CDD 5 to end anonymous complaints

[Golfer222]

After data showing complaints dropped to less than 10% of what they used to be.
Time for all CDDs to follow suit.

[phylt]

After data showing complaints dropped to less than 10% of what they used to be.
Time for all CDDs to follow suit.

SO agree. Anonymous simply rubs me the wrong way. Yes time for a Complete TV change.

[Velvet]

I disagree. I think in fact, it is a very bad idea - as we are in a complaint driven enforced community. We don’t seem to have any by-law officers. There is much latitude in my neighborhood already and people seem to get along just fine. So people move in to TV for its beauty and then ….. ? I am concerned of maliciousness and vindictiveness towards a complainer if it is not anonymous. As it is, the situation gets investigated and nothing happens if it is not a legitimate complaint. Now if one person complains often and without a legitimate reason, in my opinion, such a person should be fined, to discourage them making frivolous charges.

[JSR22]

I disagree.

So do I! There would not be any complaints if people followed the deed restrictions they signed at closing.

[Marathon Man]

Where is the information that tells us if the violations have increased, decreased, or stayed the same? Isn't that what really matters?

[shut the front door]

Op did not suggest that the identity of the complainer would be revealed to the violator. It may be that only the CDD knows. I don't know which it is, but before the hand wringing begins and the clip board ladies jump off a cliff, we should be aware of the whole story.

[Stu4206]

I believe you should know who your accuser is.

[ThirdOfFive]

After data showing complaints dropped to less than 10% of what they used to be.
Time for all CDDs to follow suit.
That number is meaningless.

What REALLY matters is what percentage of the complaints received were verified as legitimate.

It has to exist. Though I doubt we'll ever see it.

[ThirdOfFive]

I believe you should know who your accuser is.
They do. The accuser is the CDD in question. The person bringing the alleged violation to the attention of the CDD is the REPORTER.

[ThirdOfFive]

The REAL question here is, why isn't reporting violations the responsibility of Community Watch? Seems like a no-brainer to me.

[Velvet]

I believe you should know who your accuser is.

What does it matter? If you are a violator, you have violated everyone in the whole community. If you run a stop sign does it matter WHICH policeman writes you up?

[Velvet]

The REAL question here is, why isn't reporting violations the responsibility of Community Watch? Seems like a no-brainer to me.

Yes, that would seem right as they would be unbiased, but then we’d had increased their work so it will cost us more money.

[Bill14564]

The REAL question here is, why isn't reporting violations the responsibility of Community Watch? Seems like a no-brainer to me.

Because Community Watch is to assist us Villagers and not to be a police force we try to avoid.

[Babubhat]

Nope. People can’t be trusted to follow the rules they agreed to. Don’t like it? Put up a for sale sign.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

I believe you should know who your accuser is.

If the accuser is suing you in a court of law, then sure. But this isn't a court of law.
This is deed restrictions. Your accuser is Community Standards.

It's not a violation of law. It's a violation of the community rules that you agreed to abide by when you bought the property.

And I agree with whoever said that it shouldn't be anonymous to CS. CS should absolutely have a record of everyone who lodges a complaint against a property in The Villages. But the person the complaint is lodged against - should not be entitled to that information. That's what creates neighbor wars.

[tophcfa]

What difference does it really make when violations are selectively enforced. They seem to go after people with little white crosses with vengeance but totally ignore people disrupting a whole neighborhood by renting a revolving door room out of their house to transient customers on a nightly basis. Go figure?

[Altavia]

So do I! There would not be any complaints if people followed the deed restrictions they signed at closing.

Things change.

If 80% of a Village is violating the same restriction, maybe there need to be a way to amend the restriction.

[Velvet]

Ah, the difference between deed restrictions and democracy. People vote with their feet, if they don’t like the deed restrictions, they don’t buy in The Villages. Lots of other places in Florida.

[bragones]

Things change.

If 80% of a Village is violating the same restriction, maybe there need to be a way to amend the restriction.

Any examples of deed restrictions that should be changed that would likely have widespread support?

[Bill14564]

What difference does it really make when violations are selectively enforced. They seem to go after people with little white crosses with vengeance but totally ignore people disrupting a whole neighborhood by renting a revolving door room out of their house to transient customers on a nightly basis. Go figure?

Since one violates the deed restrictions but the other does not (in most areas) that might explain it.

[oneclickplus]

I believe you should know who your accuser is.

The "accuser" is the deed restrictions you signed.

[NoMo50]

I believe you should know who your accuser is.

Why? So you can retaliate?

[retiredguy123]

As far as I know, I don't have any deed restrictions. If I do, and someone notifies me, I will correct it. I don't care who it is, anonymous or not. It shouldn't matter.

[charlie1]

I have always chosen a deed restricted community with covenants to make sure the area stays consistently nice. I am not in favor of the anonymous process. However, I do think the restrictions need to be enforced. That being said, the problem in the Villages is most people have never read their covenants and restrictions and, in fact, do not maybe even know they signed and agreed to them. I think what would help the most is an awareness campaign from the Districts as to what is included so people can take their own actions to correct. Then, have a volunteer committee that notifies people that are out of compliance. This worked well in two of our past neighborhoods. Most people were quick to get into compliance and those that refused, the neighborhood board got involved.

[tuccillo]

Two possible reasons. The first reason is because it is not their job. Secondly, and more importantly, if the CDD essentially took over the role of reporting deed restriction violations then they could possibly be accused of selective enforcement. With the current system of only investigating possible deed restriction that are reported by others, it is hard to see how that could happen as long as they uniformly investigate possible deed restriction violations. If the CDD was to take on the job of reporting deed restriction violations then they will have to essentially catch all of them.

