yard. It is against the law to forbid it. That deed restriction is invalid.
2. Antenna on top of the house. It is against the law to forbid it. That deed restriction is invalid.

There are a couple of others but those two stand out.

You are very close to right. But, the law about tv antennas does allow community regulations about where the antenna can be placed. The Antenna can not be "banned" but it can be regulated.

Again, I do think the point is to maintain property values, which is in all our best interest.

The deed restrictions say antennas of any kind are prohibited to the extent allowed by law. Location of any approved device will be as previously approved in writing.

The FCC says it is unlawful to prohibit antennas and there can be no regulations that unreasonably delay the use of antenna. The FCC further describes regulations that require obtaining approval as an example of an unreasonable delay.

Prior approval may be permissible and our restrictions do seem to indicate that prior approval has been granted - they just don't describe that prior approval or where to find it. (and I'm not interested in searching districtgov.org to see if it is there)

The deed restriction appears to be valid since it qualifies itself to be limited by the law and the law does not allow a prohibition. The prohibition is valid because it does not prohibit anything. If the location requirement is easily attainable and will not delay installation then that aspect would seem to be allowable too.

[roob1]

Can you really assume that the "violations evidently pass the standards of immediate neighbors"? Could there be other reasons why they continue to exist, and why the neighbors don't report? And why do the standards of immediate neighbors matter? No one is bound by the neighbors standards. And who is to measure "artistic standard"? We all see that differently...that is why there is one standard, THE COVENANTS. And why continually confuse the issue by judging other's behavior, (those that report violations)? The issue is a violation, not who reported it nor how it became known to Community Standards. The perspectives you mention may be just attempts by violators/perspective violators to rationalize their behavior, consistent with feelings of entitlement that run rampant here in TV.

[QUOTE}Having said that, I don't see the value in riding around in remote neighborhoods looking for violations that evidently pass the standards of the immediate neighbors, and I do see a value in allowing a certain degree of artistic expression in the landscaping and adornment of one's property.
It strikes me as a shame that some people can't see their way to letting other people live their lives in peace, as long as they're not bothering their neighbors.[/QUOTE]

[Laker14]

[QUOTE=roob1;2083331]Can you really assume that the "violations evidently pass the standards of immediate neighbors"? Could there be other reasons why they continue to exist, and why the neighbors don't report? And why do the standards of immediate neighbors matter? No one is bound by the neighbors standards. And who is to measure "artistic standard"? We all see that differently...that is why there is one standard, THE COVENANTS. And why continually confuse the issue by judging other's behavior, (those that report violations)? The issue is a violation, not who reported it nor how it became known to Community Standards. The perspectives you mention may be just attempts by violators/perspective violators to rationalize their behavior, consistent with feelings of entitlement that run rampant here in TV.

To answer some of your rhetorical questions:
Yes, I think one can assume the immediate neighbors are OK with an object that may be in violation if nobody has reported it for years, and it becomes reported along with a slew of other previously unreported problems in the neighborhood, as other posters have described. I think it's a very safe assumption that someone from out of the neighborhood decided to ride through with a clipboard and make it their business to see the deed restrictions are all enforced. I think it's the most logical assumption to make in that circumstance

Could there be other reasons? Yes there could be many.
Why do the standards of immediate neighbors matter? Because that is IMO, the intent of the deed restriction covenant.
Who is to measure artistic standard? The immediate neighbors would be a good start. I'm pretty sure if I suddenly put up a slew of those cute little wood painted lawn ornaments, you know, the ones that are painted to show a lady bent over weeding, with her bloomers showing from behind, it wouldn't take 5 years and a pair of ladies in a clipboard to find out I'd violated a standard. However, I ride around and I see in my neighborhood what I consider to be a tasteful sculpted rendition of a sandhill crane artfully placed in a flower bed and I think "gee, I hope the clipboard ladies don't come and write that one up", because I think it adds some grace to the neighborhood. I think it's safe to assume the neighbors don't mind it either, since it's still there.
Since you can't dictate it in printed words, you have to let the process work it out, and the process works best if people don't treat the printed words of the COVENANT as a sacred book.

I'd go on but this post is too long already.

[Love2Swim]

Actually believing that some people ride around in "remote" neighborhoods just to point out restriction violations appears to be a creation of someones imagination. Never seen it happen and assume as do those who might believe this action might be a tad bit paranoid....personally I have no issue with folks who do this(if they exist at all)because deed restrictions aren't typically addressed unless pointed out by someone. So having a person, who for whatever reason(nothing else to do, fed up with those who could care less about restrictions, or just ignorant)decides it's a worthy past time has my thanks.

There is a person or person(s) who rides around doing this. We had it happen in our neighborhood as well when a bunch of so called "violations" were all reported in one day. Someone has too much free time on their hands. Our neighborhood is very well maintained with beautiful landscaping, yet this person was unhappy with some tasteful lawn ornaments that were nestled among the landscaping, that all the neighbors loved and admired. So the neighbors took them down as requested, then replaced them a month later. Problem solved.

I remember when we first moved in there was some restriction against having a vegetable garden or growing vegetables on your property. The restriction has hopefully since been changed. But at the time, I mentioned it to an acquaintance and this person said "my neighbor has a tomato plant, I think I'll report him." That just speaks to the type of people that are around. I mean, who would do something so petty and mean?