Three Common Covenant Enforcement Defenses – Waiver, Estoppel, and Selective Enforcement | Florida Condo & HOA Law Blog (https://www.floridacondohoalawblog.com/2022/03/30/three-common-covenant-enforcement-defenses-waiver-estoppel-and-selective-enforcement/)

The REAL question here is, why isn't reporting violations the responsibility of Community Watch? Seems like a no-brainer to me.

[GpaVader]

I don't think people's issues are with deed restrictions but as characterized, by Mrs. Kravitz driving the neighborhoods with her clip board and phone and recording what she feels is a deed restriction. One would hope the CDD would clamp down and discourage this behavior. Neighbors can police themselves and often do. I do think the Community Watch could provide some assistance as well since they drive through the area anyways, not to enforce but to report. Stay in your lane....

[WharfRat]

I wonder if any of you have been the subject of an anonymous complaint? Shortly after we moved here, we received a note on our door stating we were out of compliance due to two metal sand hill crane figures in our front planter. The cranes were held over from a previous owner and according to our next door neighbor had been there for years. We removed the cranes despite the fact that there are other homes in our village and elsewhere that display the same cranes in their front yard (and also various other lawn ornaments) and continue to do so. Does this seem fair to you?

[ThirdOfFive]

Because Community Watch is to assist us Villagers and not to be a police force we try to avoid.
One could make the argument that, if Community Watch WERE charged with assuring that homeowners in TV follow the covenants in force in their area, they are thus helping ALL law-abiding Villagers by ensuring that egregious violators do not, by their action or inaction, drive property values in the neighborhood down.

[merrymini]

Right, pit neighbor against neighbor in the reporting or stop the reporting so the neighborhood goes to pot. Nice going.

[DonH57]

I wonder if any of you have been the subject of an anonymous complaint? Shortly after we moved here, we received a note on our door stating we were out of compliance due to two metal sand hill crane figures in our front planter. The cranes were held over from a previous owner and according to our next door neighbor had been there for years. We removed the cranes despite the fact that there are other homes in our village and elsewhere that display the same cranes in their front yard (and also various other lawn ornaments) and continue to do so. Does this seem fair to you?

It doesn't seem fair but some are targeted and others are not. Also remember not all districts have the same restrictions.

[Rzepecki]

I believe you should know who your accuser is.

But that’s not the point, is it? The point is the homeowner is out of compliance with the restrictions he/she agreed to abide by. It doesn’t have anything to do with the person reporting the infraction. No accusing being done.

[Golfer222]

The problem as see with the complaint system is that I could have a complaint over a yard item and have to remove it and my next door neighbor could have the exact same item in their yard and be able to keep it if no one complained about theirs. CDD even told me the same thing- They said if they came to my house due to a complaint, i had to remove the item and if even if CDD saw with their own eyes the exact same item in a neighbors yard, they had no authority to tell them the item needed removed without a formal complaint- Seem fair?

[skipalong]

After data showing complaints dropped to less than 10% of what they used to be.
Time for all CDDs to follow suit.

I’m 1000% for dropping the anonymous complaints, you get people that have nothing better to do than to find small, idiotic, minor in fractions to complain about things that don’t bother anyone else in the neighborhoods and most of the time it’s against someone they don’t like but having the guts to confront the people in person, so they keep giving anonymous complaints.

[PugMom]

a easy, neighbor-to-neighbor conversation would probably be in order before filing a complaint. if i was doing something wrong, i would LOVE it if someone i knew told me 1st, rather than relying on the clipboard ladies to do it for them. :shocked:

[defrey12]

Different enforcement. Interior vs exterior. ONLY TV can enforce interior (renting) and they don’t.

[joelfmi]

Never a true word spoken

[defrey12]

The problem as see with the complaint system is that I could have a complaint over a yard item and have to remove it and my next door neighbor could have the exact same item in their yard and be able to keep it if no one complained about theirs. CDD even told me the same thing- They said if they came to my house due to a complaint, i had to remove the item and if even if CDD saw with their own eyes the exact same item in a neighbors yard, they had no authority to tell them the item needed removed without a formal complaint- Seem fair?

No, it’s not fair. BUT, if they did pull your neighbor’s WITHOUT a complaint, it could be seen by that owner as “selective enforcement”…a BIG NO-NO in the world of HOAs. This is why CS vehicles can not “police” violations. If they missed even one, out comes the selective enforcement banner. Once the neighbor wars in start in CDD5 and/or or it starts looking like hell, anonymous reporting will be back. As for the “clipboard ladies”? Make them PROVE they live in that district before accepting their complaints. Better yet, eliminate their need by having the RE agents at closing actually set aside 15 minutes and MAKE people read the covenants they sign for. Novel concept.

[Altavia]

Two possible reasons. The first reason is because it is not their job. Secondly, and more importantly, if the CDD essentially took over the role of reporting deed restriction violations then they could possibly be accused of selective enforcement. With the current system of only investigating possible deed restriction that are reported by others, it is hard to see how that could happen as long as they uniformly investigate possible deed restriction violations. If the CDD was to take on the job of reporting deed restriction violations then they will have to essentially catch all of them.

Three Common Covenant Enforcement Defenses – Waiver, Estoppel, and Selective Enforcement | Florida Condo & HOA Law Blog (https://www.floridacondohoalawblog.com/2022/03/30/three-common-covenant-enforcement-defenses-waiver-estoppel-and-selective-enforcement/)

But then there is this?

Waiver is the intentional or voluntary relinquishment of a known right or conduct which infers the relinquishment of a known right.

The right to enforce a restrictive covenant may be lost due to waiver where, by failing to act, one leads another to believe that he or she is not going to insist upon enforcement of the covenant.

Courts have found that when an association is aware of the violations for a lengthy period of time without raising any objections it may have waived its right to later pursue enforcement of such activities.