[Mrprez]

If you aren’t home, you can’t be robbed. Your house might be burglarized which is a totally different crime.

[bowlingal]

I personally think these trolls are hired by the developer to find out of compliance households. Why else would someone take the time to do this? They are not even in their own neighborhoods.

[thevillages2013]

You are very close to right. But, the law about tv antennas does allow community regulations about where the antenna can be placed. The Antenna can not be "banned" but it can be regulated.

Again, I do think the point is to maintain property values, which is in all our best interest.

The Villages “suggests” that satellite dishes and antennas be on a post in the back yard but I have never (in my almost 20 years of owning here ) heard of anyone having to remove one from their roof. Personally I ditched the dish but that sucker is still on my roof and last time I looked still on a previous house too.

[Dlbonivich]

Because the CCD drive around and keep an eye out. They may think something is wrong if you are not seen or something doesn’t look right. They maybe required to call for a wellness check. That is part of their job.

[midiwiz]

The recent threads about the "clipboard ladies" and deed restrictions got me thinking more about them. I must admit that when we purchased our home in February 2021, I never bothered to read the document.
Having purchases the home as a "resale" I just assumed that it was in compliance, or close enough, and frankly, among all of the other burdensome legal documents to read, the deed restrictions were pretty low on my list of priorities.
So, I downloaded the "AMENDED AND RESTATED" declaration. A couple of items surprised me in their vagueness, and one surprised me that it existed at all. Among the more interesting to me were the following 3 items. Note that the numbering is mine, and not the same numbers that identify the items in the original document.

Although the original document refers often to "The Developer" I am assuming that at some point the authority ceded to "The Developer" in this document conveyed to the CDD. I am in CDD 5, and this document was downloaded from their page on the "districtgov.org" site.

1. "Lawn ornaments are prohibited except seasons displays not exceeding a 30 day duration."
What surprises me here is that I've read a few times that something that may be prohibited in the sodded area is allowed on a porch, or in a garden bed. I see no mention in the document to that effect, nor do I see any mention of the restriction applying only to ornaments of or greater than a certain dimension.

2. "No tree with a trunk 4" or more in diameter shall be removed or effectively removed through excessive injury without first obtaining permission from the Developer."
I was unaware of this restriction. I see palm trees coming down often. I'd be really surprised if the CDD is often advised of these removals. I had been told that only the oak trees were protected.

3.(Here's a personal favorite of mine, of which I was unaware: ) "All owners shall notify the Developer when leaving their property for more than a 7-day period shall simultaneously advise the Developer as tho their tentative return date."

This one got me to thinking about all of the posts I've read stating essentially "Well, if you read your deed restrictions, and follow the rules, you've got nothing to worry about." I have a hard time imagining even these strict rule followers bother to advise the CDD that they are leaving their homes for a week. And I have an even harder time imaging the reaction of whoever it is who is supposed to receive this notice, upon receiving this important information from the loyal rule follower.

I have no issue with the deed restrictions. I think they serve a useful purpose. I have seen my share of front yards in other areas, outside of TV, with more crap in the yard than I'd like to look at in my neighborhood, so I get the value of having deed restrictions, and I appreciate that to a significant degree, what I like about my neighborhood is protected by the deed restrictions.
Having said that, I don't see the value in riding around in remote neighborhoods looking for violations that evidently pass the standards of the immediate neighbors, and I do see a value in allowing a certain degree of artistic expression in the landscaping and adornment of one's property.
It strikes me as a shame that some people can't see their way to letting other people live their lives in peace, as long as they're not bothering their neighbors.

The short version is - none of it is actually able to be enforced aside from the fact that TV 'owns' all the local courts, however in federal court most of these wouldn't stand. Even though they have used the "district" loophole, there still exists enough variance and non enforcement for them to lose any court battle should anyone choose to upset the apple cart. Courts that aren't 'owned' in this state side with the home owner rather than the organization leveling the restrictions.

just speaking from experience.

[Windguy]

Having been a 'victim' of this I disagree, our neighborhood had 35 complaints phoned in in one day, now understand many of the items reported were there for YEARS with non of the neighbors complaining.
Just because no one complains doesn’t mean it doesn’t bother anyone.

I see junk and things I consider offensive in people’s yards, but I am afraid of reprisals if I say or do something about it. I personally like the idea of people driving around and looking for violations.

We all signed on to the restrictions and we should honor them.

[MDLNB]

I live near a corner intersection that has a Stop sign. The law says that one must come to a complete stop before proceeding. It does not say that if one sees that there is no oncoming traffic, they can drive through the intersection without stopping. Observing that stop sign on the corner, I have found that four out of five vehicles drive blatantly through the intersection without stopping. I have also had near misses when someone decided to blow through the intersection without even glancing in my direction, even when I had the right of way. I guess I should sit in my driveway and report every law breaker that coasts through the intersection without stopping. After all, it IS the law. AND everyone must be reported if they break the law. Sorry, but I have better things to do and if those violators blow through the intersection and end up in the hospital, that's their business. I am not my brother's keeper.
In my neighborhood, folks have all sorts of lawn ornaments. For those that say it devalues their property, I guess it depends on where you live. We have homes that sell the day they are listed. These are designer homes getting top dollar sales. One of the homes on our street has sold for almost $600K. Hey, maybe they could get more if neighbors were more considerate and hid their lawn ornaments, right? Maybe, like the rest of us on this street, we enjoy the diversity of personalized home properties.
Sorry folks, but we have had no derelict trucks or cars up on blocks in our neighborhood. I have seen an occasional flamingo, though. If you wish to spend all your time worrying about property values this late in your life, then go for it. It leaves more time for those that wish decent "T" times and less crowd at the pickleball courts. If you wish to spend your last few years on earth complaining about other folks, have at it. Hopefully, when I leave this life it will be with a smile on my face, not an angry frown. Some folks are not content until they make others unhappy. Some folks are happy when they can make a positive difference in other folk's lives.