If an association postpones enforcement of violations of which it is aware for such a lengthy period that the reasonable inference can be made that the association will tolerate the violations, then waiver has occurred.

Since most associations will begin enforcement activities soon after learning of a violation, successful waiver defenses are rare.

[asianthree]

When our neighborhood was visited by what some call is the elusive clipboard ladies, 48 complaints filed on the same day. We were one of 48, our complaint was a white cross in a planter at our house.

We for the life of us couldn’t figure out where said cross was. Since not our faith for white crosses, we thought it was a mistake.

4 weeks later knock on door, with a official notice to remove cross from our premises, or fines would start. So we walked through our yard looking for white cross, and couldn’t find one. But the person did find vine had died in the flower pot, And if you looked at it sideways it may or may not have looked like a very thin cross.

Apologies were given and the exact words were if we charged these people five dollars for every complaint they reported, 90% would cease completely.

If complaint had value, Then the submitter would not be charged, if it was false then they would pay five dollar fine. His words not mine.

[Altavia]

When our neighborhood was visited by what some call is the elusive clipboard ladies, 48 complaints filed on the same day. We were one of 48, our complaint was a white cross in a planter at our house.

We for the life of us couldn’t figure out where said cross was. Since not our faith for white crosses, we thought it was a mistake.

4 weeks later knock on door, with a official notice to remove cross from our premises, or fines would start. So we walked through our yard looking for white cross, and couldn’t find one. But the person did find vine had died in the flower pot, And if you looked at it sideways it may or may not have looked like a very thin cross.

Apologies were given and the exact words were if we charged these people five dollars for every complaint they reported, 90% would cease completely.

If complaint had value, Then the submitter would not be charged, if it was false then they would pay five dollar fine. His words not mine.

I had a complaint for unapproved landscaping. The landscaping was installed by the builder before sale. They said nevermind :-)

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

a easy, neighbor-to-neighbor conversation would probably be in order before filing a complaint. if i was doing something wrong, i would LOVE it if someone i knew told me 1st, rather than relying on the clipboard ladies to do it for them. :shocked:

Yeah I had that easy, neighbor-to-neighbor conversation about a homeowner's multiple cats roaming the neighborhood, crapping in my flowerbed, and tormenting my (singular) indoor cat through the screen. It didn't end well. Turned out this neighbor was truly unhinged.

She threatened the neighbor on the other side of her property with calling the police, because the guy was hanging out on the side of his own house, ON HIS OWN property, smoking a cigarette. She actually went over the property line, approached him, and poked him on his forehead and told him that he was a problem.

He didn't want trouble so he didn't try to fight back - he just told her she should absolutely call the police. Sadly - this guy and his partner moved out because they couldn't deal with the crazy lady next door, and she moved out shortly after to go be with "her people" whatever the heck that means.

These are the kinds of nut-jobs you do NOT want knowing that it was you who called Community Standards for violations of the rules.

[Vermilion Villager]

I believe you should know who your accuser is.
Your accuser is The Villages CDD.

[Vermilion Villager]

I don't think people's issues are with deed restrictions but as characterized, by Mrs. Kravitz driving the neighborhoods with her clip board and phone and recording what she feels is a deed restriction.
That is not how it works.
Let's use a crazy example… Mrs. Kravitz reports you for having asphalt shingles on your roof. That is clearly not an infraction of a deed restriction. If Mrs. Kravitz reported this the CDD would not be sending you an enforcement letter. The CDD only sends enforcement letters out if the reported violation is actually a violation of the deed restriction.
Before a letter is sent out by the CDD, a representative from the CDD does come to the property and makes a visual observation. If in fact the accusation is true then… And only then do you receive a letter from the CDD.

[HJBeck]

Mixed emotions about the issue. Certainly good that frivolous complaints are significantly reduced. Then we have those complaints that are truly legit. Unfortunately we have our own share of crazy people in TV (1 OR 2 in 100). Some own guns and truly shouldn't, which gives me pause about calling them out. Something to think about.

[Dusty_Star]

But that’s not the point, is it? The point is the homeowner is out of compliance with the restrictions he/she agreed to abide by. It doesn’t have anything to do with the person reporting the infraction. No accusing being done.

Not necessarily. A report is made by someone, who may or may not know the deed restrictions. The report is then investigated. Only then, if in non-compliance is verified will a notification occur. This move seems to be to cut down on frivolous complaints.

[Golfer222]

really the only way it will ever be an equitable system is when it is no longer complaint driven- either anonymous or non-anonymous.

[Altavia]

That is not how it works.
Let's use a crazy example… Mrs. Kravitz reports you for having asphalt shingles on your roof. That is clearly not an infraction of a deed restriction. If Mrs. Kravitz reported this the CDD would not be sending you an enforcement letter. The CDD only sends enforcement letters out if the reported violation is actually a violation of the deed restriction.
Before a letter is sent out by the CDD, a representative from the CDD does come to the property and makes a visual observation. If in fact the accusation is true then… And only then do you receive a letter from the CDD.

I received a letter due to an erroneous complaint filled without verification as mentioned in a previous post.

[tuccillo]

That is the selective enforcement issue. I have actually seen this in a previous community with deed restrictions.

But then there is this?

Waiver is the intentional or voluntary relinquishment of a known right or conduct which infers the relinquishment of a known right.

The right to enforce a restrictive covenant may be lost due to waiver where, by failing to act, one leads another to believe that he or she is not going to insist upon enforcement of the covenant.

Courts have found that when an association is aware of the violations for a lengthy period of time without raising any objections it may have waived its right to later pursue enforcement of such activities.

If an association postpones enforcement of violations of which it is aware for such a lengthy period that the reasonable inference can be made that the association will tolerate the violations, then waiver has occurred.