[jamorela]

I read my deed restrictions when I moved here

[Laker14]

The short version is - none of it is actually able to be enforced aside from the fact that TV 'owns' all the local courts, however in federal court most of these wouldn't stand. Even though they have used the "district" loophole, there still exists enough variance and non enforcement for them to lose any court battle should anyone choose to upset the apple cart. Courts that aren't 'owned' in this state side with the home owner rather than the organization leveling the restrictions.

just speaking from experience.

That's interesting.

[MartinSE]

And more people that hate The Villages chime in. Wonder why they are still here.

[Dantes]

I think I know you
You sound like a Teamster
I started working for James P Hoffa in 2012 and you

[NoMo50]

I personally think these trolls are hired by the developer to find out of compliance households. Why else would someone take the time to do this? They are not even in their own neighborhoods.

Really?

[merrymini]

The rules are there for a reason, to protect the community. I doubt there are people trolling for this stuff. I see enough of that junk on peoples yards to suspect that it is a myth, otherwise why would all this stupid trash, spinning flowers included, still be out? If you want to live in a neighborhood with trash cans left out, along with the occasional sofa and a car up on blocks, I am certain you can find a neighborhood not too far from here where you can get it. Arrivederci.

[PugMom]

Having been a 'victim' of this I disagree, our neighborhood had 35 complaints phoned in in one day, now understand many of the items reported were there for YEARS with non of the neighbors complaining.

it's true, i've seen the 2 of them down here near fenney looking for 'problems.'

[Bogie Shooter]

I personally think these trolls are hired by the developer to find out of compliance households. Why else would someone take the time to do this? They are not even in their own neighborhoods.

The short version is - none of it is actually able to be enforced aside from the fact that TV 'owns' all the local courts, however in federal court most of these wouldn't stand. Even though they have used the "district" loophole, there still exists enough variance and non enforcement for them to lose any court battle should anyone choose to upset the apple cart. Courts that aren't 'owned' in this state side with the home owner rather than the organization leveling the restrictions.

just speaking from experience.

And more people that hate The Villages chime in. Wonder why they are still here.

They seem to always show up.......

[Stu from NYC]

I live near a corner intersection that has a Stop sign. The law says that one must come to a complete stop before proceeding. It does not say that if one sees that there is no oncoming traffic, they can drive through the intersection without stopping. Observing that stop sign on the corner, I have found that four out of five vehicles drive blatantly through the intersection without stopping. I have also had near misses when someone decided to blow through the intersection without even glancing in my direction, even when I had the right of way. I guess I should sit in my driveway and report every law breaker that coasts through the intersection without stopping. After all, it IS the law. AND everyone must be reported if they break the law. Sorry, but I have better things to do and if those violators blow through the intersection and end up in the hospital, that's their business. I am not my brother's keeper.
In my neighborhood, folks have all sorts of lawn ornaments. For those that say it devalues their property, I guess it depends on where you live. We have homes that sell the day they are listed. These are designer homes getting top dollar sales. One of the homes on our street has sold for almost $600K. Hey, maybe they could get more if neighbors were more considerate and hid their lawn ornaments, right? Maybe, like the rest of us on this street, we enjoy the diversity of personalized home properties.
Sorry folks, but we have had no derelict trucks or cars up on blocks in our neighborhood. I have seen an occasional flamingo, though. If you wish to spend all your time worrying about property values this late in your life, then go for it. It leaves more time for those that wish decent "T" times and less crowd at the pickleball courts. If you wish to spend your last few years on earth complaining about other folks, have at it. Hopefully, when I leave this life it will be with a smile on my face, not an angry frown. Some folks are not content until they make others unhappy. Some folks are happy when they can make a positive difference in other folk's lives.

Very well said

[Laker14]

Just what the neighborhood needs, everyone's favorite neighbor...

[Garywt]

I think your No. 1 is the result of people interpreting a loophole in the definition of the "lawn". If something is placed under the eave of the house, technically it is not on the lawn. Or so they say.

I have always said that the lawn is grass and the yard is everything. If the restrictions say lawn then you just keep things off the grass

[regas56]

Just because no one complains doesn’t mean it doesn’t bother anyone.

I see junk and things I consider offensive in people’s yards, but I am afraid of reprisals if I say or do something about it. I personally like the idea of people driving around and looking for violations.

We all signed on to the restrictions and we should honor them.
Key word there is "You" think it's offensive, maybe "They" think it's beautiful.. A 250 pound 70 year old man at the beach wearing a thong is offensive to me but he thinks he's beautiful so it costs me nothing to just look the other way.