Since most associations will begin enforcement activities soon after learning of a violation, successful waiver defenses are rare.

[DAVES]

I disagree. I think in fact, it is a very bad idea - as we are in a complaint driven enforced community. We don’t seem to have any by-law officers. There is much latitude in my neighborhood already and people seem to get along just fine. So people move in to TV for its beauty and then ….. ? I am concerned of maliciousness and vindictiveness towards a complainer if it is not anonymous. As it is, the situation gets investigated and nothing happens if it is not a legitimate complaint. Now if one person complains often and without a legitimate reason, in my opinion, such a person should be fined, to discourage them making frivolous charges.

This has been debated before. Under our legal system you have the right to face your accuser. The original post states that complaints went down by 90% when no longer
anonymous.
There are few of us that have nothing that is in violation. Is that a garden plant? Your neighbor ANONYMOUSLY thinks it is an ugly WEED.

[tophcfa]

What difference does it really make when violations are selectively enforced. They seem to go after people with little white crosses with vengeance but totally ignore people disrupting a whole neighborhood by renting a revolving door room out of their house to transient customers on a nightly basis. Go figure?

Since one violates the deed restrictions but the other does not (in most areas) that might explain it.

Both violate deed restrictions in most areas. There are at least two deed restrictions violated by running short term rentals out of one’s home while living there at the same time. Renting to non family members while living in the home violates the deed restriction requiring the home be used as a single family residential unit. And since the homeowner is essentially running a one room hotel for a fee that generates taxable income, they are also violating the restriction that prohibits running a business from the home. Unfortunately, these violations are not enforced.

Rentals of one’s home while they are NOT living there, regardless of the length of the rental, does not violate any deed restrictions as long as the tenants are a single family.

[Altavia]

That is the selective enforcement issue. I have actually seen this in a previous community with deed restrictions.

Seems more a potential Waiver issue than Selective Enforcement.
.

The right to enforce a restrictive covenant may be lost due to waiver where, by failing to act, one leads another to believe that he or she is not going to insist upon enforcement of the covenant.

[DAVES]

really the only way it will ever be an equitable system is when it is no longer complaint driven- either anonymous or non-anonymous.

Most of these things are debatable. We seek perfection but, perfection rarely exists.
Perhaps, teasing. An equitable system is when they BOTHER anyone else but ME.

in other communities they elect an architectural committee that travels the neighborhood looking for violations. What happens is, OH that is John, I play bridge with him, I didn't see his violation.

Many years ago my neighbor hired a, "landscaper," to design and build his landscape. They built a cement structure that was in violation. I spoke to my neighbor and pointed it out to him. My neighbor spoke to the contractor who refused to redo the work. The guy was nasty to me-swearing etc. He is the expert, kind of stuff. I told him I would be calling the villages.
The villages were great. They sent someone to look. The, "expert landscaper," was wrong, he never filed a plan. The villages told my neighbor not to pay him. I did not want to complain BUT, if you choose not to it sort of becomes grandfathered.

[Kjbatl]

I disagree. I think in fact, it is a very bad idea - as we are in a complaint driven enforced community. We don’t seem to have any by-law officers. There is much latitude in my neighborhood already and people seem to get along just fine. So people move in to TV for its beauty and then ….. ? I am concerned of maliciousness and vindictiveness towards a complainer if it is not anonymous. As it is, the situation gets investigated and nothing happens if it is not a legitimate complaint. Now if one person complains often and without a legitimate reason, in my opinion, such a person should be fined, to discourage them making frivolous charges.

Here is another thought on this. All the CDD boards use the one group of complaint administrators. The budget for the compliance office is then divided up and paid for based on the number of complaints they handle for your CDD. Each anonymous complaint that is then found to be bogus still cost you money. If you have to put your name to the complaint and CDD 5 complaint numbers are down 90%, then their cost for the complaint system should be down by 90% also. Seems like a way to trim our expenditures as a CDD without much effort.

[Velvet]

This has been debated before. Under our legal system you have the right to face your accuser. The original post states that complaints went down by 90% when no longer
anonymous.
There are few of us that have nothing that is in violation. Is that a garden plant? Your neighbor ANONYMOUSLY thinks it is an ugly WEED.

The CDD is the accuser, as the violation is against the deed restriction not one person in particular.

[MandoMan]

If the accuser is suing you in a court of law, then sure. But this isn't a court of law.
This is deed restrictions. Your accuser is Community Standards.

It's not a violation of law. It's a violation of the community rules that you agreed to abide by when you bought the property.

And I agree with whoever said that it shouldn't be anonymous to CS. CS should absolutely have a record of everyone who lodges a complaint against a property in The Villages. But the person the complaint is lodged against - should not be entitled to that information. That's what creates neighbor wars.

That seems like a sensible compromise. Signed public complaints reminds me of countries where people are allowed to vote, but their vote is public. It discourages people from voting. Sort of like the complaint rate dropping by 90%.

On the other hand, perhaps most of those complaints are coming from one or two people in an area. I’ve seen plenty of violations but never considered reporting them.

[RICH1]

The Clipboard ladies have a weakness , Margaritas and a Prolapsed Bladder…having a collection of clipboards hanging from your headboard is similar to a “get out of jail Free” card…

[golfing eagles]

I don't think people's issues are with deed restrictions but as characterized, by Mrs. Kravitz driving the neighborhoods with her clip board and phone and recording what she feels is a deed restriction. One would hope the CDD would clamp down and discourage this behavior. Neighbors can police themselves and often do. I do think the Community Watch could provide some assistance as well since they drive through the area anyways, not to enforce but to report. Stay in your lane....

I agree. It's fine to keep the reporter anonymous from the violator, but that person should live in the same section. That way it is only those with a vested interest in the appearance of the neighborhood that can complain, and the two old biddies can shove their clipboard you-know-where.

[Laker14]

I wonder if any of you have been the subject of an anonymous complaint? Shortly after we moved here, we received a note on our door stating we were out of compliance due to two metal sand hill crane figures in our front planter. The cranes were held over from a previous owner and according to our next door neighbor had been there for years. We removed the cranes despite the fact that there are other homes in our village and elsewhere that display the same cranes in their front yard (and also various other lawn ornaments) and continue to do so. Does this seem fair to you?

I am not in favor of anonymous complaints, which is a good thing since I happen to live in
CDD 5. When I drive around I sometimes see things I suspect are not in compliance, but look nice, and one such example is a flower bed with a couple of metal sandhill cranes. I have often gone by there and thought "Gee, I hope the anonymous clipboard ladies don't complain about that"...
I think complaining anonymously is cowardly. If you can't look a person in the eye and politely explain why you want them to change something, maybe you are nitpicking and should find something else to worry about.

[Annie66]

Op did not suggest that the identity of the complainer would be revealed to the violator. It may be that only the CDD knows. I don't know which it is, but before the hand wringing begins and the clip board ladies jump off a cliff, we should be aware of the whole story.

We were the subject of a complaint in CDD5. When we asked the Community Standards rep who filed the complaint, we were told the name. We had already guessed but he confirmed our suspicions.

[retiredguy123]

We were the subject of a complaint in CDD5. When we asked the Community Standards rep who filed the complaint, we were told the name. We had already guessed but he confirmed our suspicions.
If you violated a deed restriction why not just correct it?

[Travilinggal]

After data showing complaints dropped to less than 10% of what they used to be.
Time for all CDDs to follow suit.
Why are the reporters the villain? If everyone would follow the agreements they signed the whole reporting system would not be necessary. Grow up and be responsible to your obligation to follow the agreements!

[Petersweeney]

I believe you should know who your accuser is.

If your charged with a crime….of course…..but not if you keep a dirty yard.

[Fastskiguy]

Are the rules that hard to follow or am I missing something? Isn’t it easier to just follow the rules than get all mad? What is going on here??

Joe

[Laker14]

No doubt that in a very few years it will be easy to tell you've entered CCD5, for we will be easily recognized by all of the junk cars on blocks, doorless refrigerators , and neon whirligigs spinning wildly in the yards.
Without anonymous complainers, we are doomed.

[GoPacers]

The fact that people want to "know" the accuser's name implies there is to be some form of retribution against the accuser. It's hard to argue otherwise.

As noted many times over, you sign an agreement when you purchase your home to abide by the restrictions. It's difficult to comprehend why a potential violation of those restrictions is now someone else's fault? Deed restrictions are intended to protect property values. If a homeowner has no intent of honoring such restrictions then they shouldn't purchase in a community with restrictive convenants.

I've lived in communities with a POA and deed restrictions for many years and I've never found it difficult to abide by those restrictions. Violations were reported to the POA and the POA took action without disclosing the name of the indivdual(s) who reported the violation. I don't think it's unreasonable for Community Standards (or whoever enforces the deed restrictions) to request the name of the person(s) who identify the non-compliance but there really is no reason for that name to be disclosed to the homeowner who is not in compliance - unless, that homeowner wants to exact some form of retribution. Sometimes we can get out of compliance unknowingly and sometimes people think they are above the rules. It doesn't matter the reason(s), out of compliance is out of compliance.

I personally want the restrictions enforced to protect property values. Homes are very, very expensive in The Villages and protecting those property values should be of great concern to all of us.

[Challenger]

We were the subject of a complaint in CDD5. When we asked the Community Standards rep who filed the complaint, we were told the name. We had already guessed but he confirmed our suspicions.

Did you correct the violation? Did you then speak with the person who
reported a suspected violation?

[justjim]

I believe in the ol’ adage “if it’s not broke don’t fix it”. I see no need for a change that could start a neighbor against neighbor quarrel.

[Dantes]

Make sure your complaint is really a legitimate complaint if you do your homework instead of using your own personal feelings then no problem

[Golfer222]

Are the rules that hard to follow or am I missing something? Isn’t it easier to just follow the rules than get all mad? What is going on here??

Joe
Nobody is disagreeing that we need rules and we all signed on for them. The issue is they are not applied equally in a complaint driven system. My lawn ornament gets taken down due to a complaint. My neighbors exact same gets to stay up because no one complained

[Altavia]

Why are the reporters the villain? If everyone would follow the agreements they signed the whole reporting system would not be necessary. Grow up and be responsible to your obligation to follow the agreements!

Because the reporters are often retaliating against other homeowners rather than the non compliance.

For example, six homes in a row have thre same non compliance, in place for over ten years, one gets reported.


.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Are the rules that hard to follow or am I missing something? Isn’t it easier to just follow the rules than get all mad? What is going on here??

Joe

There are people in the Villages who are just like some people everywhere: Angry, aggressive, unpleasant.

There are people who are angry with their own lives, so they lash out at others who aren't actually doing anything offensive. Such as - reporting someone for a violation on their property, when the violation isn't even a valid one. Example: getting your driveway widened after you received permission from ARC and CS to do so ten years ago, exactly as planned, in the exact correct color, and it was signed off on ten years ago. But someone wants to be angry and get you in trouble so they report it. It has to be investigated, it's a pain for ARC and CS and the homeowner, but it's 100% legit, and the complaining party gets to watch the sh&tshow from a distance, safe behind his wall of anonymity.