[lee60car]

Actually believing that some people ride around in "remote" neighborhoods just to point out restriction violations appears to be a creation of someones imagination. Never seen it happen and assume as do those who might believe this action might be a tad bit paranoid....personally I have no issue with folks who do this(if they exist at all)because deed restrictions aren't typically addressed unless pointed out by someone. So having a person, who for whatever reason(nothing else to do, fed up with those who could care less about restrictions, or just ignorant)decides it's a worthy past time has my thanks.

I was "wrong" to have 8 2" colored solar lights in my flower bed. Later, 2 blue pottery spheres were "wrong." If I had put flowers in the spheres, it would have been OK. Go figure. This is the same person that has tormented the neighbors close to him for years. Such a waste of a way to live your life.

[Garywt]

Some rules are best followed precisely, and others are best looked upon as a mechanism for controlling the most egregious violations.
For example, "no alcohol on the beach". OK, so I'm walking down the beach, quietly with my wife, and in my Yeti cup I have a gin and tonic. I'm minding my own business, I'm bothering nobody. Was that ordinance really aimed at me with the idea that there would be patrols out, spot checking quiet people who aren't causing any problems?
Or, was the ordinance enacted to provide law enforcement with a means to break up loud, raucous gathering, fueled on cans of beer that now litter the sand?
Any rule, foolishly enforced, can become oppressive beyond it's intended effect. People calling in violations simply because they lie outside of the written rule, which are in fact not bothering anybody, are going beyond the scope of what was intended.

No one told me there is a beach in The Villages.

[airstreamingypsy]

Actually believing that some people ride around in "remote" neighborhoods just to point out restriction violations appears to be a creation of someones imagination. Never seen it happen and assume as do those who might believe this action might be a tad bit paranoid....personally I have no issue with folks who do this(if they exist at all)because deed restrictions aren't typically addressed unless pointed out by someone. So having a person, who for whatever reason(nothing else to do, fed up with those who could care less about restrictions, or just ignorant)decides it's a worthy past time has my thanks.

Yeah, thank heaven someone reported that 85 year old woman who bought her house 20 years ago, for having a sidewalk along side the house. Now she has to have it removed, maybe you could look up the neighborhood newcomer, who reported her, and thank him.

[Laker14]

I was "wrong" to have 8 2" colored solar lights in my flower bed. Later, 2 blue pottery spheres were "wrong." If I had put flowers in the spheres, it would have been OK. Go figure. This is the same person that has tormented the neighbors close to him for years. Such a waste of a way to live your life.

Obviously, your solar lights and blue spheres were a "gateway" infraction, soon to be followed by cars on blocks, and broken refrigerators. Thank goodness we were spared the inevitable decline of our property values by the vigilant.

[PJackpot]

The recent threads about the "clipboard ladies" and deed restrictions got me thinking more about them. I must admit that when we purchased our home in February 2021, I never bothered to read the document.
Having purchases the home as a "resale" I just assumed that it was in compliance, or close enough, and frankly, among all of the other burdensome legal documents to read, the deed restrictions were pretty low on my list of priorities.
So, I downloaded the "AMENDED AND RESTATED" declaration. A couple of items surprised me in their vagueness, and one surprised me that it existed at all. Among the more interesting to me were the following 3 items. Note that the numbering is mine, and not the same numbers that identify the items in the original document.

Although the original document refers often to "The Developer" I am assuming that at some point the authority ceded to "The Developer" in this document conveyed to the CDD. I am in CDD 5, and this document was downloaded from their page on the "districtgov.org" site.

1. "Lawn ornaments are prohibited except seasons displays not exceeding a 30 day duration."
What surprises me here is that I've read a few times that something that may be prohibited in the sodded area is allowed on a porch, or in a garden bed. I see no mention in the document to that effect, nor do I see any mention of the restriction applying only to ornaments of or greater than a certain dimension.

2. "No tree with a trunk 4" or more in diameter shall be removed or effectively removed through excessive injury without first obtaining permission from the Developer."
I was unaware of this restriction. I see palm trees coming down often. I'd be really surprised if the CDD is often advised of these removals. I had been told that only the oak trees were protected.

3.(Here's a personal favorite of mine, of which I was unaware: ) "All owners shall notify the Developer when leaving their property for more than a 7-day period shall simultaneously advise the Developer as tho their tentative return date."

This one got me to thinking about all of the posts I've read stating essentially "Well, if you read your deed restrictions, and follow the rules, you've got nothing to worry about." I have a hard time imagining even these strict rule followers bother to advise the CDD that they are leaving their homes for a week. And I have an even harder time imaging the reaction of whoever it is who is supposed to receive this notice, upon receiving this important information from the loyal rule follower.

I have no issue with the deed restrictions. I think they serve a useful purpose. I have seen my share of front yards in other areas, outside of TV, with more crap in the yard than I'd like to look at in my neighborhood, so I get the value of having deed restrictions, and I appreciate that to a significant degree, what I like about my neighborhood is protected by the deed restrictions.
Having said that, I don't see the value in riding around in remote neighborhoods looking for violations that evidently pass the standards of the immediate neighbors, and I do see a value in allowing a certain degree of artistic expression in the landscaping and adornment of one's property.
It strikes me as a shame that some people can't see their way to letting other people live their lives in peace, as long as they're not bothering their neighbors.

I agree. It’s one thing if you have an issue with a neighbor on your own street. It’s another to appoint yourself the deed restriction police. The CDD should not accept complaints that are not in the complainers own neighborhood IMO.