There are people on the other side as well - people who violate the rules because they know it'll stir up a HUGE to-do. Like having a little white cross sticking up from their flowerbeds. "It's JUST a little white cross" they say. But if it was such a nothing-berder, there wouldn't be posts here, and on the villages online news rag, and neighbors commenting, and the CS having to inspect, and present the homeowner with fines, and lawyers and hearing dates and what not. The people who leave the white cross up after being told to take it down are doing so because they can, because they WANT the drama. Not because they have any particular affiliation with any religion at all that requires they put a cross in their flowerbed. There is no such religion, it doesn't exist. They're doing it to proclaim "discrimination against religions, freedom of religion, mah freedumbs!"

That's all it's about.

So we have these rules that people /should/ follow, and are only enforced when someone complains. The people who WOULD be angry and loud and obnoxious about how they have their "freedumbs" to express themselves even if it's against their own deed restrictions - are the people who should not know that you're the one who complained. They can be dangerous, unhinged, and vengeful (because they think "vengeance is mine, sayeth the lord" applies to them as well).

The people who have nothing better to do than be angry at the world and complain all the time should also not have the homeowner find out it's them. You don't know why they're angry. If the homeowner finds out and tries to confront them, they could end up with their cat poisoned in their own back yard the next week.

Let the CS and ARC do what they do. Let THEM know who's complaining. But don't "dox" these people. It's dangerous business.

[Stu4206]

I don't remember signing one. The only change I've made so far is putting a bug zapper in the carport

[Stu4206]

Why? So you can retaliate?

That's just silly!

[golfing eagles]

I never signed one.

Then you don't own here. Or didn't know what you were signing at closing.

[Fastskiguy]

There are people in the Villages who are just like some people everywhere: Angry, aggressive, unpleasant.

There are people who are angry with their own lives, so they lash out at others who aren't actually doing anything offensive. Such as - reporting someone for a violation on their property, when the violation isn't even a valid one. Example: getting your driveway widened after you received permission from ARC and CS to do so ten years ago, exactly as planned, in the exact correct color, and it was signed off on ten years ago. But someone wants to be angry and get you in trouble so they report it. It has to be investigated, it's a pain for ARC and CS and the homeowner, but it's 100% legit, and the complaining party gets to watch the sh&tshow from a distance, safe behind his wall of anonymity.

There are people on the other side as well - people who violate the rules because they know it'll stir up a HUGE to-do. Like having a little white cross sticking up from their flowerbeds. "It's JUST a little white cross" they say. But if it was such a nothing-berder, there wouldn't be posts here, and on the villages online news rag, and neighbors commenting, and the CS having to inspect, and present the homeowner with fines, and lawyers and hearing dates and what not. The people who leave the white cross up after being told to take it down are doing so because they can, because they WANT the drama. Not because they have any particular affiliation with any religion at all that requires they put a cross in their flowerbed. There is no such religion, it doesn't exist. They're doing it to proclaim "discrimination against religions, freedom of religion, mah freedumbs!"

That's all it's about.

So we have these rules that people /should/ follow, and are only enforced when someone complains. The people who WOULD be angry and loud and obnoxious about how they have their "freedumbs" to express themselves even if it's against their own deed restrictions - are the people who should not know that you're the one who complained. They can be dangerous, unhinged, and vengeful (because they think "vengeance is mine, sayeth the lord" applies to them as well).

The people who have nothing better to do than be angry at the world and complain all the time should also not have the homeowner find out it's them. You don't know why they're angry. If the homeowner finds out and tries to confront them, they could end up with their cat poisoned in their own back yard the next week.

Let the CS and ARC do what they do. Let THEM know who's complaining. But don't "dox" these people. It's dangerous business.

Thanks for the reply. So are there cases of people being harassed with bogus complaints they have to deal with? Like as in the example above of complaining about a cross and it was just a plant?

I thought it was more stuff like "no sculptures in your landscape features" (not sure if that's even a rule) so that you couldn't put a statue of satan sodomizing a cherub or something like that in front of your house. So if you don't let anybody have the satan statue you can't let anybody have a statue of some birds either. Not sure if what I'm asking even makes sense (sorry)

Joe

[golfnut]

I disagree. I think in fact, it is a very bad idea - as we are in a complaint driven enforced community. We don’t seem to have any by-law officers. There is much latitude in my neighborhood already and people seem to get along just fine. So people move in to TV for its beauty and then ….. ? I am concerned of maliciousness and vindictiveness towards a complainer if it is not anonymous. As it is, the situation gets investigated and nothing happens if it is not a legitimate complaint. Now if one person complains often and without a legitimate reason, in my opinion, such a person should be fined, to discourage them making frivolous charges.

And how do you propose to identify the frequent complainer in an anonymous complaint system?

[Velvet]

And how do you propose to identify the frequent complainer in an anonymous complaint system?

If the CDD notices a pattern of unjustified complaints.

[birdawg]

Buy a home sign an agreement and then complain about the rules. Man up and except what you signed, getting tired of hearing people

[Bogie Shooter]

Thanks for the reply. So are there cases of people being harassed with bogus complaints they have to deal with? Like as in the example above of complaining about a cross and it was just a plant?

I thought it was more stuff like "no sculptures in your landscape features" (not sure if that's even a rule) so that you couldn't put a statue of satan sodomizing a cherub or something like that in front of your house. So if you don't let anybody have the satan statue you can't let anybody have a statue of some birds either. Not sure if what I'm asking even makes sense (sorry)

Joe
You can find your deed restrictions here, then you will know
VCDD Community Standards (https://www.districtgov.org/departments/Community-Standards/community-standards.aspx)

[fdpaq0580]

Then you don't own here. Or didn't know what you were signing at closing.

The mind numbing effects of the Koolaid.

[Garywt]

I feel the Villages should employ people whose job is to drive around all day to be sure deed restrictions are being followed.