[Laker14]

I agree. It’s one thing if you have an issue with a neighbor on your own street. It’s another to appoint yourself the deed restriction police. The CDD should not accept complaints that are not in the complainers own neighborhood IMO.

I agree.

[roob1]

It makes no difference what anyone thinks if it is a violation.

Key word there is "You" think it's offensive, maybe "They" think it's beautiful.. A 250 pound 70 year old man at the beach wearing a thong is offensive to me but he thinks he's beautiful so it costs me nothing to just look the other way.

[Dgodin]

Don't know. The rule is in the original (historical) area document, so it must have began there. Maybe made sense when the villages was a trailer park.

[BrianL]

Palm trees are not treated as trees and no permission is required by the ARC to remove a Plam tree.

[Laker14]

No one told me there is a beach in The Villages.
Really? SeaBreeze Rec Center.

They even play volleyball on it. The Spring Breakers showed up with their Frisbees and beer and trashed the place. That's why I mentioned it.

[jimjamuser]

The palm tree is classified as a weed..
Golden Rains SHOULD BE classified as a weed. Maybe they are, maybe they are not?

[jimjamuser]

Actually believing that some people ride around in "remote" neighborhoods just to point out restriction violations appears to be a creation of someones imagination. Never seen it happen and assume as do those who might believe this action might be a tad bit paranoid....personally I have no issue with folks who do this(if they exist at all)because deed restrictions aren't typically addressed unless pointed out by someone. So having a person, who for whatever reason(nothing else to do, fed up with those who could care less about restrictions, or just ignorant)decides it's a worthy past time has my thanks.
A person might not consider the TROLLS to be a "worthy pastime" if they had to change all of the rocks in their yard (after 20 years of having them) because some anonymous busybody wrote them up. Personally, I think that the professional grass cutters hate rock yards so much that they become like little 2nd-grade tattletales. Adults acting like whinny brats!

[roob1]

Did they have to change all the rocks because they were written up, or because it was a covenant violation?

Which occurred first?

A person might not consider the TROLLS to be a "worthy pastime" if they had to change all of the rocks in their yard (after 20 years of having them) because some anonymous busybody wrote them up. Personally, I think that the professional grass cutters hate rock yards so much that they become like little 2nd-grade tattletales. Adults acting like whinny brats!

[Bogie Shooter]

Speaking of “Adults acting like whinny brats!“

[midiwiz]

And more people that hate The Villages chime in. Wonder why they are still here.

i wonder where you read that in this thread, I have yet to see it

[midiwiz]

They seem to always show up.......

that isn't hating the villages, that is reality. if you think it's hating then sorry for you because I don't have to mamby pamby overly politically correct anything for anyone.

The OP poised an interrogatory and I gave him an answer from experience in this state. I'm not about to sunshine and rainbows anyone on here or anywhere else. If you want to bend over and see sunshine that's your business but I take great offense to the suggestion that I hate it here when I am merely posting reality. It's bad enough I have to watch my references because those that monitor are not in the know.

VERY much insulted..

[MrFlorida]

I like rules, that's why I moved here....

[fdpaq0580]

I was "wrong" to have 8 2" colored solar lights in my flower bed. Later, 2 blue pottery spheres were "wrong." If I had put flowers in the spheres, it would have been OK. Go figure. This is the same person that has tormented the neighbors close to him for years. Such a waste of a way to live your life.

Oh, you evil person.
Seriously, I would have asked if changing the solar to some other form of illumination would be acceptable, for safety and security purposes. I also would have drilled hole in the spheres and put in a single small plant that would not obscure the sphere. Maybe some chia plants?

[jimjamuser]

Did they have to change all the rocks because they were written up, or because it was a covenant violation?

Which occurred first?
Not sure which happened 1st. Not sure why that would make a difference? So, sorry, I can't answer that.

[jimjamuser]

I like rules, that's why I moved here....
Rules can be good like speed limits. But, rules that are not made by the majority are bad rules. And rules made by one or several people are a dictatorship.

[MartinSE]

that isn't hating the villages, that is reality. if you think it's hating then sorry for you because I don't have to mamby pamby overly politically correct anything for anyone.

The OP poised an interrogatory and I gave him an answer from experience in this state. I'm not about to sunshine and rainbows anyone on here or anywhere else. If you want to bend over and see sunshine that's your business but I take great offense to the suggestion that I hate it here when I am merely posting reality. It's bad enough I have to watch my references because those that monitor are not in the know.

VERY much insulted..

So, if you hate something it is reality, if someone else hates something it is trolling?

[MartinSE]

Rules can be good like speed limits. But, rules that are not made by the majority are bad rules. And rules made by one or several people are a dictatorship.

Hmm, the Constitution received 9 votes.

[Stu from NYC]

Hmm, the Constitution received 9 votes.

Out of how many?