[Laker14]

it can be a little hard to take seriously a list of restrictions that includes limiting the number of goldfish I can keep in my house, and requires that I notify the developer if I will be vacating my property for more than 7 days, and further, to notify the developer, in writing, of my intended return date.
Hey all of you sticklers, you signed it, you accepted it. I bet none of you do it.

[Bill14564]

it can be a little hard to take seriously a list of restrictions that includes limiting the number of goldfish I can keep in my house, and requires that I notify the developer if I will be vacating my property for more than 7 days, and further, to notify the developer, in writing, of my intended return date.
Hey all of you sticklers, you signed it, you accepted it. I bet none of you do it.

I don't believe all homes come with the notification requirements. I cannot find that section in my restrictions.

[Laker14]

I don't believe all homes come with the notification requirements. I cannot find that section in my restrictions.

I'm in CDD 5...it's in mine. How about the fish limit?

[golfing eagles]

I'm in CDD 5...it's in mine. How about the fish limit?

Guppies or sharks??????:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl: (Yes, yes, I know sharks are elasmobranchii and not fish)

[Stu from NYC]

I feel the Villages should employ people whose job is to drive around all day to be sure deed restrictions are being followed.

What would the two old biddies do all day?

[Altavia]

I'm in CDD 5...it's in mine. How about the fish limit?

No more that two pets allowed.

[tuccillo]

Essentially, the two pet limit is an “inside the house” deed restriction and is enforced by the Developer, who apparently doesn’t enforce “inside the house” deed restriction violations all that often. The CDD will enforce “outside the house” deed restriction violations that are reported.

No more that two pets allowed.

[fdpaq0580]

I have an ant farm. It is a very lonely place. They haven't seen each other for weeks.
🐜 😞 🐜

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Thanks for the reply. So are there cases of people being harassed with bogus complaints they have to deal with? Like as in the example above of complaining about a cross and it was just a plant?

I thought it was more stuff like "no sculptures in your landscape features" (not sure if that's even a rule) so that you couldn't put a statue of satan sodomizing a cherub or something like that in front of your house. So if you don't let anybody have the satan statue you can't let anybody have a statue of some birds either. Not sure if what I'm asking even makes sense (sorry)

Joe

Yes, there are people who will submit formal complaints against others, JUST to try and stir up drama. AND there are people who will intentionally violate the rules, JUST to try and stir up drama. Both of these types of people succeed, and so they are encouraged to continue doing it.

As long as they can be 100% anonymous and the authorities not required to know who they are, they'll just keep doing it.

I've submitted complaints against two homes in my neighborhood. I gave my name both times, but one of them made me very nervous to do so. It was someone doing something incredibly shady late at night in their yard, which is across from my yard, and could have caused damage to my yard. The person doing this thing was not the homeowner, but lived in the house. I worried for my safety if they found out I was the one complaining.

The second was just someone who had overgrown grass in some places almost eight inches high, no edging at all, growing through the cracks in their driveway, and weeds covering their yard and vines growing all over their house. Obviously no one was living there so there was no one I could even offer to help. I would've pulled the vines off for them if they were there for me to enquire. I let Community Standards deal with it, and two weeks later it was all cleaned up and has been maintained ever since.

In the first situation - it was risky for me to give my name. In the second, not risky at all. So I can see why being anonymous is an attractive option. However, it shouldn't have to be anonymous to the Community Standards people. In fact it shouldn't be allowed to be anonymous to them. They SHOULD know who is making every single complaint.

But the person I'm complaining ABOUT has no need or reason to know it's me.

[Altavia]

Essentially, the two pet limit is an “inside the house” deed restriction and is enforced by the Developer, who apparently doesn’t enforce “inside the house” deed restriction violations all that often. The CDD will enforce “outside the house” deed restriction violations that are reported.

Interesting.

It's this one example of the ambiguity that make it difficult for some to respect the restrictions.

[Oldragbagger]

it can be a little hard to take seriously a list of restrictions that includes limiting the number of goldfish I can keep in my house, and requires that I notify the developer if I will be vacating my property for more than 7 days, and further, to notify the developer, in writing, of my intended return date.
Hey all of you sticklers, you signed it, you accepted it. I bet none of you do it.

I can’t imagine goldfish are actually considered pets. They fall more into the category of home decor.

[Velvet]

Interesting.

It's this one example of the ambiguity that make it difficult for some to respect the restrictions.

Well, I suppose it’s when you take the more than 2 pets outside, when it becomes obvious. Or if you invite people over who disapprove in the first place.

Oh, about those two lonely ants, they’ve got a whole lot of friends outside my place….

[fdpaq0580]

Well, I suppose it’s when you take the more than 2 pets outside, when it becomes obvious. Or if you invite people over who disapprove in the first place.

Oh, about those two lonely ants, they’ve got a whole lot of friends outside my place….

I was thinking about arranging a "play date" for them, but I couldn't get the room I wanted at the rec center. Maybe a party at Chuck E. Cheese?

[gobuck827]

I can’t imagine goldfish are actually considered pets. They fall more into the category of home decor.

They are according to the deed restrictions;

"Section 7. Birds, fish, dogs and cats shall be permitted, with a maximum of two (2) pets per Homesite."

VCDD Deed Compliance - Sumter County (https://www.districtgov.org/departments/community-standards/deedrestrict-SumterCounty.aspx)

[tuccillo]

I don't personally see any difficulty. You signed up for a set of deed restrictions. Follow through on what you signed up for regardless if someone is watching.

Interesting.

It's this one example of the ambiguity that make it difficult for some to respect the restrictions.

[Altavia]

I don't personally see any difficulty. You signed up for a set of deed restrictions. Follow through on what you signed up for regardless if someone is watching.

People in glass houses...