[jimjamuser]

I like rules, that's why I moved here....
Moving to a development (like TV Land) that has rules / deed restrictions IS a good way to keep up the value of your property - usually a person's biggest investment. I have zero problem with that. it is the OVERLY strict interpretation of the "rules" that bothers me. I understand the general principle of "no lawn ornaments". That is a good concept. But if someone has a small blue globe in a rock garden - I am NOT going to be offended. I myself, would think that even a large globe or 2 in a front yard would look good to me. And I would not ever waste my brainpower to determine one person's trim color to be BAD and another person's to be GOOD. To me, those are details that are too small for me to complain about. So, I would suggest some degree of flexibility in the RULES.
The idea of self-appointed Trolls driving around (with clipboards) and trying to impose 100% conformity to a Village - is very foreign and extreme to my way of thinking. That is like the old song about house developments......." and they are ALL made out of ticky-tacky, and they all look just the same"!

[jimjamuser]

Hmm, the Constitution received 9 votes.
The Constitution is a living, changing document. It has been changed by Amendments and will likely be changed in the future. I can think of some improvements!

[retiredguy123]

Moving to a development (like TV Land) that has rules / deed restrictions IS a good way to keep up the value of your property - usually a person's biggest investment. I have zero problem with that. it is the OVERLY strict interpretation of the "rules" that bothers me. I understand the general principle of "no lawn ornaments". That is a good concept. But if someone has a small blue globe in a rock garden - I am NOT going to be offended. I myself, would think that even a large globe or 2 in a front yard would look good to me. And I would not ever waste my brainpower to determine one person's trim color to be BAD and another person's to be GOOD. To me, those are details that are too small for me to complain about. So, I would suggest some degree of flexibility in the RULES.
The idea of self-appointed Trolls driving around (with clipboards) and trying to impose 100% conformity to a Village - is very foreign and extreme to my way of thinking. That is like the old song about house developments......." and they are ALL made out of ticky-tacky, and they all look just the same"!
Flexibility in the rules is a slippery slope. Before you know it, there are no rules.

[JMintzer]

Moving to a development (like TV Land) that has rules / deed restrictions IS a good way to keep up the value of your property - usually a person's biggest investment. I have zero problem with that. it is the OVERLY strict interpretation of the "rules" that bothers me. I understand the general principle of "no lawn ornaments". That is a good concept. But if someone has a small blue globe in a rock garden - I am NOT going to be offended. I myself, would think that even a large globe or 2 in a front yard would look good to me. And I would not ever waste my brainpower to determine one person's trim color to be BAD and another person's to be GOOD. To me, those are details that are too small for me to complain about. So, I would suggest some degree of flexibility in the RULES.
The idea of self-appointed Trolls driving around (with clipboards) and trying to impose 100% conformity to a Village - is very foreign and extreme to my way of thinking. That is like the old song about house developments......." and they are ALL made out of ticky-tacky, and they all look just the same"!

Pro tip: If it doesn't bother you, don't worry about it...

[JMintzer]

The Constitution is a living, changing document. It has been changed by Amendments and will likely be changed in the future. I can think of some improvements!

And I'm sure we'll soon be receiving a dissertation on the subject... :icon_wink:

[Bambi]

I am not a complainer in general but I do have a problem with the owners of a house across a pond and a fairway from me. The have mounted a high intensity spot light on the peak of their roof. It constantly rotates through an array of colors lighting up the ground and reflecting the different colors on the pond between us. It is very distracting to watch tv with with the light in the side of my vision. I no longer sit on my lanai at night to enjoy the peace and tranquility- instead I feel like I am in Wille Wonka’s chocolate factory. Of course it doesn’t bother the owners because they are inside but the light shines at my windows all night. Mounting such a light is prohibited in the deed restrictions. I do not want to confront the neighbors personally but this definitely decreases the enjoyment of my house. My next door neighbors shut their blinds but I hate a closed in feeling. The light changes colors every few seconds. It is kind of a psychedelic experience.

[fdpaq0580]

I am not a complainer in general but I do have a problem with the owners of a house across a pond and a fairway from me. The have mounted a high intensity spot light on the peak of their roof. It constantly rotates through an array of colors lighting up the ground and reflecting the different colors on the pond between us. It is very distracting to watch tv with with the light in the side of my vision. I no longer sit on my lanai at night to enjoy the peace and tranquility- instead I feel like I am in Wille Wonka’s chocolate factory. Of course it doesn’t bother the owners because they are inside but the light shines at my windows all night. Mounting such a light is prohibited in the deed restrictions. I do not want to confront the neighbors personally but this definitely decreases the enjoyment of my house. My next door neighbors shut their blinds but I hate a closed in feeling. The light changes colors every few seconds. It is kind of a psychedelic experience.

It is normal to want to avoid confrontation. With that in mind, I still think the best first step is to go with a friendly smile on your face and introduce yourself. Then explain your situation and ask if they would be willing to remove the light. If they say "no", then contact the appropriate official group and file a complaint. You made a friendly (keep it friendly) appeal. Keep date, time and conversation records for the complaint. Remember people are more likely to be receptive to a nice person's request than an angry jerks demand.
Good luck.
☺

[Stu from NYC]

It is normal to want to avoid confrontation. With that in mind, I still think the best first step is to go with a friendly smile on your face and introduce yourself. Then explain your situation and ask if they would be willing to remove the light. If they say "no", then contact the appropriate official group and file a complaint. You made a friendly (keep it friendly) appeal. Keep date, time and conversation records for the complaint. Remember people are more likely to be receptive to a nice person's request than an angry jerks demand.
Good luck.
☺

good advise

[Laker14]

I am not a complainer in general but I do have a problem with the owners of a house across a pond and a fairway from me. The have mounted a high intensity spot light on the peak of their roof. It constantly rotates through an array of colors lighting up the ground and reflecting the different colors on the pond between us. It is very distracting to watch tv with with the light in the side of my vision. I no longer sit on my lanai at night to enjoy the peace and tranquility- instead I feel like I am in Wille Wonka’s chocolate factory. Of course it doesn’t bother the owners because they are inside but the light shines at my windows all night. Mounting such a light is prohibited in the deed restrictions. I do not want to confront the neighbors personally but this definitely decreases the enjoyment of my house. My next door neighbors shut their blinds but I hate a closed in feeling. The light changes colors every few seconds. It is kind of a psychedelic experience.

What you describe is a completely different situation than the ladies in the carts visiting neighborhoods they don't live in looking for violations that don't affect them. You are being directly affected by a violation. It may be that the offenders think everyone is enthralled with their "enhancement", or it may be that they don't care. Doesn't matter. If you are comfortable with introducing yourself and explaining your problem, go for it. If not, and you live in a CDD that allows anonymous complaints, do that. Either way, you are totally within your rights to have this situation rectified.

[jimjamuser]

Flexibility in the rules is a slippery slope. Before you know it, there are no rules.
The residents of a particular Village should get to determine the amount of flexibility that they have - after all, they live there. They could determine what constitutes a "slippery slope". And I agree that the "flexibility" should have limits. I would think that the residents could be the deciding factor as to what constitutes an "eyesore" (by voting if necessary). NOT a system of a small number of trolls having excessive power to determine community standards. The community should determine its standards and have some flexibility. Replacing sidewalks and attractive landscaping rock with boring grass is not some GREAT community beautification TO ME !

[jimjamuser]

I am not a complainer in general but I do have a problem with the owners of a house across a pond and a fairway from me. The have mounted a high intensity spot light on the peak of their roof. It constantly rotates through an array of colors lighting up the ground and reflecting the different colors on the pond between us. It is very distracting to watch tv with with the light in the side of my vision. I no longer sit on my lanai at night to enjoy the peace and tranquility- instead I feel like I am in Wille Wonka’s chocolate factory. Of course it doesn’t bother the owners because they are inside but the light shines at my windows all night. Mounting such a light is prohibited in the deed restrictions. I do not want to confront the neighbors personally but this definitely decreases the enjoyment of my house. My next door neighbors shut their blinds but I hate a closed in feeling. The light changes colors every few seconds. It is kind of a psychedelic experience.
I see that as a legitimate complaint. It would be something that I would like to see brought before a Village Residents council and talked over and some reconciliation made. Possibly the lights should be lowered to not bounce across the lake and be annoying?

[retiredguy123]

I am not a complainer in general but I do have a problem with the owners of a house across a pond and a fairway from me. The have mounted a high intensity spot light on the peak of their roof. It constantly rotates through an array of colors lighting up the ground and reflecting the different colors on the pond between us. It is very distracting to watch tv with with the light in the side of my vision. I no longer sit on my lanai at night to enjoy the peace and tranquility- instead I feel like I am in Wille Wonka’s chocolate factory. Of course it doesn’t bother the owners because they are inside but the light shines at my windows all night. Mounting such a light is prohibited in the deed restrictions. I do not want to confront the neighbors personally but this definitely decreases the enjoyment of my house. My next door neighbors shut their blinds but I hate a closed in feeling. The light changes colors every few seconds. It is kind of a psychedelic experience.
If the light is definitely a deed restriction violation and you don't want to confront the neighbor, I think I would just report the violation.

[Stu from NYC]

If the light is definitely a deed restriction violation and you don't want to confront the neighbor, I think I would just report the violation.

Or just invite the old biddies over to see it. Sorry could not resist.

[fdpaq0580]

Or just invite the old biddies over to see it. Sorry could not resist.

Alternatively, fly a drone with a hammer over to smah the light.
😏

[bobnyce]

Flexibility in the rules is a slippery slope. Before you know it, there are no rules.

Rules and laws are just suggested behavior unless they are enforced and have consequences. That is why speeders and stop sign violators get away with it because there are no consequences! Period.

[Stu from NYC]

Alternatively, fly a drone with a hammer over to smah the light.
😏

that would work but hope the aim is pretty good. Wonder if you could get the hammer back? Asking for a friend.

[fdpaq0580]

that would work but hope the aim is pretty good. Wonder if you could get the hammer back? Asking for a friend.

My friend got his hammer back. Had to send in a second "recovery" drone.
😃🚁

[Bogie Shooter]

I see that as a legitimate complaint. It would be something that I would like to see brought before a Village Residents council and talked over and some reconciliation made. Possibly the lights should be lowered to not bounce across the lake and be annoying?

That council would be deed compliance…..and then to the District board.
No need for more councils.

[Bambi]

I would be very tolerant if they used it for a limited period when they were outside and it had a timer on it. If it would automatically shut off in an hour I would not complain but it is probably on a dusk to dawn setting. I don’t know what it’s function is intended to be. It looks like it belongs in a carnival- not on a residential roof.