[tuccillo]

I don't have any deed restriction violations. If I did, I would correct them if brought to my attention. How about you?

People in glass houses...

[Laker14]

I can’t imagine goldfish are actually considered pets. They fall more into the category of home decor.

Which is why you always see then in the furniture stores, and never in pet shops.

[fdpaq0580]

Which is why you always see then in the furniture stores, and never in pet shops.

No wonder I can't find them. I've been looking in the seafood section at Public's.

[tophcfa]

I don't personally see any difficulty. You signed up for a set of deed restrictions. Follow through on what you signed up for regardless if someone is watching.

Please tell that to all the people who are disrupting their neighborhood by renting out a revolving door room in their house while they live there. Just because the deed restriction violations that entails are not enforced, it’s still not right and violates the deed restrictions they agreed to when purchasing their home.

[tuccillo]

I agree. It is unfortunate that the “inside the house deed restrictions” are, as far as I can tell, not enforced.

Please tell that to all the people who are disrupting their neighborhood by renting out a revolving door room in their house while they live there. Just because the deed restriction violations that entails are not enforced, it’s still not right and violates the deed restrictions they agreed to when purchasing their home.

[Bill14564]

Please tell that to all the people who are disrupting their neighborhood by renting out a revolving door room in their house while they live there. Just because the deed restriction violations that entails are not enforced, it’s still not right and violates the deed restrictions they agreed to when purchasing their home.

Are there really "all the people" who do that? That would be worse than picking up a hitchhiker.

But if you know of a deed violation occurring, take the owner to court to stop it. Check the ENFORCEMENT section of your deed restrictions. The Developer is not the only one who can bring proceedings against a violation. (you should also see the words "the right but not the duty to enforce")

[Stu from NYC]

Are there really "all the people" who do that? That would be worse than picking up a hitchhiker.

But if you know of a deed violation occurring, take the owner to court to stop it. Check the ENFORCEMENT section of your deed restrictions. The Developer is not the only one who can bring proceedings against a violation. (you should also see the words "the right but not the duty to enforce")

Wonder how many people actually read this at closing and remember what they read? Believe it would be a very small percentage

[Oldragbagger]

They are according to the deed restrictions;

"Section 7. Birds, fish, dogs and cats shall be permitted, with a maximum of two (2) pets per Homesite."

VCDD Deed Compliance - Sumter County (https://www.districtgov.org/departments/community-standards/deedrestrict-SumterCounty.aspx)

Our deed restrictions read differently. It only refers to “domestic pets” with no mention of fish or birds, and there is no limit on the number, only that they must be leashed, must be cleaned up after, and cannot create a nuisance.

[gobuck827]

Our deed restrictions read differently. It only refers to “domestic pets” with no mention of fish or birds, and there is no limit on the number, only that they must be leashed, must be cleaned up after, and cannot create a nuisance.

A quick perusal of the restrictions per district revealed that districts 1 and 2 make no mention of pets. District 13 does, in fact, read as you posted while districts 3 through 12 all have the statement of;

"Birds, fish, dogs and cats shall be permitted, with a maximum oftwo (2) pets per Homesite.".

So it appears, like everything else in life, the restrictions evolve over time.

[Mortal1]

I believe you should know who your accuser is.

this is not a court of law where you are allowed to face your accuser. this is pointing out to the powers that be there is an issue.

the only people that want to know who pointed out their inability to follow rules a child can understand are those who either want to confront them, or make nasty faces when they pass by.

Just follow the rules or move. It is simple.

[Bill14564]

this is not a court of law where you are allowed to face your accuser. this is pointing out to the powers that be there is an issue.

the only people that want to know who pointed out their inability to follow rules a child can understand are those who either want to confront them, or make nasty faces when they pass by.

Just follow the rules or move. It is simple.

Being a strict rule follower, does this mean you don't exceed 35 mph on Morse and Buena Vista or 70 mph on the turnpike and would support the police ticketing for 36 mph and 71 mph?

I sat through a CDD meeting recently that discussed a violation regarding grass that had been replaced by gravel. Out of curiosity I visited the particular neighborhood. At least six other properties also had replaced the grass on theirs. This home was no different from those. Why was this change unacceptable while the others were not? Why was this home singled out for a complaint? I suspect I know the answer and it had nothing to do with the appearance of the neighborhood.

Complaints are sometimes filed to harass an "undesirable" neighbor. Complaints are sometimes filed by those who feel it is their civic duty to police other's neighborhoods. Tracking who is filing complaints and restricting the ability to file a complaint outside the neighborhood or village you live in might help reduce the numbers and help support the label, "America's friendliest hometown."

[Altavia]

Being a strict rule follower, does this mean you don't exceed 35 mph on Morse and Buena Vista or 70 mph on the turnpike and would support the police ticketing for 36 mph and 71 mph?

I sat through a CDD meeting recently that discussed a violation regarding grass that had been replaced by gravel. Out of curiosity I visited the particular neighborhood. At least six other properties also had replaced the grass on theirs. This home was no different from those. Why was this change unacceptable while the others were not? Why was this home singled out for a complaint? I suspect I know the answer and it had nothing to do with the appearance of the neighborhood.

Complaints are sometimes filed to harass an "undesirable" neighbor. Complaints are sometimes filed by those who feel it is their civic duty to police other's neighborhoods. Tracking who is filing complaints and restricting the ability to file a complaint outside the neighborhood or village you live in might help reduce the numbers and help support the label, "America's friendliest hometown."

Agree the "just follow the rules" posts a seem a little sanctimonious.

It seems the restrictions are used in a vindictive way more often than not. A few adjustments as you suggest could help minimize the harassment.

Maybe I's a little too easy to file a complaint. I would add requiring as much documentation to file a complaint as it does to request a change.