[Velvet]

The recent threads about the "clipboard ladies" and deed restrictions got me thinking more about them. I must admit that when we purchased our home in February 2021, I never bothered to read the document.
Having purchases the home as a "resale" I just assumed that it was in compliance, or close enough, and frankly, among all of the other burdensome legal documents to read, the deed restrictions were pretty low on my list of priorities.
So, I downloaded the "AMENDED AND RESTATED" declaration. A couple of items surprised me in their vagueness, and one surprised me that it existed at all. Among the more interesting to me were the following 3 items. Note that the numbering is mine, and not the same numbers that identify the items in the original document.

Although the original document refers often to "The Developer" I am assuming that at some point the authority ceded to "The Developer" in this document conveyed to the CDD. I am in CDD 5, and this document was downloaded from their page on the "districtgov.org" site.

1. "Lawn ornaments are prohibited except seasons displays not exceeding a 30 day duration."
What surprises me here is that I've read a few times that something that may be prohibited in the sodded area is allowed on a porch, or in a garden bed. I see no mention in the document to that effect, nor do I see any mention of the restriction applying only to ornaments of or greater than a certain dimension.

2. "No tree with a trunk 4" or more in diameter shall be removed or effectively removed through excessive injury without first obtaining permission from the Developer."
I was unaware of this restriction. I see palm trees coming down often. I'd be really surprised if the CDD is often advised of these removals. I had been told that only the oak trees were protected.

3.(Here's a personal favorite of mine, of which I was unaware: ) "All owners shall notify the Developer when leaving their property for more than a 7-day period shall simultaneously advise the Developer as tho their tentative return date."

This one got me to thinking about all of the posts I've read stating essentially "Well, if you read your deed restrictions, and follow the rules, you've got nothing to worry about." I have a hard time imagining even these strict rule followers bother to advise the CDD that they are leaving their homes for a week. And I have an even harder time imaging the reaction of whoever it is who is supposed to receive this notice, upon receiving this important information from the loyal rule follower.

I have no issue with the deed restrictions. I think they serve a useful purpose. I have seen my share of front yards in other areas, outside of TV, with more crap in the yard than I'd like to look at in my neighborhood, so I get the value of having deed restrictions, and I appreciate that to a significant degree, what I like about my neighborhood is protected by the deed restrictions.
Having said that, I don't see the value in riding around in remote neighborhoods looking for violations that evidently pass the standards of the immediate neighbors, and I do see a value in allowing a certain degree of artistic expression in the landscaping and adornment of one's property.
It strikes me as a shame that some people can't see their way to letting other people live their lives in peace, as long as they're not bothering their neighbors.

I can never understand why anyone wants to move into a deed restricted community if they don’t want to follow it. Or is it that the rules should apply to everyone but themselves? Why not move where there are no restrictions?

[Stu from NYC]

My friend got his hammer back. Had to send in a second "recovery" drone.
😃🚁

Good for him/her:)

[frose]

these restrictions are stupid, outdated and need to be re done. you would think we were living in the 19th century.. time to do the right thing.

[JMintzer]

these restrictions are stupid, outdated and need to be re done. you would think we were living in the 19th century.. time to do the right thing.

10's of thousands of people disagree with you...

[Bogie Shooter]

these restrictions are stupid, outdated and need to be re done. you would think we were living in the 19th century.. time to do the right thing.

Been here a year and already to start changing things, relax……
Correction: not even a year.

[Stu from NYC]

these restrictions are stupid, outdated and need to be re done. you would think we were living in the 19th century.. time to do the right thing.

Some of the restrictions could be updated but the basic framework of this place works

[Velvet]

these restrictions are stupid, outdated and need to be re done. you would think we were living in the 19th century.. time to do the right thing.

The restrictions are fine, they produced this wonderful community. No one is forced to live here and they really shouldn’t if they are unhappy. They should go and find their happy place, even if it doesn’t happen to be in this place.

[Stu from NYC]

The restrictions are fine, they produced this wonderful community. No one is forced to live here and they really shouldn’t if they are unhappy. They should go and find their happy place, even if it doesn’t happen to be in this place or country.

People are entitled to ask for changes as the world does change over time and we need to change with it.

Not asking for wholesale change as we do like it here

[Velvet]

People are entitled to ask for changes as the world does change over time and we need to change with it.

Not asking for wholesale change as we do like it here

I agree… but only one life, why spend it unhappy? Perhaps I’m just not an activist.

[fdpaq0580]

these restrictions are stupid, outdated and need to be re done. you would think we were living in the 19th century.. time to do the right thing.

Agree! Needs to be brought up to the early 20th century.
Mr. Bunker agrees.

[Stu from NYC]

Agree! Needs to be brought up to the early 20th century.
Mr. Bunker agrees.

Archie?

[frose]

how much better it could be here if these deed restrictions were updated. I know that change does not come easily to some, but it is time to look beyond what we have to what we could evolve to.

[Bogie Shooter]

how much better it could be here if these deed restrictions were updated. I know that change does not come easily to some, but it is time to look beyond what we have to what we could evolve to.

But, people would continue whining about the new version.

[retiredguy123]

I would be very tolerant if they used it for a limited period when they were outside and it had a timer on it. If it would automatically shut off in an hour I would not complain but it is probably on a dusk to dawn setting. I don’t know what it’s function is intended to be. It looks like it belongs in a carnival- not on a residential roof.
I think it would be a mistake to be tolerant. If the light is prohibited, I would just file a complaint to have it removed.

[Stu from NYC]

But, people would continue whining about the new version.

But at least we would have new things to argue about.:bigbow: