In Today's Daily Sun Thursday August 9,2012

[graciegirl]

Jennifer Parr, daughter of the developer and vice president of The Villages Home Sales has made a rare if ever speech to the Amenity Authority Committee regarding the issue of signs and it was quoted in the newspaper today.

Would any of you off campus like for me to type it here for you to read?

[rubicon]

GGI I read the article this AM and would agree with Jennifer Parr that the resriction ought to remain in place. I am very disappointed with the Amenities Advisor Committee's decision in fact very surprised by their vote. People should speak up as this issue goes well beyond "For Sale" signs

[Joaniesmom]

I would like to read it, if the article isn't too long for you to type. I just got out the "rules" for Forsyth Villas that were given to me when we bought in April and it's OK to put out professional RE signs in the lawn. Sounds reasonable to me. But that's the way we roll in Ohio.

[rhood]

What does the AAC have to do with it? Seems like this is between the property owner and the district, isn't it? Isn't it written in the restrictions and covenants that we all love? The AAC should just butt out ! !

[Roaddog53]

With all the housing for sale and rentals out there, neighborhoods will look like highway billboards now. I think IMHO it will open up even more issues. Where will it stop? What about political signs, or any sign someone wants to display now. I like the pristine look myself as the Morse family tried to say.

[Moderator]

Would any of you off campus like for me to type it here for you to read?

Just a reminder....full copyrighted articles can not be posted verbatim here...you can quote a few sentences but then must provide a link to the original site.

Sorry, them's the rules.

Thanks.... Moderator

[Bogie Shooter]

Once the inmates start running the asylum...............(fill in the blank)

[NotGolfer]

Re: signs..."IF" everything goes just take a drive outside of T.V. and see the campaign signs. All shapes, sizes--some professionally done, some not. Put that with "for sale" signs then the rules are pushed a little further. I go with do what the covenances say and leave it at that! I haven't read the paper yet this morning so maybe my comments reflect that.

[swimdawg]

Just a reminder....full copyrighted articles can not be posted verbatim here...you can quote a few sentences but then must provide a link to the original site.

Sorry, them's the rules.

Thanks.... Moderator

A synopsis would be appreciated.

[Bambi]

Once the inmates start running the asylum...............(fill in the blank)

I was at the meeting yesterday and I am offended by this remark. The members of the AAC are dedicated people serving our community. Name calling is very immature and should not be tolerated by this forum.

The debate regarding the detrimental appearance of signs is a subjective one. However, the legal liability of prohibiting signs is a real one. The cost of defending the suit and the subsequent award if we lost would be the responsibility of all of us.....our amenity fees.

[graciegirl]

Just a reminder....full copyrighted articles can not be posted verbatim here...you can quote a few sentences but then must provide a link to the original site.

Sorry, them's the rules.

Thanks.... Moderator

I was not going to copy and paste, because I can't...I was going to type it word for word with appropriate quotes at beginning and end.

There are email links to the district supervisors who will make the decision. If you would like your voice heard you may email those supervisors.

Although this directly affects those areas north of 466 it really affects all of us. We aren't The village or THE district, we are The Villages.

I have moved from a neighborhood with deed restrictions in Ohio. I found that those restrictions were a positive in maintaining appearance AND property values.

Personally I feel that the only people who gain from this whole quarrel ending with signs in yards are the realtors. And then really they don't gain either. I feel much less inclined to use the realtors who have posted here on that subject. To me their posts seemed unprofessional.

I will ask again. If I TYPE EVERY WORD with quotes beginning and end, may I please type the article referred to from today's Daily Sun?

I think that if I do, people will see that Jennifer Parr had a great deal to say and spoke fairly and kindly.

[mickey100]

However, the legal liability of prohibiting signs is a real one. The cost of defending the suit and the subsequent award if we lost would be the responsibility of all of us.....our amenity fees.

The cost of defending such a suit is a drop in the bucket compared to the costs we're ringing up on the IRS business...just saying.

[bkcunningham1]

The Amenity Authority is the only governing body involved with TV that has any authority over the Lady Lady/Lake County area of TV. On the historic side, we are part of Lady Lake and not part of any of the Community Development Districts.

This decision has nothing to do with the numbered Districts.

[bkcunningham1]

Gracie, a realty sign in my yard benefits me more than it does the realtor.

The thing that I believe people are not thinking about with the discussion of the appearance of the signs is the fact that the restriction of signs hasn't been enforced in the Lady Lake/Lake County portion of TV. This isn't going to make signs start appearing where they weren't appearing before.

They've been here all along and apparently, many of you hadn't noticed or hadn't been over in the area to see them.

[Madelaine Amee]

I was at the meeting yesterday and I am offended by this remark. The members of the AAC are dedicated people serving our community. The debate regarding the detrimental appearance of signs is a subjective one. However, the legal liability of prohibiting signs is a real one. The cost of defending the suit and the subsequent award if we lost would be the responsibility of all of us.....our amenity fees.

At the risk of being hung, drawn and quartered, I have to agree with this post, and I also think the real estate signs could be handled in a better manner. I don't think they need to be stuck out on the edge of the lawn or driveway, they could be moved back into the landscaping. They would still be visible from the road, but not so much "in your face".

Let's take into account that this is a retirement community. We get sick and move back to our families; we get sick and move into nursing homes, we age and move into extended living facilities. At this point it really becomes a necessity to sell the house and not have it sitting around untended.

Ms. Parr states that the family is willing to allow bigger signs in the window, so what about meeting with the AAC and working out an amicable solution to this discussion before it becomes a major problem.

[njbchbum]

maybe graciegirl or rubicon or someone who has the paper could just give a brief summary of the vote question and result? and please answer the question as to whether this vote pertains to all properties in lady lake/lake county as the agenda item indicated. thanx

[it should NOT be a surprise to anyone that jennifer parr would speak to the committee; after all, vice president of The Villages’ home sales division. who would stand to benefit from removal of for sale signs of the competition?]

[graciegirl]

maybe graciegirl or rubicon or someone who has the paper could just give a brief summary of the vote question and result? and please answer the question as to whether this vote pertains to all properties in lady lake/lake county as the agenda item indicated. thanx

[it should NOT be a surprise to anyone that jennifer parr would speak to the committee; after all, vice president of The Villages’ home sales division. who would stand to benefit from removal of for sale signs of the competition?]


The brief summary and the generalizations are not conducive to seeing the bottom line and for making informed judgments.

I don't support people coming in and buying up many homes and renting them and I don't support people flipping homes for profit. It isn't good for all of us and for all of our property values. That is just MY opinion.

I would like for people to read this article.

Admin? May I have permission to type it?

[bkcunningham1]

The story doesn't mention an official vote by the board, njbchbum. Districts 1-4 will take up the matter Friday and District 5 will address the issue on August 17.

Although the article doesn't mention a vote, it does indicate that members Rich Lambrecht, Carl Bell, Jo Weber and John Wilcox were in the majority of not wanting to enforce the deed restriction. Wilcox said the Jennifer Parr had some good points but he would support not to enforce the restriction. He said he'd consider looking at the matter again in six months.

Board members Gary Moyer and Ann Forrester were the members who supported the enforcement.

[bkcunningham1]

The story doesn't mention an official vote by the board, njbchbum. Districts 1-4 will take up the matter Friday and District 5 will address the issue on August 17.

Although the article doesn't mention a vote, it does indicate that members Rich Lambrecht, Carl Bell, Jo Weber and John Wilcox were in the majority of not wanting to enforce the deed restriction. Wilcox said the Jennifer Parr had some good points but he would support not to enforce the restriction. He said he'd consider looking at the matter again in six months.

Board members Gary Moyer and Ann Forrester were the members who supported the enforcement.

Just so the moderator understands, these are my own words. The meetings are a matter of public information and come under the Florida Sunshine Laws. I am not quoting the copyrighted material out of the newspaper.

[bkcunningham1]

How is flipping houses, which is what I've been doing btw and Gracie knows this, not good for your property value Gracie? When I invest money to rehab an old manufactured home on the Historic Side and make it look brand new again, that adversely affects you? I would like to understand how.

[The Shadow]

I think I got this figured out. What was not a problem until a few months ago then became a problem now we do not want to go back to what was not a problem because that would be a problem. :posting:

[inda50]

Eventually everyone here ( or their estate ) for various reasons will have to sell their home. I am in favor of one for sale sign on the property. It should be our right.

[rhood]

GG, type it and put it on your website and post a link here. Does it say anything in The Daily Sun that you can't copy or reproduce content?

[Roaddog53]

At what point do the members of this so called board reviewing this make a decision? What I fail to understand is the comment that the restrictions were not being enforced, so why enforce them now? Wilcox states he is in not in favor of enforcing the restrictions?? Or he is in favor of looking at this in 6 months?? This is called procrastination or failure to commit. I have said it before. If people in positions can not perform their function, than don't be in the position! I look at these posts and am astonished at the covenants that are in place and since they were not enforced they don't want to start now, or even worse, they telling everyone they are not enforceable. Than why have them at all than if anyone can do what they want?
Saying that Jennifer Parr benefits by not having the signs because she is VP of home sales is wrong. If people want to sell, rent their homes, use the various current avenues everyone is using now. With the "demand" down here and all the technologies, I would think IMHO, that most people out of state, and even here, sit down and are looking online or having a realtor do the checking! Those realtors and individuals have the same tools as TV to use for homes.

[Mikeod]

GGI I read the article this AM and would agree with Jennifer Parr that the resriction ought to remain in place. I am very disappointed with the Amenities Advisor Committee's decision in fact very surprised by their vote. People should speak up as this issue goes well beyond "For Sale" signs
I'm afraid the AAC has opened a large can of worms with this vote. If residents can ignore deed restrictions as far as signs are concerned, what other restrictions can be ignored? Turn your home into a storefront with the traffic that will occur? Cut down that ancient, pesky live oak that drops leaves into your pool? Install that 14' windmill in the front yard you've always wanted? Let that hedge grow to 20' blocking your neighbor's view? Why not?

Also of concern is that the AAC decision opens the district to lawsuits. I would expect the Morse's to file suit over each and every violation of the deed restrictions and be joined by homeowners doing the same. How long will it take before we are spending a lot of amenity monies trying to justify not enforcing existing deed restrictions.

Yes, we are an older population, and there will be circumstances when we have to sell a home. If the deed restriction on signs is so onerous, perhaps it would have been better to not buy here. Somehow, I don't see a large build-up of pre-owned homes inventory here. I also don't see the outside realtors going out of business because of the lack of signs here. And doesn't the developer also adhere to the "12X12 window only" restriction?

Apparently, a signature on the bottom line accepting these restrictions means nothing anymore. I didn't think we were the generation that decided to ignore rules when they became "inconvenient". I served as president of a homeowners association in CA and I can tell you truthfully that if you allow the slightest deviation from a deed restriction, someone will take advantage of it. And if you try to enforce it, they will point to that exemption and you will lose.

[graciegirl]

How is flipping houses, which is what I've been doing btw and Gracie knows this, not good for your property value Gracie? When I invest money to rehab an old manufactured home on the Historic Side and make it look brand new again, that adversely affects you? I would like to understand how.

You are right as usual BK. I am sorry I said that.

[janmcn]

I'm afraid the AAC has opened a large can of worms with this vote. If residents can ignore deed restrictions as far as signs are concerned, what other restrictions can be ignored? Turn your home into a storefront with the traffic that will occur? Cut down that ancient, pesky live oak that drops leaves into your pool? Install that 14' windmill in the front yard you've always wanted? Let that hedge grow to 20' blocking your neighbor's view? Why not?

Also of concern is that the AAC decision opens the district to lawsuits. I would expect the Morse's to file suit over each and every violation of the deed restrictions and be joined by homeowners doing the same. How long will it take before we are spending a lot of amenity monies trying to justify not enforcing existing deed restrictions.

Yes, we are an older population, and there will be circumstances when we have to sell a home. If the deed restriction on signs is so onerous, perhaps it would have been better to not buy here. Somehow, I don't see a large build-up of pre-owned homes inventory here. I also don't see the outside realtors going out of business because of the lack of signs here. And doesn't the developer also adhere to the "12X12 window only" restriction?

Apparently, a signature on the bottom line accepting these restrictions means nothing anymore. I didn't think we were the generation that decided to ignore rules when they became "inconvenient". I served a president of a homeowners association in CA and I can tell you truthfully that if you allow the slightest deviation from a deed restriction, someone will take advantage of it. And if you try to enforce it, they will point to that exemption and you will lose.

By the same token, if the villa neighborhoods are forced to give up a part of their deed restrictions that they signed and was signed by an agent of the developer, the same holds true. Next week or next month the developer could decide not to allow pets and give you 30 days to get rid of your animals.

[graciegirl]

I'm afraid the AAC has opened a large can of worms with this vote. If residents can ignore deed restrictions as far as signs are concerned, what other restrictions can be ignored? Turn your home into a storefront with the traffic that will occur? Cut down that ancient, pesky live oak that drops leaves into your pool? Install that 14' windmill in the front yard you've always wanted? Let that hedge grow to 20' blocking your neighbor's view? Why not?

Also of concern is that the AAC decision opens the district to lawsuits. I would expect the Morse's to file suit over each and every violation of the deed restrictions and be joined by homeowners doing the same. How long will it take before we are spending a lot of amenity monies trying to justify not enforcing existing deed restrictions.

Yes, we are an older population, and there will be circumstances when we have to sell a home. If the deed restriction on signs is so onerous, perhaps it would have been better to not buy here. Somehow, I don't see a large build-up of pre-owned homes inventory here. I also don't see the outside realtors going out of business because of the lack of signs here. And doesn't the developer also adhere to the "12X12 window only" restriction?

Apparently, a signature on the bottom line accepting these restrictions means nothing anymore. I didn't think we were the generation that decided to ignore rules when they became "inconvenient". I served a president of a homeowners association in CA and I can tell you truthfully that if you allow the slightest deviation from a deed restriction, someone will take advantage of it. And if you try to enforce it, they will point to that exemption and you will lose.

Well said.

[PennBF]

Consider that within the next year or so there will be a build out. Consider the only way to secure revenue then is through "resale's". Consider what an advantage it would be to be the alleged only source of this revenue. Now consider how you could to that. What if advertising was restricted and the
primary way to see what was for sale was to go to The Villages sales center.
Now consider who receives the benefit from this alleged attempt to block
others from entering the resale market. How do you do that..As they say in sports "you make the call". Not hard to see what is allegedly going on?:wave:

[rhood]

Once the inmates start running the asylum...............(fill in the blank)

Yup !

[inda50]

For the last 20 or 30 years they were not enforced. Should I assume that all of a sudden because it clearly benefits the developer they should be enforced? If you bought here clearly you saw the signs. Why did you buy here where there were for sale signs clearly for so long?

[Bogie Shooter]

I was at the meeting yesterday and I am offended by this remark. The members of the AAC are dedicated people serving our community. Name calling is very immature and should not be tolerated by this forum.

The debate regarding the detrimental appearance of signs is a subjective one. However, the legal liability of prohibiting signs is a real one. The cost of defending the suit and the subsequent award if we lost would be the responsibility of all of us.....our amenity fees.

Sorry you were offended..........some will agree & some will be offended.
If the covenents say no signs and that is enforced, where is the legal liability?

[Bogie Shooter]

For the last 20 or 30 years they were not enforced. Should I assume that all of a sudden because it clearly benefits the developer they should be enforced? If you bought here clearly you saw the signs. Why did you buy here where there were for sale signs clearly for so long?

How does it clearly benefit the developer?

[janmcn]

Sorry you were offended..........some will agree & some will be offended.
If the covenents say no signs and that is enforced, where is the legal liability?

Not all deed restrictions say no signs. Some clearly state that professional for sale and for rent signs are allowed.

[bkcunningham1]

I'm afraid the AAC has opened a large can of worms with this vote. If residents can ignore deed restrictions as far as signs are concerned, what other restrictions can be ignored? Turn your home into a storefront with the traffic that will occur? Cut down that ancient, pesky live oak that drops leaves into your pool? Install that 14' windmill in the front yard you've always wanted? Let that hedge grow to 20' blocking your neighbor's view? Why not?

Also of concern is that the AAC decision opens the district to lawsuits. I would expect the Morse's to file suit over each and every violation of the deed restrictions and be joined by homeowners doing the same. How long will it take before we are spending a lot of amenity monies trying to justify not enforcing existing deed restrictions.

Yes, we are an older population, and there will be circumstances when we have to sell a home. If the deed restriction on signs is so onerous, perhaps it would have been better to not buy here. Somehow, I don't see a large build-up of pre-owned homes inventory here. I also don't see the outside realtors going out of business because of the lack of signs here. And doesn't the developer also adhere to the "12X12 window only" restriction?

Apparently, a signature on the bottom line accepting these restrictions means nothing anymore. I didn't think we were the generation that decided to ignore rules when they became "inconvenient". I served a president of a homeowners association in CA and I can tell you truthfully that if you allow the slightest deviation from a deed restriction, someone will take advantage of it. And if you try to enforce it, they will point to that exemption and you will lose.

I wish the Daily Sun did a better job of covering meetings insomuch as the motion and votes were put in the stories such as this. I don't see that there was an official motion or vote. That isn't to say that there wasn't, just that the story doesn't indicate who made a motion, who seconded the motion and the the vote. The story only gives the discussion and says four of the board members voiced support for not wanting district staff to enforce the deed restrictions that prohibit residents from placing signs in their yards.

I'm not sure if that was an official vote but it sets and defines policy.

The slippery slope fallacy you give sounds good, except for the fact that these things you are saying haven't happened in all the years the restriction hasn't been enforced.

So, to me, now the board has set a policy for this one area of TV and the matter is settled. Do you live in Lake County/Lady Lake that this particular discussion is about? If not, then I suggest, very respectively, that you go to the appropriate meeting that does affect where you own in TV and voice your concerns.

[ilovetv]

"Apparently, a signature on the bottom line accepting these restrictions means nothing anymore. I didn't think we were the generation that decided to ignore rules when they became "inconvenient".

I served a president of a homeowners association in CA and I can tell you truthfully that if you allow the slightest deviation from a deed restriction, someone will take advantage of it. And if you try to enforce it, they will point to that exemption and you will lose."

This, quoted above, is the wisdom that matters.

And here is another perspective:

Virtually ALL homes south of 466 sold as RE-SALES have been sold and bought without a sign in the yard. IF it is so "difficult" and "uncompetitive" to market a home in The Villages without a sign in the yard, then how in the heck did all these hundreds/thousands of re-sale homes south of 466 get SOLD by both TV and MLS agents and homeowners themselves?????

[Bogie Shooter]

Not all deed restrictions say no signs. Some clearly state that professional for sale and for rent signs are allowed.

So, if that's what the deed restrictions say them allow them.

[Bogie Shooter]

This, quoted above, is the wisdom that matters.

And here is another perspective:

Virtually ALL homes south of 466 sold as RE-SALES have been sold and bought without a sign in the yard. IF it is so "difficult" and "uncompetitive" to market a home in The Villages without a sign in the yard, then how in the heck did all these hundreds/thousands of re-sale homes south of 466 get SOLD by both TV and MLS agents and homeowners themselves?????

I agree, doubt if any agents will answer your question.

[bkcunningham1]

This, quoted above, is the wisdom that matters.

And here is another perspective:

Virtually ALL homes south of 466 sold as RE-SALES have been sold and bought without a sign in the yard. IF it is so "difficult" and "uncompetitive" to market a home in The Villages without a sign in the yard, then how in the heck did all these hundreds/thousands of re-sale homes south of 466 get SOLD by both TV and MLS agents and homeowners themselves?????

Perhaps you have something there. Do you have the stats on the homes sold and by whom? Did the developer sell more than the MLS or was it the opposite? I'm curious and look forward to your answer.

That might answer a nagging question I've had regarding whether or not the developer will stay in the real estate business in TV after we are built-out. Will they continue to sell only pre-owned homes after the build-out? Will the developer sell their real estate business to an already established business or an outside person? I suppose it depends on how profitable the pre-owned sales business is for them.

[cathyw]

Some of the individual CDD's meetings are scheduled for tomorrow at Laurel Manor and this issue is on all of their agendas.
8am CDD1
11am CDD3
1:30 pm CDD4
I attended the CDD Workshop on July 30th. The board members from CDD1 thru 5 were threre as well as the AAC board,District Staff and the lawyer for the CDD's.
They are all still in discussion mode, no votes requested YET. This will be discussed at the individual CDD meeting and a recommendation given back to District Staff. It seems like this could go on for a while.
The main issue is that ALL VILLAS north of 466 and several Villages, including Santiago, Santo Domingo and Rio Grande, to name a few, have in their current deed restrictions that they ARE ALLOWED to have signs in their front yard.
If you live below 466, the deed restrictions say you CAN'T have a sign in your yard. This has always been the case and has been enforced. The issue, as I see it, is whether they can now say no signs in the VILLAS and Villages mentioned.
Currently, the signs are still up.....have most of you even noticed them.....probably not.
This is only affecting a small part of the Villages, yet so many are up in arms.
So, come to the meeting,and you will hear the arguments for both sides.

[rhood]

You can read the AAC agenda and minutes on the District's web site.


I wish the Daily Sun did a better job of covering meetings insomuch as the motion and votes were put in the stories such as this. I don't see that there was an official motion or vote. That isn't to say that there wasn't, just that the story doesn't indicate who made a motion, who seconded the motion and the the vote. The story only gives the discussion and says four of the board members voiced support for not wanting district staff to enforce the deed restrictions that prohibit residents from placing signs in their yards.

I'm not sure if that was an official vote but it sets and defines policy.

The slippery slope fallacy you give sounds good, except for the fact that these things you are saying haven't happened in all the years the restriction hasn't been enforced.

So, to me, now the board has set a policy for this one area of TV and the matter is settled. Do you live in Lake County/Lady Lake that this particular discussion is about? If not, then I suggest, very respectively, that you go to the appropriate meeting that does affect where you own in TV and voice your concerns.

[bkcunningham1]

Some of the individual CDD's meetings are scheduled for tomorrow at Laurel Manor and this issue is on all of their agendas.
8am CDD1
11am CDD3
1:30 pm CDD4
I attended the CDD Workshop on July 30th. The board members from CDD1 thru 5 were threre as well as the AAC board,District Staff and the lawyer for the CDD's.
They are all still in discussion mode, no votes requested YET. This will be discussed at the individual CDD meeting and a recommendation given back to District Staff. It seems like this could go on for a while.
The main issue is that ALL VILLAS north of 466 and several Villages, including Santiago, Santo Domingo and Rio Grande, to name a few, have in their current deed restrictions that they ARE ALLOWED to have signs in their front yard.
If you live below 466, the deed restrictions say you CAN'T have a sign in your yard. This has always been the case and has been enforced. The issue, as I see it, is whether they can now say no signs in the VILLAS and Villages mentioned.
Currently, the signs are still up.....have most of you even noticed them.....probably not.
This is only affecting a small part of the Villages, yet so many are up in arms.
So, come to the meeting,and you will hear the arguments for both sides.

Thank you cathyw. No, I haven't noticed that the signs are still up but, I haven't been in that area looking to buy a villa either. lol

[cathyw]

You can read the AAC agenda and minutes on the District's web site.

rhood..do you have a link. I only see minutes from July 11. The agenda is there for Aug 8th, but I can't find the minutes.
Thanks

[bkcunningham1]

You can read the AAC agenda and minutes on the District's web site.

Thank you, friend. That is true. I don't think they post the minutes from meetings until they've been approved by the committee at the following meeting. But thank you again. I was letting my know-it-all attitude get in the way of my commonsense for a minute. Sorry all.

[graciegirl]

Some of the individual CDD's meetings are scheduled for tomorrow at Laurel Manor and this issue is on all of their agendas.
8am CDD1
11am CDD3
1:30 pm CDD4
I attended the CDD Workshop on July 30th. The board members from CDD1 thru 5 were threre as well as the Acc board,District Staff and the lawyer for the CDD's.
They are all still in discussion mode, no votes requested YET. This will be discussed at the individual CDD meeting and a recommendation given back to District Staff. It seems like this could go on for a while.
The main issue is that ALL VILLAS north of 466 and several Villages, including Santiago, Santo Domingo and Rio Grande, to name a few, have in their current deed restrictions that they ARE ALLOWED to have signs in their front yard.
If you live below 466, the deed restrictions say you CAN'T have a sign in your yard. This has always been the case and has been enforced. The issue, as I see it, is whether they can now say no signs in the VILLAS and Villages mentioned.
Currently, the signs are still up.....have most of you even noticed them.....probably not.
This is only affecting a small part of the Villages, yet so many are up in arms.
So, come to the meeting,and you will hear the arguments for both sides.

Correct me if I am wrong Cathy. I don't think it is at Laurel Manor Rec Center..and I am not sure it is open to the public, but I could be wrong.

I think that it says that "Supervisors in districts that are responsible for deed restriction enforcement are being asked to decide if they want to enforce the the restriction on yard signs.

Supervisors in District 1 through 4 will hear the issue Friday at the Sumter Landing District Office Boardroom located at 1894 Laurel Manor Drive in The Villages.

District 1 meets at 8 a.m., followed by district 2 at 9:30 a.m., District 3 at 11:00 and District 4 at 1:30 p.m. District 5 meets Aug. 17 at 8 a.m. in the same location.

If you'd like to contact your supervisors to express your views on the sign issue, they can be reached at the following email addresses;

District 1: dist1board@district gov.org

District 2: dist2board@district gov.org.

District 3: dist3board@district gov.org

District 4: dist4board@district gov.org

District 5: dist5board@district gov.org." end of quote from The Daily Sun article August 9,2012

[rubicon]

I'm afraid the AAC has opened a large can of worms with this vote. If residents can ignore deed restrictions as far as signs are concerned, what other restrictions can be ignored? Turn your home into a storefront with the traffic that will occur? Cut down that ancient, pesky live oak that drops leaves into your pool? Install that 14' windmill in the front yard you've always wanted? Let that hedge grow to 20' blocking your neighbor's view? Why not?

Also of concern is that the AAC decision opens the district to lawsuits. I would expect the Morse's to file suit over each and every violation of the deed restrictions and be joined by homeowners doing the same. How long will it take before we are spending a lot of amenity monies trying to justify not enforcing existing deed restrictions.

Yes, we are an older population, and there will be circumstances when we have to sell a home. If the deed restriction on signs is so onerous, perhaps it would have been better to not buy here. Somehow, I don't see a large build-up of pre-owned homes inventory here. I also don't see the outside realtors going out of business because of the lack of signs here. And doesn't the developer also adhere to the "12X12 window only" restriction?

Apparently, a signature on the bottom line accepting these restrictions means nothing anymore. I didn't think we were the generation that decided to ignore rules when they became "inconvenient". I served a president of a homeowners association in CA and I can tell you truthfully that if you allow the slightest deviation from a deed restriction, someone will take advantage of it. And if you try to enforce it, they will point to that exemption and you will lose.

mikeod: spot on...that was my concern. Obviously this is an argument between the Developer's Home Sales Unit vis a vis other Realtors. I would suggest there is a solution to their dispute. However to drag district 1-4 and there was mention of District 5 into this fray and to challenge Deed Restritions, et is a vey dangerous game.

I have not been a big fan of the Developer from the standpoint of a consumer because of the monopoly he holds in Sumter County . As I have said it is good to be the king and as such I looked forward to when he stepped down.

However after the AAC decision concerning this issue it gives me reason to pause and wonder if perhaps we are better having the king.

Finally as I recall a member took a poll on this very issue on another thread and the overwhelming majority wanted the restriction on signage to stay in place.

Ciao All (tha't what Southern Italians say Y'all)

[Madelaine Amee]

Under the District Supervisors to Hear Sign Issue it states:

"Supervisors in District 1 through 4 will hear the issue Friday at the Sumter Landing District Office located at 1894 Laurel Manor Drive in The Villages".

If not the public, who are they going to hear from? I'm assuming there will be interested parties waiting to be "heard".

Poorly written ................ confusing.

[njbchbum]

You can read the AAC agenda and minutes on the District's web site.

not for at least another month! the minutes do not often get posted in a timely fashion. the minutees for the July 16, 2012 Amenity Authority Committee Budget Workshop have not even been posted yet. i doubt the 8/7 mtg minutes will be posted in time for residents to review them before their cdd meetings!

[njbchbum]

mikeod: spot on...that was my concern. Obviously this is an argument between the Developer's Home Sales Unit vis a vis other Realtors. I would suggest there is a solution to their dispute. However to drag district 1-4 and there was mention of District 5 into this fray and to challenge Deed Restritions, et is a vey dangerous game.

I have not been a big fan of the Developer from the standpoint of a consumer because of the monopoly he holds in Sumter County . As I have said it is good to be the king and as such I looked forward to when he stepped down.

However after the AAC decision concerning this issue it gives me reason to pause and wonder if perhaps we are better having the king.

Finally as I recall a member took a poll on this very issue on another thread and the overwhelming majority wanted the restriction on signage to stay in place.

Ciao All (tha't what Southern Italians say Y'all)

rubicon/mike -
1] do either of you reside or own property in the villages cdds 1-5 and/or in lady lake/lake county villages? if not, why do you even care or are you concerned about the signage issue in those areas.
2] does the aac make decisions that impact your cdd in the villages?
3] are either of you concerned that after the developer turns governance over to your cdd, that he can come in and just change your deed restrictions?
4] re the poll - unless the poll was restricted to impacted members, it has no bearing on the impacted residents and villages - does it?

[RedChariot]

With all the housing for sale and rentals out there, neighborhoods will look like highway billboards now. I think IMHO it will open up even more issues. Where will it stop? What about political signs, or any sign someone wants to display now. I like the pristine look myself as the Morse family tried to say.

Well said. Many came here because it is a well groomed, pristine environment. This is not going to look good. very very surprized by the vote.

[bkcunningham1]

Well said. Many came here because it is a well groomed, pristine environment. This is not going to look good. very very surprized by the vote.

RedChariot, the vote only effects the area where signs have been allowed anyway. This just says keep doing what you've been doing.

[cathyw]

Correct me if I am wrong Cathy. I don't think it is at Laurel Manor Rec Center..and I am not sure it is open to the public, but I could be wrong.

I think that it says that "Supervisors in districts that are responsible for deed restriction enforcement are being asked to decide if they want to enforce the the restriction on yard signs.

Supervisors in District 1 through 4 will hear the issue Friday at the Sumter Landing District Office Boardroom located at 1894 Laurel Manor Drive in The Villages.

District 1 meets at 8 a.m., followed by district 2 at 9:30 a.m., District 3 at 11:00 and District 4 at 1:30 p.m. District 5 meets Aug. 17 at 8 a.m. in the same location.

If you'd like to contact your supervisors to express your views on the sign issue, they can be reached at the following email addresses;

District 1: dist1board@district gov.org

District 2: dist2board@district gov.org.

District 3: dist3board@district gov.org

District 4: dist4board@district gov.org

District 5: dist5board@district gov.org." end of quote from The Daily Sun article August 9,2012

Gracie,
Thanks for pointing out the correct address. It is NOT in the Laurel Manor REC CENTER, it is across the way from the rec center. Coming from Buena Vista, turn in towards the Laurel Manor Rec Center, but make the 1st right into 1894 Laurel Manor Drive.

Here's the link to the agenda for the meeting.... definitely appears to be open to the residents. Remember, the CDD board is elected to represent the residents.
(We are talking about the older CDD's which have been turned over to the residents)
This thread does not really concern those that live in CDDs 6 thru 10 where nothing is being changed.
Currently, certain Villages are allowed to have signs and they STILL HAVE these signs. If you like the way TV looks RIGHT NOW, there will not be any change if the rules are not enforced.(CHANGED). I love the way the Villages look right now...it's been like this for 20+ years....lets leave it that way. The alternative might be costly.

Item 11 refers to this issue being discussed.
http://www.districtgov.org/PDFView/PDFMeeting.aspx?id=20120810030201

[justjim]

Those of us who live south of 466 probably should stay out of the "fray." One quick point. You are allowed (south of 466) to put up Open House signs for the time you are having an open house. We did and also an advertisement in The Daily Sun. The Villa in Caroline we owned was sold the second week we had an open house. In TV, the open house concept seems to work very well. It did for us. Yes, we did have a regular for sale by owner sign in the window. Someone posting on this Thread mentioned a build out in 1 or 2 years. For what its worth, I think its more like 5 or 6 years.

[cathyw]

Those of us who live south of 466 probably should stay out of the "fray." One quick point. You are allowed (south of 466) to put up Open House signs for the time you are having an open house. We did and also an advertisement in The Daily Sun. The Villa in Caroline we owned was sold the second week we had an open house. In TV, the open house concept seems to work very well. It did for us. Yes, we did have a regular for sale by owner sign in the window. Someone posting on this Thread mentioned a build out in 1 or 2 years. For what its worth, I think its more like 5 or 6 years.


Good points !

[Mikeod]

The main issue is that ALL VILLAS north of 466 and several Villages, including Santiago, Santo Domingo and Rio Grande, to name a few, have in their current deed restrictions that they ARE ALLOWED to have signs in their front yard.
This is only affecting a small part of the Villages, yet so many are up in arms.
So, come to the meeting,and you will hear the arguments for both sides.
I have looked at all the deed restrictions for Districts 1 & 2 in which the Villages of Santiago, Santo Domingo, and Rio Grande are located. EVERY section (except Villas) has the same prohibition on signs other than owner's name in Section 2.13 or 2.14. Please refer me to the appropriate sections on these deeds that allow signs other than owner's name.

I think the reason so many are up in arms is that a representative body has indicated it chooses to not enforce restrictions that were in place when the properties were purchased. If it can do this with signs, what other deed restrictions will it deem inconvenient in the future? There are many people that specifically bought here because the deed restrictions, in their mind, were appropriate and insured against the neighborhood changing in a manner they did not wish to see.

[cathyw]

Here it is for Rio Grande <( page 17 )
http://www.districtgov.org/images/DeedRestiction/sumter/District%201/S1-683%20Rio%20Grande.pdf

AGAIN, if the deed rectrictions were in place and everyone signed on , there would be NO iSSUE. The ISSUE is the fact that people signed deed restrictions 12 to 20 years ago, and now they MAY be changed,
If you live south if 466 , this issue does not affect you. The rules SOUTH of 466 will remain the same.

[Mikeod]

The slippery slope fallacy you give sounds good, except for the fact that these things you are saying haven't happened in all the years the restriction hasn't been enforced.

So, to me, now the board has set a policy for this one area of TV and the matter is settled. Do you live in Lake County/Lady Lake that this particular discussion is about? If not, then I suggest, very respectively, that you go to the appropriate meeting that does affect where you own in TV and voice your concerns.
Perhaps these things haven't happened as yet because some people were reluctant to violate a deed restriction. Now that the AAC has basically said it is OK to continue to put up signs in violation of the deed restrictions, why should any other restriction be any different?

The matter is definitely not settled, as seen by the admission of counsel that the developer and/or homeowners can legally sue to enforce the restrictions.

From prior posts I can see that you have a very vested interest in the restrictions being ignored. But I also have an interest in looking at TV as a whole community, not a collection of separate districts. I have seen the result of that in several communities where different developers built separate neighborhoods that were dramatically different from each other, dragging down the value and appearance of the whole area. I bought here because I believe deed restrictions as set forth are necessary for the long term success of this community.

[janmcn]

Perhaps these things haven't happened as yet because some people were reluctant to violate a deed restriction. Now that the AAC has basically said it is OK to continue to put up signs in violation of the deed restrictions, why should any other restriction be any different?

The matter is definitely not settled, as seen by the admission of counsel that the developer and/or homeowners can legally sue to enforce the restrictions.

From prior posts I can see that you have a very vested interest in the restrictions being ignored. But I also have an interest in looking at TV as a whole community, not a collection of separate districts. I have seen the result of that in several communities where different developers built separate neighborhoods that were dramatically different from each other, dragging down the value and appearance of the whole area. I bought here because I believe deed restrictions as set forth are necessary for the long term success of this community.

Didn't the recent legislation passed by the Florida legislature say that the deed restrictions have to be complaint driven? If so, it appears the developer doesn't have a stack of complaints.

[cathyw]

According to District Staff, Deed restrictions are STILL complaint driven.

[njbchbum]

mike - you live in caroline - when was the last time you were in any of the impacted areas BEFORE this issue arose? cathyw and i have each provided you reference to the deed restrictions that DO permit the signage in question - why can you not accept that it is there and that the developer is attempting to take it away?

the villages IS a collection of separate districts - thus, we have separate governing bodies! they share their unity in their sense of commUNITY!

in the original historic district there are other deed violation infractions besides for sale signs - and ya know what - the neighbors there DON'T have a problem with it!

[Bogie Shooter]

mike - you live in caroline - when was the last time you were in any of the impacted areas BEFORE this issue arose? cathyw and i have each provided you reference to the deed restrictions that DO permit the signage in question - why can you not accept that it is there and that the developer is attempting to take it away?

the villages IS a collection of separate districts - thus, we have separate governing bodies! they share their unity in their sense of commUNITY!

in the original historic district there are other deed violation infractions besides for sale signs - and ya know what - the neighbors there DON'T have a problem with it!

The fact that mike lives in caroline has nothing to do with his interest, and he stated the reasons why.

[Mikeod]

Here it is for Rio Grande <( page 17 )
http://www.districtgov.org/images/DeedRestiction/sumter/District%201/S1-683%20Rio%20Grande.pdf

AGAIN, if the deed rectrictions were in place and everyone signed on , there would be NO iSSUE. The ISSUE is the fact that people signed deed restrictions 12 to 20 years ago, and now they MAY be changed,
If you live south if 466 , this issue does not affect you. The rules SOUTH of 466 will remain the same.
The deed restrictions you linked to are for Villas, only. I specifically excluded villas in prior posts. I did not see any indication that the developer was attempting to change the restrictions for villas.Please point me to wording that indicates such. I would side with villa homeowners were that to be tried. My concern is for the decision to not enforce the existing restrictions on other homes (not villas).

[graciegirl]

I have great confidence that the developer is going to make the right choices for the greater good of all. Maybe it is because he will make more money and maybe because this place is his creation and he lives here too.

I don't have the same confidence that an elected homeowner is going to make the right decision for the greater good.

I like the CDD form of government in this case. I wonder just how it got changed north of 466? I wonder if it was caused by the lawsuit brought by the group of villagers including lawyers who won it and won several million dollars personally as a result of it.

I have never got it straight that the suit was brought to widen the cartpaths and because there was mold in one of the rec centers. The developer has painted the Odell rec center that was behind my house in Hadley completely in and out every year for the four years I lived there. The pool was immaculate. If a tree died at the Odell rec center, it was replaced. The planting beds were hand weeded. I see no evidence that he needed to be sued. Where I lived south of 466 was not involved in the lawsuit.

I am very confused by the undercurrents I feel against the developer and I suspect that it is class envy. Or perhaps it has to do with his contributions to his political party.

He had done nothing but take care of things nicely during the four and a half years I have owned property here.

Both new houses, anything that wasn't correct was immediately fixed.

I don't know who he is or what is on his mind but he seems to do the job for us.

We voted with our wallets to live here. Like others our home is the biggest financial outlay we have ever made.

[Mikeod]

Didn't the recent legislation passed by the Florida legislature say that the deed restrictions have to be complaint driven? If so, it appears the developer doesn't have a stack of complaints.He doesn't need to collect a stack of complaints, he can complain or find an interested party who resides in that district who will file a complaint and/or lawsuit.

[Mikeod]

RedChariot, the vote only effects the area where signs have been allowed anyway. This just says keep doing what you've been doing.Please show me where the deed restrictions have been amended for non-villa homes in Lady Lake. I am well aware of the distinction between villas and other homes as far as signage is concerned.

[Mikeod]

mike - you live in caroline - when was the last time you were in any of the impacted areas BEFORE this issue arose? cathyw and i have each provided you reference to the deed restrictions that DO permit the signage in question - why can you not accept that it is there and that the developer is attempting to take it away?

the villages IS a collection of separate districts - thus, we have separate governing bodies! they share their unity in their sense of commUNITY!

in the original historic district there are other deed violation infractions besides for sale signs - and ya know what - the neighbors there DON'T have a problem with it!

I care because I live in this entire community. I travel through it daily to play golf, go to rec centers, shop, and dine. As I responded to CathyW, the amended deeds link affected only villas. You state the developer is trying to take away something that is allowed. I have yet to see anything that states he is trying to enforce sign restrictions on villas. I would support the villa homeowners in that fight.

Yes, we have separate districts, but we all live in the whole community. I can recreate at any facility within TV no matter where I actually reside. If the governing CDD boards can ignore existing deed restrictions, can they also decide that the executive courses in their district, maintained by the amenity fees from their homeowners, are now restricted to residents of that district only? Where does it end?

Your last paragraph only makes my point. It cannot be "Whatever you want!" What will you do when someone put up something you don't like? What about those that bought because of the restrictions? Tough luck?

[cathyw]

I care because I live in this entire community. I travel through it daily to play golf, go to rec centers, shop, and dine. As I responded to CathyW, the amended deeds link affected only villas. You state the developer is trying to take away something that is allowed. I have yet to see anything that states he is trying to enforce sign restrictions on villas. I would support the villa homeowners in that fight.

Yes, we have separate districts, but we all live in the whole community. I can recreate at any facility within TV no matter where I actually reside. If the governing CDD boards can ignore existing deed restrictions, can they also decide that the executive courses in their district, maintained by the amenity fees from their homeowners, are now restricted to residents of that district only? Where does it end?

Your last paragraph only makes my point. It cannot be "Whatever you want!" What will you do when someone put up something you don't like? What about those that bought because of the restrictions? Tough luck?


Let's see who will be at the CDD meeting to show the support of their viewpoints ...that is the only way to really state your position.
Many people have a lot to say on TOTV but they do not go any further than that. Come to the meeting and state your points. Thanks

[Roaddog53]

"I am very confused by the undercurrents I feel against the developer and I suspect that it is class envy. Or perhaps it has to do with his contributions to his political party.
He had done nothing but take care of things nicely during the four and a half years I have owned property here.Both new houses, anything that wasn't correct was immediately fixed. I don't know who he is or what is on his mind but he seems to do the job for us.We voted with our wallets to live here. Like others our home is the biggest financial outlay we have ever made. "
I have to 100% agree with GG on this one! It appears to be some kind of undercurrent here in many of the threads against the Morse Family. Sounds like envy, jealousy, political affiliation or whatever. They have done nothing I see but provide a value or service to others as in ANY good business. Now that DOESN'T mean that I agree with the way some of their sub-businesses operate or even some of their arrogance, but it goes with their success. Who can fault success.
There is nothing stopping any of you from starting a business or a similar "Villages" somewhere else. If you make it, good for you, other will than be jeolous of you and complain about what YOU do or don't do for them. If you don't make it, you can see what they had to go through to get where they are than! AND.. you can sleep at night maybe too.

[cathyw]

Once again, the thread has gotten hijacked.
Is this thread about " signs" not "love of developer".
I have absolutely nothing bad to say about the developer, but I do have an opinion about the "signs Issue"
Let's keep it to the issue. Thanks

[Mikeod]

Let's see who will be at the CDD meeting to show the support of their viewpoints ...that is the only way to really state your position.
Many people have a lot to say on TOTV but they do not go any further than that. Come to the meeting and state your points. Thanks
Cathy - I will not be at the meetings because I do not reside in those districts, as you know. While I have strong opinions on this matter (no surprise, huh?) they are more global and I would not expect to be allowed to speak before that board as a non-resident of that district. My participation in this discussion is to present an alternative point of view, present some potential pitfalls should the restrictions be ignored, correct some apparent inaccuracies, and, most importantly, stimulate some critical thought on the matter.

[cathyw]

Do you have any opinion as to why CDD's 6 thru 10 are NOT having meetings to discuss this issue ??? I do. ......It's because it doesn't affect these CDD's

[batman911]

I could live with a small (maybe 3" X 10") sign attached to the front yard lamp post just like the residents name signs. Another option would be to have a map at the mail boxes with home that are for sale marked so any prospective buyer could take a look and drive to see any they would be interested in.

[cathyw]

Thanks for thinking of alternative solutions !
I always LOVE when people think "outside the box"

Good post !

[Wiserbud47]

For sale signs should NOT be allowed on the lawns in The Villages! We have to stand up for what we believe in. If someone threatens a lawsuit, then we will have to fight for what is in the best interest of The Villages.

[njbchbum]

For sale signs should NOT be allowed on the lawns in The Villages! We have to stand up for what we believe in. If someone threatens a lawsuit, then we will have to fight for what is in the best interest of The Villages.

should the developer be allowed to take away a permitted practice you have enjoyed for 20+ years? what will you fight for re that issue?

and since when can one not fight for what is good for oneself?

and if one is fighting for something that has no impact on "we" why are "we" in the fight?

[Bogie Shooter]

Not sure why someone who does not live in Lake County cannot have an opinion about signs?

[Mama C]

I moved to TV because of the restrctions-keeps things nice and clean and orderly!

[bob47]

It seems to me that if Jennifer Parr and the rest of the developer's family feel so passionately about not having "For Sale" signs in front of homes, they could have followed this policy back in August of 2001 when we bought our resale home that had a sign in the front yard proudly displayed by Properties Of The Villages.

And they could have followed it in 2002, 2003, 2004, - - - 2011. A lot of folks think that forcing code enforcement now is just an angle to put outside realtors and residents who try to sell on their own at a disadvantage. I think they're right.

[graciegirl]

Once again, the thread has gotten hijacked.
Is this thread about " signs" not "love of developer".
I have absolutely nothing bad to say about the developer, but I do have an opinion about the "signs Issue"
Let's keep it to the issue. Thanks

Cathy. People blame the developer for the new attitude toward signs. There have been posts on this thread along those lines. That post was my response.

I'd choose the developer and what ever he decided over decisions by an elected homeowner. I have been in too many organizations that this whim, or that looney idea or someones dear project got used and the rest of us had to suffer. I LIKE the CDD form of goverment here. It works very well.

[Mikeod]

should the developer be allowed to take away a permitted practice you have enjoyed for 20+ years? what will you fight for re that issue?

and since when can one not fight for what is good for oneself?

and if one is fighting for something that has no impact on "we" why are "we" in the fight?
PLEASE show me where in the deed for your district it says signs other than the homeowner's name are permitted on non-villa properties OR show me where the developer has indicated his intent to initiate sign restrictions on villa properties and I will understand your displeasure.

You cannot claim that establishing a precedent of ignoring deed restrictions should be of no concern to me. It already has affected those north of 466 and there is no reason that residents and outside agencies pushing for this will not continue the fight to overcome existing deed restrictions once those districts south of 466 are turned over to resident boards.

[cathyw]

Thank You !!!

[cathyw]

Gracie...here's a link to the letter of intent that started this whole issue. According to Janet Tutt,at the CDD workshop,this was released by her office , IN ERROR.
But it did put the ball in motion.

http://www.districtgov.org/departments/community-standards/images/Intent%20Letters.pdf

[njbchbum]

should the developer be allowed to take away a permitted practice you have enjoyed for 20+ years? what will you fight for re that issue?

and since when can one not fight for what is good for oneself?

and if one is fighting for something that has no impact on "we" why are "we" in the fight?

PLEASE show me where in the deed for your district it says signs other than the homeowner's name are permitted on non-villa properties OR show me where the developer has indicated his intent to initiate sign restrictions on villa properties and I will understand your displeasure.

You cannot claim that establishing a precedent of ignoring deed restrictions should be of no concern to me. It already has affected those north of 466 and there is no reason that residents and outside agencies pushing for this will not continue the fight to overcome existing deed restrictions once those districts south of 466 are turned over to resident boards.

my post was not specific to signs but it was to deed restrictions. it is a generic question re deed restrictions.

and since infractions of deed restrictions are dealt with on a complaint basis - enforcement of same should be left to the individual offender AND to their supervisors who are responsible for enforcement.

if an area has been granted the duty and responsibility to govern itself and thus enforce - and has chosen to not enforce a deed restriction - where does someone from outside that area have the right/authority to interfere with the area's governing practices? call it self-rule, home rule, autonomy - it is the business of the community.

do you want someone from the village of liberty park or silver lake or sanibel telling the supervising body of the village of caroline how to run things there?

[Mikeod]

Gracie...here's a link to the letter of intent that started this whole issue. According to Janet Tutt,at the CDD workshop,this was released by her office , IN ERROR.
But it did put the ball in motion.

http://www.districtgov.org/departments/community-standards/images/Intent%20Letters.pdf
I read both letters. The first one, to me, indicates the developer has determined to not enforce section.2.21 of the deed for Orange Blossom Gardens Units 1,2,3, which prohibits "For Sale signs of any type" on the lot or home. The second paragraph spells out the parameters of the sign allowed and restricts the sign to an indoor position in a window. This the same restriction that exists in all other deeds (except villas).

The second letter reiterates the restriction for all "residential" lots in districts 1-10. I can see where this could create the impression that it includes villa lots which would amount to removing the permission spelled out in the deed for villa properties to have an external For Sale sign. I expect that there is a distinction between "residential" lots and villa lots. On the district website, when you look for your deed restrictions by district, the lots are separated into two columns, Residential Units and Villas. The deeds under Residential Units contain the signage restriction, those under Villas do not.

[chuckinca]

I don't believe that Orange Blossom Gardens 1 - 3 are in Districts 1 - 10 which probably necessitated the second letter. They are in the Town of Lady Lake.




.

[Mikeod]

my post was not specific to signs but it was to deed restrictions. it is a generic question re deed restrictions.

and since infractions of deed restrictions are dealt with on a complaint basis - enforcement of same should be left to the individual offender AND to their supervisors who are responsible for enforcement.

if an area has been granted the duty and responsibility to govern itself and thus enforce - and has chosen to not enforce a deed restriction - where does someone from outside that area have the right/authority to interfere with the area's governing practices? call it self-rule, home rule, autonomy - it is the business of the community.

do you want someone from the village of liberty park or silver lake or sanibel telling the supervising body of the village of caroline how to run things there?
Again, my concern is with the decision to not enforce an existing deed restriction and the precedent it sets. First, the absence of complaints does not, in itself, mean everyone in the district agrees with not enforcing the restriction. Should the board have conducted a survey/vote to get the actual opinion of the residents? What about residents who bought because of the restrictions in the deed. Ignore them, too? Second, as stated previously, what other restriction is next to be ignored or not enforced? And what prevents that philosophy from being adopted by future boards without resident input since the precedent has been set. Does not enforcing the restriction mean that if someone in the district complains, their complaint will be ignored? After all, the district has chosen to not enforce it. To me, it is a very slippery slope.

[Mikeod]

I don't believe that Orange Blossom Gardens 1 - 3 are in Districts 1 - 10 which probably necessitated the second letter. They are in the Town of Lady Lake.




.
On the district website, Orange Blossom Gardens Units 1,2,3 are listed in District 1 under the Lady Lake Section.

[njbchbum]

mikeod - you wrote:

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

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

[chuckinca]

On the district website, Orange Blossom Gardens Units 1,2,3 are listed in District 1 under the Lady Lake Section.


According to the Districts map, Villages in Lake County are not in a number district:

http://www.districtgov.org/yourdistrict/districtmap/images/Districts%20and%20Villages%20North.pdf

[PaPaLarry]

If I post a 12x12 sign in window, can I have flashing neon lights around it to attract buyers???? Just ask'n!!:ohdear::duck::eek:

[graciegirl]

Some of you don't understand the responsibilities of the AAC.
This is their job to rule on situations that have resulted
From complaints. However I don't think this was complaint driven.

For sale signs have always been used on the north side of the Villages.
Think about this, do you want the developer to control
All the resale market. When I moved here 13 years ago he did and guess what
His sales fee was 7%. He has competition now and he's had to adjust his fees to
6%.

I love the Villages when the signs were removed there was only
528 signs that is just over 1% of the total homes on the north side.
The national Association of Realtors credit for sale signs for 20% of the
Procuring cause of the sale of homes.

Jennifer Parr was at the meeting not to protect the beauty of the Villages but to eliminate
Her competition. This is a serious injustice for home owners 1st amendments rights. In this depressed, recession market the homeowner needs all the marketing tools that are available to them and the for sale sign is one of them.

Thank you for this considered response. It is difficult at times to figure out the motive behind peoples attitudes and in some posters it is more difficult than in others.

but in some the motive is crystal clear.

Jennifer Parr has enough money to take care of her and her family for many generations but she continues to sit at her desk and work and go home at night to her home here. Her children have worked at menial jobs anonymously around The Villages and attended The Villages schools. If I were Jennifer Parr I would not be interested in competition, the money is a non issue anymore to that family. They have every thing on this earth that money can buy. I think that if I were in her shoes I would be interested in protecting this legacy. The family have had many opportunities to be on national media but declined and declined to be interviewed by Forbes. I have to think that Jennifer Parr has made a rare appearance to protect the quality of the dream her family has built.

I don't know them, never met them but I have met and talked to two older people who came with them from Michigan at the beginning and whose family still work for the Morses. They are the ones that have told me about the Morse family with many compliments about them.

The Morse business here has transformed Sumter county from one of its poorest to one of it's most employed areas.

It is not difficult to sell a home here.

[Mikeod]

mikeod - you wrote:

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

my bigger concern is where does the developer come off enforcing something he should not be enforcing because he gave that responsibility to enforce to a board of supervisors. in my book he has forfeited his responsibility to even be involved in enforcement activity much less enforce deed restrictions. perhaps future villages areas can act to "protect" themselves by forfeiting their anticipated right to govern themselves and remain under the governance of the developer? I understand that concern. However, he still owns the squares and controls the central CDDs which may give him the ability to seek to enforce deed restrictions. Why he did it unilaterally instead of going to the appropriate residential CDD boards is where I get uncomfortable.

Enjoyed the discussion, but we are not going to solve the problem here. Enjoy your summer and welcome back in the fall.
We'll see what happens.

[thekeithfan]

How is flipping houses, which is what I've been doing btw and Gracie knows this, not good for your property value Gracie? When I invest money to rehab an old manufactured home on the Historic Side and make it look brand new again, that adversely affects you? I would like to understand how.

Problem is the majority of the rental homes ARE NOT kept like owner occupied homes. I have a rental accross the street from me it is mowed every 2 weeks, the shrubs are over grown, the house needs washing and there is very little weeding it looks like 13 13 Mockingbird lane!

[Mikeod]

Jennifer Parr was at the meeting not to protect the beauty of the Villages but to eliminate
Her competition. This is a serious injustice for home owners 1st amendments rights. In this depressed, recession market the homeowner needs all the marketing tools that are available to them and the for sale sign is one of them.
For that to be true, it would have to mean that the developer ignores the deed restrictions and places For Sale signs on properties while preventing outside realtors from doing the same. I don't think that's true. Perhaps Ms. Parr was trying to make the playing field level in those areas where they use window signs and outside realtors use outdoor signs. To my knowledge the only area where outside realtors may be at a disadvantage is the inability to have an office within TV. There are plenty of outside realtor ads in the Sun and as enclosures. I think it is impossible for the developer to "eliminate" the competition in resales, especially in a community to which many people move from great distances, necessitating the need to search via electronic means.

You may want to read up on 1st Amendment rights. It is not a universal right and can be restricted by mutual consent. When voluntarily agreeing to purchase a property with a deed restriction on signs, one cannot claim a 1st Amendment violation.

[bkcunningham1]

I have great confidence that the developer is going to make the right choices for the greater good of all. Maybe it is because he will make more money and maybe because this place is his creation and he lives here too.

I don't have the same confidence that an elected homeowner is going to make the right decision for the greater good.

I like the CDD form of government in this case. I wonder just how it got changed north of 466? I wonder if it was caused by the lawsuit brought by the group of villagers including lawyers who won it and won several million dollars personally as a result of it.

I have never got it straight that the suit was brought to widen the cartpaths and because there was mold in one of the rec centers. The developer has painted the Odell rec center that was behind my house in Hadley completely in and out every year for the four years I lived there. The pool was immaculate. If a tree died at the Odell rec center, it was replaced. The planting beds were hand weeded. I see no evidence that he needed to be sued. Where I lived south of 466 was not involved in the lawsuit.

I am very confused by the undercurrents I feel against the developer and I suspect that it is class envy. Or perhaps it has to do with his contributions to his political party.

He had done nothing but take care of things nicely during the four and a half years I have owned property here.

Both new houses, anything that wasn't correct was immediately fixed.

I don't know who he is or what is on his mind but he seems to do the job for us.

We voted with our wallets to live here. Like others our home is the biggest financial outlay we have ever made.

Gracie, the form of government changed because that is the intent of the CDD form of government. Very basically, the intent and law specifies that after so much property is bought up by residents, the developer loses his/her control and the governing powers is given to the property owners. Although I won't get into it here, that is really at the heart of the IRS issue.

[ronat1]

Problem is the majority of the rental homes ARE NOT kept like owner occupied homes. I have a rental accross the street from me it is mowed every 2 weeks, the shrubs are over grown, the house needs washing and there is very little weeding it looks like 13 13 Mockingbird lane!

I bet the folks that own the house on 1313 Mockingbird Lane in TV love this comparison. Yes there is one.

[graciegirl]

[QUOTE=bkcunningham1;537575]Gracie, the form of government changed because that is the intent of the CDD form of government. Very basically, the intent and law specifies that after so much property is bought up by residents, the developer loses his/her control and the governing powers is given to the property owners. Although I won't get into it here, that is really at the heart of the IRS issue.[/QUOTE


Oh, Well, Then...I hope we exit stage right before the residents start running this side of 466.

[graciegirl]

For that to be true, it would have to mean that the developer ignores the deed restrictions and places For Sale signs on properties while preventing outside realtors from doing the same. I don't think that's true. Perhaps Ms. Parr was trying to make the playing field level in those areas where they use window signs and outside realtors use outdoor signs. To my knowledge the only area where outside realtors may be at a disadvantage is the inability to have an office within TV. There are plenty of outside realtor ads in the Sun and as enclosures. I think it is impossible for the developer to "eliminate" the competition in resales, especially in a community to which many people move from great distances, necessitating the need to search via electronic means.

You may want to read up on 1st Amendment rights. It is not a universal right and can be restricted by mutual consent. When voluntarily agreeing to purchase a property with a deed restriction on signs, one cannot claim a 1st Amendment violation.

Good post.

[bkcunningham1]

I have great confidence that the developer is going to make the right choices for the greater good of all. Maybe it is because he will make more money and maybe because this place is his creation and he lives here too.

I don't have the same confidence that an elected homeowner is going to make the right decision for the greater good.

I like the CDD form of government in this case. I wonder just how it got changed north of 466? I wonder if it was caused by the lawsuit brought by the group of villagers including lawyers who won it and won several million dollars personally as a result of it.

I have never got it straight that the suit was brought to widen the cartpaths and because there was mold in one of the rec centers. The developer has painted the Odell rec center that was behind my house in Hadley completely in and out every year for the four years I lived there. The pool was immaculate. If a tree died at the Odell rec center, it was replaced. The planting beds were hand weeded. I see no evidence that he needed to be sued. Where I lived south of 466 was not involved in the lawsuit.

I am very confused by the undercurrents I feel against the developer and I suspect that it is class envy. Or perhaps it has to do with his contributions to his political party.

He had done nothing but take care of things nicely during the four and a half years I have owned property here.

Both new houses, anything that wasn't correct was immediately fixed.

I don't know who he is or what is on his mind but he seems to do the job for us.

We voted with our wallets to live here. Like others our home is the biggest financial outlay we have ever made.

Gracie, the lawsuit was over disrepair and mold overtaking the Paradise Recreation Center as well as the lack of other services not being provided as promised contractually by the developer. Although residents were paying their amenities fees, the facilities and areas within TV weren't being kept-up.

[bkcunningham1]

If I post a 12x12 sign in window, can I have flashing neon lights around it to attract buyers???? Just ask'n!!:ohdear::duck::eek:

Hahaha, I asked the same thing. Too funny.

[graciegirl]

Hahaha, I asked the same thing. Too funny.


You could get a big tattoo on your midsection and stand naked in the driveway.

Use sunscreen!

[bkcunningham1]

You could get a big tattoo on your midsection and stand naked in the driveway.

Use sunscreen!

I love you Gracie. You are funny. Since everyone here has lawn ornaments, mine is going to be a realty sign. If they remove one, they have to remove them all. Right?

Or how about enforcing the one cat or dog, a maximum of 20 pounds in weight that my deed restrictions spell out? Can I put a sign on my dog house?

[PennBF]

I bet that CDD's 1-4 vote to restrict signs? Now why do you think that is?
If you can't figure that out you have already allegedly lost your freedom and rights to determine your future. There is the 1st amendment which is meant to protect freedom of speach. Will that work in this case.
It will be interesting if a challenge will result in protecting what some are so willing to give up. :ohdear:

[njbchbum]

You could get a big tattoo on your midsection and stand naked in the driveway.

Use sunscreen!

I love you Gracie. You are funny. Since everyone here has lawn ornaments, mine is going to be a realty sign. If they remove one, they have to remove them all. Right?

Or how about enforcing the one cat or dog, a maximum of 20 pounds in weight? Can I put a sign on my dog house?

i'm beginning to think the ban on for sale signs could be a boon to a new sandwich board sign business start-up and custom printed tee shirts! both could be worn around the squares in the evening or any other time of day!

[graciegirl]

i'm beginning to think the ban on for sale signs could be a boon to a new sandwich board sign business start-up and custom printed tee shirts! both could be worn around the squares in the evening or any other time of day!

I was thinking of making a killing on tee shirts that say

There is no PEE in Lake Sumter.

[bkcunningham1]

i'm beginning to think the ban on for sale signs could be a boon to a new sandwich board sign business start-up and custom printed tee shirts! both could be worn around the squares in the evening or any other time of day!

Have you ever noticed how there is a corner at Spanish Springs Town Square that is the used golf cart for sale lot? Maybe the people with houses for sale can pick a corner and put their realty for sale signs on their golf carts and park on the square.

[graciegirl]

Have you ever noticed how there is a corner at Spanish Springs Town Square that is the used golf cart for sale lot? Maybe the people with houses for sale can pick a corner and put their realty for sale signs on their golf carts and park on the square.

There is no limit to American innovation. Go for it. I still am in support of the tattoo idea. I bet you could sell anything with that, bein' you are cute and young. AND SMART.

[njbchbum]

I was thinking of making a killing on tee shirts that say

There is no PEE in Lake Sumter.

got mine already! only i just used the letter P in my design. ;) got it from the husband/wife couple who makes them right up at vendor nite on the square! i'll wear it to crisper's when i return! it's great, gets a lot of laughs and i am sure you will do very well!!!

[njbchbum]

Have you ever noticed how there is a corner at Spanish Springs Town Square that is the used golf cart for sale lot? Maybe the people with houses for sale can pick a corner and put their realty for sale signs on their golf carts and park on the square.

like cathyw posted - thinking outside of the box is great!!!! :)

[graciegirl]

got mine already! only i just used the letter P in my design. ;) got it from the husband/wife couple who makes them right up at vendor nite on the square! i'll wear it to crisper's when i return! it's great, gets a lot of laughs and i am sure you will do very well!!!

Naw. I tried to make one out of one of my old shirts and the red paint ran. It looked like I was a victim of an ax murderer. I think I will stick to being retired.





I think Cathy W. is coming and is gonna beat on me for hijacking this thread. Getting under the bed.

[Bogie Shooter]

In todays 8/10 Daily Sun in the article regarding the sign issue was some new information (at least to me).
By permitting for sale and for rent signs the ACC also said yes to political, yard sale, and any message anyone wants to put on a manufactured or homemade sign. Why? Once they choose to allow signs, they cannot pick and choose the content of those signs.

Won't all those other signs look nice???

[ilovetv]

In todays 8/10 Daily Sun in the article regarding the sign issue was some new information (at least to me).
By permitting for sale and for rent signs the ACC also said yes to political, yard sale, and any message anyone wants to put on a manufactured or homemade sign. Why? Once they choose to allow signs, they cannot pick and choose the content of those signs.

Won't all those other signs look nice???

Just as we've been saying all along.

[njbchbum]

In todays 8/10 Daily Sun in the article regarding the sign issue was some new information (at least to me).
By permitting for sale and for rent signs the ACC also said yes to political, yard sale, and any message anyone wants to put on a manufactured or homemade sign. Why? Once they choose to allow signs, they cannot pick and choose the content of those signs.

Won't all those other signs look nice???

if signage was already a deed restriction that was not enforced and did not result in the allegation you opted to include in your post - why should one expect anything different than previously?

[Bogie Shooter]

if signage was already a deed restriction that was not enforced and did not result in the allegation you opted to include in your post - why should one expect anything different than previously?

What do you refer to as an allegation?
I don't recall seeing any political signs.

[cathyw]

Naw. I tried to make one out of one of my old shirts and the red paint ran. It looked like I was a victim of an ax murderer. I think I will stick to being retired.





I think Cathy W. is coming and is gonna beat on me for hijacking this thread. Getting under the bed.

:a20:
Come on out Gracie....Hope you didn't see any pooping frogs under there...:):)

[cathyw]

Correct me if I am wrong Cathy. I don't think it is at Laurel Manor Rec Center..and I am not sure it is open to the public, but I could be wrong.

I think that it says that "Supervisors in districts that are responsible for deed restriction enforcement are being asked to decide if they want to enforce the the restriction on yard signs.

Supervisors in District 1 through 4 will hear the issue Friday at the Sumter Landing District Office Boardroom located at 1894 Laurel Manor Drive in The Villages.

District 1 meets at 8 a.m., followed by district 2 at 9:30 a.m., District 3 at 11:00 and District 4 at 1:30 p.m. District 5 meets Aug. 17 at 8 a.m. in the same location.

If you'd like to contact your supervisors to express your views on the sign issue, they can be reached at the following email addresses;

District 1: dist1board@district gov.org

District 2: dist2board@district gov.org.

District 3: dist3board@district gov.org

District 4: dist4board@district gov.org

District 5: dist5board@district gov.org." end of quote from The Daily Sun article August 9,2012


I attended the CDD3 meeting today. It doesn't look like we will have a decision on this issue any time soon. Both CDD2 and CDD3 decided NOT to vote on this issue at today's meetings. The developer has offered to allow 24x24 inch signs to be located outside the home. CDD's 2 and 3 have decided to wait and see the WRITTEN proposal from the developer, to see what,if any,restrictions there will be on these signs. They plan on reviewing the written proposal and possibly voting on it at NEXT months meeting.
Per the lawyer for the CDD's (Valerie Fuchs), each of the CDD's 1 thru 5, will have a SEPARATE VOTE. Therefore, we may still end up with disparites between Villages.
ALL VILLAS north of 466 are ALLOWED to have signs in their yards-- and no matter which way the votes go....the VILLAS north of 466 will STILL have that rule.

[njbchbum]

What do you refer to as an allegation?
I don't recall seeing any political signs.

allegation: "Won't all those other signs look nice???"; political, yard sale, messages, etc

i was asking - if there weren't "other" signs before - why would there be "other" signs in the future?

[njbchbum]

I attended the CDD3 meeting today. It doesn't look like we will have a decision on this issue any time soon. Both CDD2 and CDD3 decided NOT to vote on this issue at today's meetings. The developer has offered to allow 24x24 inch signs to be located outside the home. CDD's 2 and 3 have decided to wait and see the WRITTEN proposal from the developer, to see what,if any,restrictions there will be on these signs. They plan on reviewing the written proposal and possibly voting on it at NEXT months meeting.
Per the lawyer for the CDD's (Valerie Fuchs), each of the CDD's 1 thru 5, will have a SEPARATE VOTE. Therefore, we may still end up with disparites between Villages.
ALL VILLAS north of 466 are ALLOWED to have signs in their yards-- and no matter which way the votes go....the VILLAS north of 466 will STILL have that rule.

good info - thanx for posting, cathyw. and re the villas - that's what mikeod was claiming all along - good to see that the cdds clarified, agree and are not challenging their "non-restriction"! i wonder how big the standard real estate sign is..............

[Freedomtalks]

Gail Lazenby, Supervisor for District 3, said it best, "For the past 20 years signs were allowed because it was in the Developer's Best Interestto allow signs and not stop them from being used." And now it is not, so........ you can draw your own conclusion. What I don't understand is we have somewhat set our standards over the last 20 years. The VCDD has been allowing For Sale and For Rent signs but they have also been forcing residents to remove "Don't Poop On My Lawn" or " Curb your Dog" signs all along. If a complaint is received they have gone to homes that had had some construction and is now completed and told the owner to remove the sign.

Now all of a sudden we are not allowed to go back to that. WHY???? Is it because it is just a way for VCDD to once again try and intimidate us into voting the way they want you to vote, for the Developer. I think that what the AAC and the Districts are doing right now is absolutely the best thing for the people of TV. They are not "Drinking the Kool-Aide" that is being spooned fed down their throats by the VCDD staff and they are making up their own mind. Don't get me wrong What the Developer has created is great, but he took all of the advantages of creating the VCDD Districts and made a lot of money from them, us and now he has to accept the other side of our self governing, as it should be.

What the Daily "My Name is Morse and I Approve This Message" Sun did not print is the 2nd
message that Ms. Parr delivered. And in part it was........"What are you all going to do when I am not here anymore to deal with these problems. My children are working in the business some but we won't be around forever so what are you going to do when we're gone?" ARE YOU KIDDING ME. What a slap in the face to all of those who serve on the AAC and the District Boards. I bet they didn't realize that they didn't have the brains to figure all of this out. Well, they do and by voting how they have they are showing that we can govern ourselves.

[cathyw]

Gail Lazenby, Supervisor for District 3, said it best, "For the past 20 years signs were allowed because it was in the Developer's Best Interestto allow signs and not stop them from being used." And now it is not, so........ you can draw your own conclusion. What I don't understand is we have somewhat set our standards over the last 20 years. The VCDD has been allowing For Sale and For Rent signs but they have also been forcing residents to remove "Don't Poop On My Lawn" or " Curb your Dog" signs all along. If a complaint is received they have gone to homes that had had some construction and is now completed and told the owner to remove the sign.

Now all of a sudden we are not allowed to go back to that. WHY???? Is it because it is just a way for VCDD to once again try and intimidate us into voting the way they want you to vote, for the Developer. I think that what the AAC and the Districts are doing right now is absolutely the best thing for the people of TV. They are not "Drinking the Kool-Aide" that is being spooned fed down their throats by the VCDD staff and they are making up their own mind. Don't get me wrong What the Developer has created is great, but he took all of the advantages of creating the VCDD Districts and made a lot of money from them, us and now he has to accept the other side of our self governing, as it should be.

What the Daily "My Name is Morse and I Approve This Message" Sun did not print is the 2nd
message that Ms. Parr delivered. And in part it was........"What are you all going to do when I am not here anymore to deal with these problems. My children are working in the business some but we won't be around forever so what are you going to do when we're gone?" ARE YOU KIDDING ME. What a slap in the face to all of those who serve on the AAC and the District Boards. I bet they didn't realize that they didn't have the brains to figure all of this out. Well, they do and by voting how they have they are showing that we can govern ourselves.

Nothing has changed..YET. Everything is STILL in discussion mode. CDD's 2 and 3 both decided at yesterdays meetings NOT to vote on this issue at this time. They will wait and review the developers WRITTEN proposal and possibly VOTE at the next monthly meeting. Until then..everything is the same. Deed restrictions are COMPLAINT driven....it hasn't changed. The deveoper has proposed allowing 24x24 inch signs outside the home. Let's wait and see what happens after the CDD boards receive and review the WRITTEN proposal.
Each of the 5 CDD's are independent....they may not all vote the same...so we may end up with different restrictions in different CDD's.


BTW, at yesterdays meeting, Gail Lazenby, stated that if the vote was held now, he would vote to ENFORCE the NO SIGNS restriction. As it stands, the vote has been posponed until at least next month.

[PennBF]

Of course a couple of CDD's are waiting..They are waiting until after the elections. I would seriously doubt they don't have an opinion yet..They have had a great deal of time to understand the issues. If they vote to allow the signs they may anger a lot of residents and if they vote to not allow signs they will have allegedly violated their commitment to adhere to the developer's and Village Managements directions. Lets wait and see what happens AFTER THE ELECTIONS. :ho:

[Peachie]

Gail Lazenby, Supervisor for District 3, said it best, "For the past 20 years signs were allowed because it was in the Developer's Best Interestto allow signs and not stop them from being used." And now it is not, so........ you can draw your own conclusion. What I don't understand is we have somewhat set our standards over the last 20 years. The VCDD has been allowing For Sale and For Rent signs but they have also been forcing residents to remove "Don't Poop On My Lawn" or " Curb your Dog" signs all along. If a complaint is received they have gone to homes that had had some construction and is now completed and told the owner to remove the sign.

Now all of a sudden we are not allowed to go back to that. WHY???? Is it because it is just a way for VCDD to once again try and intimidate us into voting the way they want you to vote, for the Developer. I think that what the AAC and the Districts are doing right now is absolutely the best thing for the people of TV. They are not "Drinking the Kool-Aide" that is being spooned fed down their throats by the VCDD staff and they are making up their own mind. Don't get me wrong What the Developer has created is great, but he took all of the advantages of creating the VCDD Districts and made a lot of money from them, us and now he has to accept the other side of our self governing, as it should be.

What the Daily "My Name is Morse and I Approve This Message" Sun did not print is the 2nd
message that Ms. Parr delivered. And in part it was........"What are you all going to do when I am not here anymore to deal with these problems. My children are working in the business some but we won't be around forever so what are you going to do when we're gone?" ARE YOU KIDDING ME. What a slap in the face to all of those who serve on the AAC and the District Boards. I bet they didn't realize that they didn't have the brains to figure all of this out. Well, they do and by voting how they have they are showing that we can govern ourselves.



The bottom line is not "rights being stolen from The Villagers", IMHO, but maintaining the Villages atmosphere and beauty. The people spreading the hysteria about eliminating real estate for rent or sale signs off the lawns and putting them in the windows are primarily outside real estate agents, flippers and landlords.

The footing is not unequal for outside real estate agents; organize, pony up the money to collectively publish a weekly magazine/brochure with all of your listings and keep it updated. Place these in the stores on perimeters of The Villages or your offices. More importantly, get one major website for all outside realtors of The Villages listings and keep it updated daily. Yes, this will require spending some of the nice profits independent realtors make from home selling. But I can understand why Mr. Morse is not anxious to have outside realtors riding on his coattails since he is the one who has willing spent HIS money to build The Villages. This doesn't mean a realtor can't have a successful business here, they just have to spend some of their profits too. Anyone who knows anything about real estate is aware a sign in the front yard of a property is the cheapest advertising a realtor can use, never mind what the neighbors think. If homes are selling south of 466A without signs in the yard, they will sell in other areas of The Villages using the same method. The Villages Real Estate teams have to employ the same method of signage and there is no advantage to them in that area.

I'm not interested in supporting rental businesses or flippers in The Villages but they can employ the same methods for advertising. This is the year 2012 and if you aren't using the internet for your business adventures, you're missing the boat. The younger, computer savvy crowd is the generation now perusing the "for sale" websites when looking for property in The Villages. A sign may also be used in the window.

For the people renting out their private home or selling their own home, get a good sign in the window and use the great "for sale or rent" by owner websites and place an ad in the Daily Sun. We sold our first home in The Villages without a realtor or yard sign and had great success employing the above mentioned techniques. (We did put a sign in a window.) We have sold 6 homes over the years and not one was because of a yard sign. The homes sold through advertising in the newspaper and internet, the same methods we used to find the next home.

We also had the luxury of witnessing a former neighbor endlessly tie balloons to a light post at the entrance of our neighborhood and on his yard sign, "house for sale". He seldom took down the balloons, even when they were half or completely deflated, leaving a real eyesore in the neighborhood. Only took him two years to sell with that sales method, :shocked: I would like to see open houses limited to 4 days per week, per home.

We aren't losing all of our freedoms because signs must now be posted in a window; super cheap advertising may over for outside realtors, professional renters and flippers but homes can still be easily sold and lots of money made without yard signs. I don't live north of 466 but I have a dog in this fight, that may be the area of our next move. :icon_wink:

[bkcunningham1]

Peachie, do you live in TV now? Your last sentence confused me. Would you mind clarifying?

You said, "I don't live north of 466a but I have a dog in this fight, that may be the area of our next move."

[Peachie]

Peachie, do you live in TV now? Your last sentence confused me. Would you mind clarifying?

You said, "I don't live north of 466a but I have a dog in this fight, that may be the area of our next move."

BK, we're south of 466 at this time but are considering north of 466 if we downsize again. (I removed the "a", should be 466 in the original post.)

[Mikeod]

I think that what the AAC and the Districts are doing right now is absolutely the best thing for the people of TV.

I bet they didn't realize that they didn't have the brains to figure all of this out. Well, they do and by voting how they have they are showing that we can govern ourselves.
That is where we will differ. Just because Florida law was changed to allow CDDs to determine how/if they will enforce deed restrictions doesn't mean they should pick and choose what to enforce. I think the AAC and Districts 1 & 4 decisions show incredible shortsightedness. Despite the warning that their approval would open the door to any and all signs, they succumbed to hysteria about rights being taken away. Since this all began less than two months ago, it would seem prudent to take some time and study the issue to evaluate the effects of enforcing the deed restriction vs. not enforcing it. Instead, it appears to me that, except for Districts 2 & 3, these boards have made a knee jerk reaction to the situation. And that substantiates, in my mind, Ms. Parr's concern about the residents governing themselves.

[Villages PL]

This, quoted above, is the wisdom that matters.

And here is another perspective:

Virtually ALL homes south of 466 sold as RE-SALES have been sold and bought without a sign in the yard. IF it is so "difficult" and "uncompetitive" to market a home in The Villages without a sign in the yard, then how in the heck did all these hundreds/thousands of re-sale homes south of 466 get SOLD by both TV and MLS agents and homeowners themselves?????

How? In many cases at a higher cost in time and money. I'm Just speaking for those who may wish to put out their own sign.

[bkcunningham1]

I have bought and sold houses in TV. I have always used a realtor with each and every one of my business transactions. My realtor advertises in the Daily Sun, maintains a website and publishes a magazine that the Daily Sun
prints and circulates.

I've even used a realtor with TV. I currently own three houses in TV and I'm paying amenities fees on on all three. Of the houses I own, I live in one - and if the good Lord is willing - I will die living in this house. I love it. Another house we bought for my father-in-law. The third house I'm trying to sell.

In addition to paying the amenities fees, I keep the lawns and homes maintained impeccable. The houses I've bought and flipped have been remodeled and made to look completely new again. What I've done has improved, not only the houses, but the immediate neighborhood and TV as a whole. I've put money back into the area. I have a big vested interest in the area.

For the life of me, I can't understand why you or anyone else would have a problem with me selling houses in TV. Would you mind explaining that to me please?

[Villages PL]

Jennifer Parr, daughter of the developer and vice president of The Villages Home Sales has made a rare if ever speech to the Amenity Authority Committee regarding the issue of signs and it was quoted in the newspaper today.

Would any of you off campus like for me to type it here for you to read?

Jennifer Parr made an excellent argument in favor of maintaining restrictions but of course it was only one (biased) side of the story. Of course it was persuasive, that's what they call salesmanship.

Who will present the other side of the story and have it published in the Daily Sun? Anyone? Would the Daily Sun allow it? I kind of doubt it. I haven't made up my mind so I would like to see an "official" presentation for the other side.

[Bogie Shooter]

The signs stop at County Road 466. Good!

[Peachie]

I have bought and sold houses in TV. I have always used a realtor with each and every one of my business transactions. My realtor advertises in the Daily Sun, maintains a website and publishes a magazine that the Daily Sun
prints and circulates.

I've even used a realtor with TV. I currently own three houses in TV and I'm paying amenities fees on on all three. Of the houses I own, I live in one - and if the good Lord is willing - I will die living in this house. I love it. Another house we bought for my father-in-law. The third house I'm trying to sell.

In addition to paying the amenities fees, I keep the lawns and homes maintained impeccable. The houses I've bought and flipped have been remodeled and made to look completely new again. What I've done has improved, not only the houses, but the immediate neighborhood and TV as a whole. I've put money back into the area. I have a big vested interest in the area.

For the life of me, I can't understand why you or anyone else would have a problem with me selling houses in TV. Would you mind explaining that to me please?

BK, I think you may be addressing me... but I don't have a problem with you selling houses in The Villages. I have a problem with yard signage because it clearly is a cheap tool for realtors and is an eyesore for most people and houses may be sold just as easily through other other, less intrusive techniques.

I'm not interested in "professional" renters because this is my home. I don't want the house next to me being moved in and out of constantly and the traffic that goes with the rental. I think that's a pretty human feeling. We want neighbors. Flipping is not my cup of tea either since it usually means making pretty and no substantial repairs to the structure, ie: wiring, roofing, plumbing and so forth. You are probably the exception but most flippers rule of thumb is cheapest effort in to get the biggest bang out. I'd like to see homes sold on their merit and repairs and enhancement completed by the proud new owner. That's my feeling only and doesn't make flipping right or wrong and that's why I stated there are methods for selling those homes too.

[Mikeod]

Jennifer Parr made an excellent argument in favor of maintaining restrictions but of course it was only one (biased) side of the story. Of course it was persuasive, that's what they call salesmanship.

Who will present the other side of the story and have it published in the Daily Sun? Anyone? Would the Daily Sun allow it? I kind of doubt it. I haven't made up my mind so I would like to see an "official" presentation for the other side.
If you read the posts above from realtors, FSBO people, and income property owners you will hear the other side of the story.

The fact is that people bought into this development where restrictions are in place to prohibit those signs (except in villa neighborhoods) and signed their acceptance of these restrictions. Now they don't like it and want the restriction ignored without consideration for those who bought here because there were restrictions to ensure consistency throughout TV.

[njbchbum]

Of course a couple of CDD's are waiting..They are waiting until after the elections. I would seriously doubt they don't have an opinion yet..They have had a great deal of time to understand the issues. If they vote to allow the signs they may anger a lot of residents and if they vote to not allow signs they will have allegedly violated their commitment to adhere to the developer's and Village Managements directions. Lets wait and see what happens AFTER THE ELECTIONS. :ho:

what election? the post indicated re the cdd supvs - "They will wait and review the developers WRITTEN proposal." how many incomplete documents/contracts do YOU sign/accept?

[bkcunningham1]

Things change and evolve, mikeod. I do get your point about restrictions, but there are mechanisms to change these restrictions and that is what is happening. Just like in today's Daily Sun, there is a small story about the change in deed restrictions for villa homeowners that allows a mechanism for them to paint their driveways.

[Bogie Shooter]

What the Daily "My Name is Morse and I Approve This Message" Sun did not print.

It is worth noting that RE/Max had a 10 page insert in today's Daily Sun....hardly stonewalling the competition.

[bkcunningham1]

It is worth noting that RE/Max had a 10 page insert in today's Daily Sun....hardly stonewalling the competition.

Re/Max, Realty Executives and other locally owned realty companies pay to have inserts printed and distributed by the Daily Sun each week. Not only that, these same realtors pay to have classified ads in the same newspaper daily.

[janmcn]

BK, I think you may be addressing me... but I don't have a problem with you selling houses in The Villages. I have a problem with yard signage because it clearly is a cheap tool for realtors and is an eyesore for most people and houses may be sold just as easily through other other, less intrusive techniques.

I'm not interested in "professional" renters because this is my home. I don't want the house next to me being moved in and out of constantly and the traffic that goes with the rental. I think that's a pretty human feeling. We want neighbors. Flipping is not my cup of tea either since it usually means making pretty and no substantial repairs to the structure, ie: wiring, roofing, plumbing and so forth. You are probably the exception but most flippers rule of thumb is cheapest effort in to get the biggest bang out. I'd like to see homes sold on their merit and repairs and enhancement completed by the proud new owner. That's my feeling only and doesn't make flipping right or wrong and that's why I stated there are methods for selling those homes too.

If you feel so strongly about "professional" renters, why did you locate in an area that allows rentals for as short as one week at a time? A number of mobile home parks and condo developments in Florida require a three month minimum on rentals.

[Bogie Shooter]

Re/Max, Realty Executives and other locally owned realty companies pay to have inserts printed and distributed by the Daily Sun each week. Not only that, these same realtors pay to have classified ads in the same newspaper daily.

Thats the way it works.

[Bogie Shooter]

If you read the posts above from realtors, FSBO people, and income property owners you will hear the other side of the story.

The fact is that people bought into this development where restrictions are in place to prohibit those signs (except in villa neighborhoods) and signed their acceptance of these restrictions. Now they don't like it and want the restriction ignored without consideration for those who bought here because there were restrictions to ensure consistency throughout TV.

That sums it up rather well.

[Peachie]

If you feel so strongly about "professional" renters, why did you locate in an area that allows rentals for as short as one week at a time? A number of mobile home parks and condo developments in Florida require a three month minimum on rentals.

I didn't say I feel "strongly" about professional renters, that's your term. I said I didn't care for the business rentals, not everyone likes living next to the Holiday Inn for their own reasons. We could have rented our last Villages home out rather than selling but in deference to our wonderful neighbors, we did not. It would be interesting to know how many landlords have their home in the middle of their two rentals, I have great respect for those who do. We can accept things in life but we don't have to embrace them, right? :icon_wink:

[Mikeod]

From what I'm seeing most residents are obiding by the new sign regulation, the only ones not following the restriction is the Villages Real Estate people, they still put open house signs in the yards, signs that should be in the windows, are on the outside of the house, they are most likely the last to comply. I personally think the restriction is a good Idea.
So, when an outside realtor conducts an open house, they are not allowed to put up any flags or signs or other indications of the open house in the yard? Is that true? Not challenging, just asking. I have opined that if the developer follows the same rules on signs, he has no advantage in restricting them. If, OTOH, he does not follow the rules in the deed restrictions, he is wrong.

[Posh 08]

Jennifer Parr, daughter of the developer and vice president of The Villages Home Sales has made a rare if ever speech to the Amenity Authority Committee regarding the issue of signs and it was quoted in the newspaper today.

Would any of you off campus like for me to type it here for you to read?

Send it to FB for me please GG. The Mods can't touch us. Teeheeheee. I'd love to read about it. Thank you.

[njbchbum]

peachie - your post # 123 certainly presents a good case - for the developer. please allow me to present some counter points...

you posted, "The people spreading the hysteria about eliminating real estate for rent or sale signs off the lawns and putting them in the windows are primarily outside real estate agents, flippers and landlords." do you have factual statistics on that statement? if not, on what is it based?...observation, conversation, ASSumption?

"Place these [magazine/brochure] in the stores on perimeters of The Villages" - in my opinion, that is a decidedly unequal advantage since some house hunting folks have no opportunity to frequent stores on the perimeter of the village - those without transportation and/or time come to mind - like the lifestylers.

"...get one major website for all outside realtors of The Villages listings and keep it updated daily." - most mls realtors already have their personal sites which advertise mls listings of their own and others - that's why they are in the mls business! there is no need for a mega site and the expense/maintenance of same - it is redundancy.

"...they just have to spend some of their profits too." - very presumptive of you to ASSume that mls realtors do not spend some of their profits! in fact - they all spend exhorbitant amounts to place ads/inserts in the daily sun!

"...a sign in the front yard of a property is the cheapest advertising a realtor can use,..." - so what - it IS another advtg resource for the seller, TOO. is it not?

"The Villages Real Estate teams have to employ the same method of signage and there is no advantage to them in that area." - everyone knows the villages has a sales office - not everyone looking for a home in the villages is aware that you need an mls realtor to view non-village realty listings...check posts on totv and see how many posters were surprised to find that out! without an mls realtor sign in someone's yard, someone looking to purchase a home might not make the inquiry re mls realtors...a decided advantage to the villages realty sales.

"...get a good sign in the window..." - please put that 12" x 12" sign in one of your house windows......be sure to include a realtor business name, name of the salesperson and a telephone number...and then go stand in the middle of the street and let me know how much info you can discern on that sign and then try reading it while driving by it! and advtg in the daily sun again benefits the developer, a sign in the yard does not.

"He seldom took down the balloons, even when they were half or completely deflated, leaving a real eyesore in the neighborhood." - and i ASSume the ballons remained there because a neighbor did not speak to the seller about taking them down - much less take them down for him and the benefit of the neighborhood.

" I don't live north of 466 but I have a dog in this fight, that may be the area of our next move." - i think that statement pretty much takes your dog out of this fight since you are not a resident of the area and are not represented by any supervisor there. no matter how the residents ask their supvs to vote, you will have the option to move in the future to an area being fully aware of the deed restrictions at the time of your move. if you don't like the enforcement in the area - you don't have to move there. right?

[Hank N Judy]

The only person I see that would benefit from signs on the lawn are the people putting them there - realtor,Joe the plumber or who ever. Its free advertizing for their business.
If someone is looking to buy in tv, they would already know to look at the windows.
THE ONLY THING THAT SIGNS DO IS TRASH UP THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND DEVALUE PROPERTYS.
Thats my 2 cents

[njbchbum]

So, when an outside realtor conducts an open house, they are not allowed to put up any flags or signs or other indications of the open house in the yard? Is that true? Not challenging, just asking. I have opined that if the developer follows the same rules on signs, he has no advantage in restricting them. If, OTOH, he does not follow the rules in the deed restrictions, he is wrong.

mikeod - i have seen villages open houses display those 8' tall skinny flags on the property of their open houses and have not seen mls realtors use same...not that they couldn't i suppose. i have seen mls realtors use a small open house sign mounted atop the realty sign to announce their open houses. i guess, if the flag will be a permitted use, the mls folks will have to go out and invest in some for their offices!

[janmcn]

The only person I see that would benefit from signs on the lawn are the people putting them there - realtor,Joe the plumber or who ever. Its free advertizing for their business.
If someone is looking to buy in tv, they would already know to look at the windows.
THE ONLY THING THAT SIGNS DO IS TRASH UP THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND DEVALUE PROPERTYS.
Thats my 2 cents

How would people know to look at the windows when for sale and for rent signs have been allowed for the past 40 years? Some style homes, say patio villas, have only one front window which is inside the screened lanai, very difficult to see from the street.

[njbchbum]

The only person I see that would benefit from signs on the lawn are the people putting them there - realtor,Joe the plumber or who ever. Its free advertizing for their business.
If someone is looking to buy in tv, they would already know to look at the windows.
THE ONLY THING THAT SIGNS DO IS TRASH UP THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND DEVALUE PROPERTYS.
Thats my 2 cents

as i suggested to peachie, do a search on totv and you will apparently be quite surprised by the number of house hunters who were not even aware that villages realty will not and cannot sell an mls listing and vice versa...much less that they should be looking for a sign in a window some where that announces a house for sale!


ps - my home has lost no value in the four years we have owned it - despite the for sale signs on the street during that time. some were even home made fsbo signs - not well done! so that shoots your theory...or was it just your opinion?

[Peachie]

peachie - your post # 123 certainly presents a good case - for the developer. please allow me to present some counter points...

you posted, "The people spreading the hysteria about eliminating real estate for rent or sale signs off the lawns and putting them in the windows are primarily outside real estate agents, flippers and landlords." do you have factual statistics on that statement? if not, on what is it based?...observation, conversation, ASSumption?


You mean rummage sale sign and garage sale sign hangers should have been included?


"Place these [magazine/brochure] in the stores on perimeters of The Villages" - in my opinion, that is a decidedly unequal advantage since some house hunting folks have no opportunity to frequent stores on the perimeter of the village - those without transportation and/or time come to mind - like the lifestylers.

If they have no transportation, how would they get through all the neighborhoods to see "for sale" signs posted in every yard, walk?

"...get one major website for all outside realtors of The Villages listings and keep it updated daily." - most mls realtors already have their personal sites which advertise mls listings of their own and others - that's why they are in the mls business! there is no need for a mega site and the expense/maintenance of same - it is redundancy.

Exactly, why don't the realtors combine their efforts and present the one collective website link to prospective buyers, I think that's how The Villages does it. Village sales people also run their own ads, it appears.

"...they just have to spend some of their profits too." - very presumptive of you to ASSume that mls realtors do not spend some of their profits! in fact - they all spend exhorbitant amounts to place ads/inserts in the daily sun!

How much is an exhorbitant amount on one ad? I think you are assuming that almost every sale in The Villages is from all those signs in the front yard, I disagree. Do you have statistics to show us?

"...a sign in the front yard of a property is the cheapest advertising a realtor can use,..." - so what - it IS another advtg resource for the seller, TOO. is it not?

Homes south of 466 are sold without the real estate signs, why does the area north of 466 need to advertise outside real estate agents if homes will sell without the signs?

"The Villages Real Estate teams have to employ the same method of signage and there is no advantage to them in that area." - everyone knows the villages has a sales office - not everyone looking for a home in the villages is aware that you need an mls realtor to view non-village realty listings...check posts on totv and see how many posters were surprised to find that out! without an mls realtor sign in someone's yard, someone looking to purchase a home might not make the inquiry re mls realtors...a decided advantage to the villages realty sales.

It does surprise me that people haven't visited here, checked out the area, asked questions, or have a computer and just happen to walk up to The Villages Sales office and offer to buy a home. But I really don't see how putting a "for sale" sign in the YARD will make that specific point to perspective purchasers. How does it happen south of 466?


"...get a good sign in the window..." - please put that 12" x 12" sign in one of your house windows......be sure to include a realtor business name, name of the salesperson and a telephone number...and then go stand in the middle of the street and let me know how much info you can discern on that sign and then try reading it while driving by it! and advtg in the daily sun again benefits the developer, a sign in the yard does not.

We did sell a house here in The Villages and used that technique, it worked. If sign size is an issue, how about working for a larger window sign maximum... say a 12" x 16" limit.

"He seldom took down the balloons, even when they were half or completely deflated, leaving a real eyesore in the neighborhood." - and i ASSume the ballons remained there because a neighbor did not speak to the seller about taking them down - much less take them down for him and the benefit of the neighborhood.

So you would give permission to anyone not approving of the signage to take it upon themselves to remove and dispose of said signage. Some realtors may be missing their signs.....

" I don't live north of 466 but I have a dog in this fight, that may be the area of our next move." - i think that statement pretty much takes your dog out of this fight since you are not a resident of the area and are not represented by any supervisor there. no matter how the residents ask their supvs to vote, you will have the option to move in the future to an area being fully aware of the deed restrictions at the time of your move. if you don't like the enforcement in the area - you don't have to move there. right?

The area mentioned is part and parcel of The Villages and it does matter to everyone if all signage is allowed. If this system works extremely well south of 466, one has to believe it will work north of 466. You have been very tenacious in your efforts to protect signage rights. That is your perogative but please note that I addressed your questions as posed and never was uncivil, we disagree but I never attempted to use ASS when addressing you. :ohdear:

[njbchbum]

The area mentioned is part and parcel of The Villages and it does matter to everyone if all signage is allowed. If this system works extremely well south of 466, one has to believe it will work north of 466. You have been very tenacious in your efforts to protect signage rights. That is your perogative but please note that I addressed your questions as posed and never was uncivil, we disagree but I never attempted to use ASS when addressing you. :ohdear:

guess you missed the point - sorry.

[Bogie Shooter]

Many of the posts on this thread supporting having signs, imply that home buyers are really stupid and don't know about local newspapers, Internet web sites by brokers, web sites by FSBO and flyers/advertisements piled up at supermarkets, restaurants, etc.
That just doesn't make sense...............of course what does about this sign issue.

[njbchbum]

The area mentioned is part and parcel of The Villages and it does matter to everyone if all signage is allowed. snipped

the cdds of concern each have their responsibility for self-governance and not the governance/interference of the developer...that responsibility and authority was given to them by the developer years ago...thus they are conducting their own votes re signage enforcement and all will have to abide by same.

[Hank N Judy]

How do you know your home would not have appreciated more if the signs were not there?
A lot of thanks for home appreciation in tv should go to Gary Morse & family. A few years ago everything else in Fl tanked.
So maybe everyone should pay attention to there wisdom.
Yes, this is my opinion & theory.

[njbchbum]

Many of the posts on this thread supporting having signs, imply that home buyers are really stupid and don't know about local newspapers, Internet web sites by brokers, web sites by FSBO and flyers/advertisements piled up at supermarkets, restaurants, etc.
That just doesn't make sense...............of course what does about this sign issue.

only that the developer wants to enforce something he gave a board of supervisors the responsibility/authority to enforce - or not enforce - years ago. said boards having governed for all of these years - and now the developer thinks they are/will be incapable of governing themselves? maybe?

[Bogie Shooter]

only that the developer wants to enforce something he gave a board of supervisors the responsibility/authority to enforce - or not enforce - years ago. said boards having governed for all of these years - and now the developer thinks they are/will be incapable of governing themselves? maybe?

Are there deed restrictions in New England and the Jersey Shore?

[rubicon]

On page 1 post #2 of this thread I had agreed with Jennifer Parr's opinion regarding the position the AAC took concerning the waiver of restictions on residential "for sale signs"

However I read the opinion of one villager in todays Daily Sun and to my unpleasant surprised it was signed Don Hahnfeldt. This guy is joined at the hip with the Developer and perhaps it is too strong a word to say, a synchophant, but when a guy like a long history with the Developer who has held and continues to hold leadership positions, writes an article that goes beyond support and enters a "I so sympathize with Jennifer.....causes me to pause and question motives ,sincereity and hence credibility.

I would have prefer and would have thrown my support further toward the Developer had this article been written by a villager with no direct relationship with the Developer

[njbchbum]

Are there deed restrictions in New England and the Jersey Shore?

nope!

[njbchbum]

How do you know your home would not have appreciated more if the signs were not there?
A lot of thanks for home appreciation in tv should go to Gary Morse & family. A few years ago everything else in Fl tanked.
So maybe everyone should pay attention to there wisdom.
Yes, this is my opinion & theory.

hank & judy - just who is it that evaluates the appreciation of one's property and on what is the appreciation based? please tell me. thanks

[Warren Kiefer]

Jennifer Parr, daughter of the developer and vice president of The Villages Home Sales has made a rare if ever speech to the Amenity Authority Committee regarding the issue of signs and it was quoted in the newspaper today.

Would any of you off campus like for me to type it here for you to read?

What we are going to have as a final result is multiple and different rules from one District to the other, one having signs and the neighboring district having a no yard sign rule. You talk about a mess !!!!

[Warren Kiefer]

On page 1 post #2 of this thread I had agreed with Jennifer Parr's opinion regarding the position the AAC took concerning the waiver of restictions on residential "for sale signs"

However I read the opinion of one villager in todays Daily Sun and to my unpleasant surprised it was signed Don Hahnfeldt. This guy is joined at the hip with the Developer and perhaps it is too strong a word to say, a synchophant, but when a guy like a long history with the Developer who has held and continues to hold leadership positions, writes an article that goes beyond support and enters a "I so sympathize with Jennifer.....causes me to pause and question motives ,sincereity and hence credibility.

I would have prefer and would have thrown my support further toward the Developer had this article been written by a villager with no direct relationship with the Developer

Amen Rubicon, you have it exactly right. I spotted this immediately and have known of this good old boy connection for years. I was equally upset that the writer took an unfair swipe at Carl Bell, a man I know who has a desire to do "what is right". This probably has a little something to do with Mr. Bell running for a county office against a favorite son.

[cathyw]

What we are going to have as a final result is multiple and different rules from one District to the other, one having signs and the neighboring district having a no yard sign rule. You talk about a mess !!!!

That's a possibility, but until the voting is held, we won't know.

[Indydealmaker]

Just a reminder....full copyrighted articles can not be posted verbatim here...you can quote a few sentences but then must provide a link to the original site.

Sorry, them's the rules.

Thanks.... Moderator

How about modifying those rules to take into consideration "fair use" exceptions?

[big guy]

I keep hearing that this is only for homes North of 466 but I live in District 5 which is south of 466 and there is a meeting on Aug 17 to vote on this matter. Whats this all about? Are we in or out?

[njbchbum]

I keep hearing that this is only for homes North of 466 but I live in District 5 which is south of 466 and there is a meeting on Aug 17 to vote on this matter. Whats this all about? Are we in or out?

big guy - your cdd is in the fray and the supvs mtg is aug 17.

you can click here VCDD Meetings/Agendas (http://www.districtgov.org/yourdistrict/meetings.aspx?district=5) and it will take you to the district gov website for your cdd5

from there you can click on the agenda and on the agenda you will note the hilited agenda numbers - you can click on them to read the detail re same.

hope that helps. and don't forget to contact your supvs to let them know your opinion any time - whether it be pro or con re any issue.

[PennBF]

There is a simple answer to this debate. As the old famous statement said:FOLLOW THE MONEY..The question is who will benefit from restricting the advertising of resale homes for sale.? If anyone believes this is strictly a concern with appearance they should get real. There are TWO factions. Ones who are concerned with appearances and one that sees $$$$'s in the final answer. It is like two sides on a "rope pulling contest" one for appearance and the other for money. One side is made up of residents of N466 along with one made up of those that want the money They are allegedly on the residents side of the rope.. If appearance's win then one side of the $$$$ hopefull will reap the rewards and allegedly they are cheering for the win by the residents. If OK for sign's another side of the $$$$ hopefull will reap the rewards. GOOD LUCK..:mmmm:

[Quietman]

I think the issue should be that we can not just selectively enforce restrictions we all agreed to when we bought. If you want to have signs then have a referendum in your district and change the covenant.
But then that opens the door to changing all the covenants.
Personally if there is no enforcement, I'm going to look into renting out my lawn for political signs and also look into a fence for my back yard - it'll have to be a little on the high side since I have cats and face a busy street.

[njbchbum]

I think the issue should be that we can not just selectively enforce restrictions we all agreed to when we bought. If you want to have signs then have a referendum in your district and change the covenant.
But then that opens the door to changing all the covenants.
Personally if there is no enforcement, I'm going to look into renting out my lawn for political signs and also look into a fence for my back yard - it'll have to be a little on the high side since I have cats and face a busy street.

quietman - if you knew what the deed restriction was and you knew that it was not enforced, why did you buy in the neighborhood anyway and why was it not a big enough deal before now to press for enforcement of the deed restriction?

[Mikeod]

quietman - if you knew what the deed restriction was and you knew that it was not enforced, why did you buy in the neighborhood anyway and why was it not a big enough deal before now to press for enforcement of the deed restriction?

I'm not quietman, but have my own opinion. Perhaps people were not that concerned about the For Sale/Rent signs, but are now concerned that not enforcing the sign prohibition now opens the door to any and all signs in any and all sizes. Posters claim the complaint process is still in effect. But, if I put up a sign and am told to remove it, I could refuse, pointing out the district's new policy to not enforce the deed restriction allows me to place a sign. And, the district has allowed similar signs in other places. Are we going to have a situation like defining porn, "I can't define what it is, but I know it when I see it." So the district can say one sign is OK but another one is not? What will the standard be, if there is any standard? Will the standard change as new people are elected to the boards? If so, will approved signs have to be removed if the new board doesn't like them? This, to me, opens up so many potential problems. Decisions like this one will be hard to undo once formalized.

[Quietman]

I guess my attempt at sarcasm missed the point - sorry. I know the rules and would like to see them stay and enforced. Its one of the things I liked so there would always be a pristine look everywhere.

[Wing-nut2]

No signs!

[njbchbum]

I'm not quietman, but have my own opinion. Perhaps people were not that concerned about the For Sale/Rent signs, but are now concerned that not enforcing the sign prohibition now opens the door to any and all signs in any and all sizes. Posters claim the complaint process is still in effect. But, if I put up a sign and am told to remove it, I could refuse, pointing out the district's new policy to not enforce the deed restriction allows me to place a sign. And, the district has allowed similar signs in other places. Are we going to have a situation like defining porn, "I can't define what it is, but I know it when I see it." So the district can say one sign is OK but another one is not? What will the standard be, if there is any standard? Will the standard change as new people are elected to the boards? If so, will approved signs have to be removed if the new board doesn't like them? This, to me, opens up so many potential problems. Decisions like this one will be hard to undo once formalized.

agree with you, mikeod - a great big can or worms! but i have to think that on the other side of the coin...since there has been no enforcement of signage in the past and there has not been a plethora of signs in the past, how does one come to the conclusion that there is going to be an abundance of a variety of signs in the future?

[Barefoot]

Perhaps people were not that concerned about the For Sale/Rent signs, but are now concerned that not enforcing the sign prohibition now opens the door to any and all signs in any and all sizes. This, to me, opens up so many potential problems. Decisions like this one will be hard to undo once formalized.

A lot of comments that support signs have been made by people who are interested in purchasing in TV in the future. Once they are Frogs, their perspective may well change.

I agree with Mikeod ... If sign prohibitions are not enforced, it's like opening Pandora's box.

[kentucky blue]

A lot of comments that support signs have been made by people who are interested in purchasing in TV in the future. Once they are Frogs, their perspective may well change.

I agree with Mikeod ... If sign prohibitions are not enforced, it's like opening Pandora's box.

I just can't wait until the build-out and the developer turns The Villages over to us "inmates" and all our special interest.You want the definition for the word chaos, just visit TV after the build-out and you will see it first hand.Without the present strong leadership group in charge,the future growth and appeal of TV will be in jeopardy.We might as well start junking up TV now with all these signs,and it will become a "Pandora's Box",so we can get an unequivocal representation of our future without the developer,his family, and his leadership group in charge.Just be careful what you wish for.

[Indydealmaker]

I just can't wait until the build-out and the developer turns The Villages over to us "inmates" and all our special interest.You want the definition for the word chaos, just visit TV after the build-out and you will see it first hand.Without the present strong leadership group in charge,the future growth and appeal of TV will be in jeopardy.We might as well start junking up TV now with all these signs,and it will become a "Pandora's Box",so we can get an unequivocal representation of our future without the developer,his family, and his leadership group in charge.Just be careful what you wish for.

As a former condo board president, I have observed first hand that it is next to impossible to get the "volunteer" board members to ignore their personal agendae and vote for the good of the community even when it hurts.

[janmcn]

A lot of comments that support signs have been made by people who are interested in purchasing in TV in the future. Once they are Frogs, their perspective may well change.

I agree with Mikeod ... If sign prohibitions are not enforced, it's like opening Pandora's box.

With this new found wave of enthusiasm for deed restriction enforcement, every resident should get out the copy that they signed and was also signed by the developer's representative and refresh their memories.

Residents might be surprised that their village only allows two pets per household...that's two dogs or two cats or one of each. Some villages also have a 20 pound limit on the size of pets. Some new residents are under the impression that they can bring more than two pets. Some of the older neighborhoods only allow one pet per household.

Other residents, in the older neighborhoods, might be surprised that they are not allowed to have an outside TV antenna or satellite dish. This would eliminate Direct TV or Dish TV as an option for service.

Residents can't be selective in the deed restrictions they want to see enforced.

[Mikeod]

agree with you, mikeod - a great big can or worms! but i have to think that on the other side of the coin...since there has been no enforcement of signage in the past and there has not been a plethora of signs in the past, how does one come to the conclusion that there is going to be an abundance of a variety of signs in the future?
I think people noticed the only extra signs were those For Sale/Rent signs. While there may have been interest in personal signs it was apparent they were not being displayed or perhaps the restriction was being enforced for those. Once enforcement is halted for signs in general, why wouldn't other signs appear? No limit to number, size, location. Once enforcement is halted, you cannot put the genie back in the bottle.

[njbchbum]

With this new found wave of enthusiasm for deed restriction enforcement, every resident should get out the copy that they signed and was also signed by the developer's representative and refresh their memories.

Residents might be surprised that their village only allows two pets per household...that's two dogs or two cats or one of each. Some villages also have a 20 pound limit on the size of pets. Some new residents are under the impression that they can bring more than two pets. Some of the older neighborhoods only allow one pet per household.

Other residents, in the older neighborhoods, might be surprised that they are not allowed to have an outside TV antenna or satellite dish. This would eliminate Direct TV or Dish TV as an option for service.

Residents can't be selective in the deed restrictions they want to see enforced.

grest points, janmcn! getting rid of a dish or antenna is one thing - but getting rid of pets! oh, my, my!

[njbchbum]

I think people noticed the only extra signs were those For Sale/Rent signs. While there may have been interest in personal signs it was apparent they were not being displayed or perhaps the restriction was being enforced for those. Once enforcement is halted for signs in general, why wouldn't other signs appear? No limit to number, size, location. Once enforcement is halted, you cannot put the genie back in the bottle.

why won't other signs appear? how about because no one had a need/desire to put one out before and nothing has changed in the resident's life to need/desire to put one out now?

i just can't figure out why a cdd would exercise the selective enforcement of all signs other than for sale signs for many years and then suddenly make an issue of enforcing the restriction over for sale signs that were okay for so long.

i really do feel bad for the residents who want their homes and neighborhoods to look pristine, sterile, cookie-cutter, uncluttered or however it can be described and the vote of no enforcement of the signage deed restriction will cause them discomfort, pain and/or anguish. but i guess they will have to live with the vote of their supervisors. it seems it's in their hands!

[buzzy]

As a former condo board president, I have observed first hand that it is next to impossible to get the "volunteer" board members to ignore their personal agendae and vote for the good of the community even when it hurts.

Absolutely, Steve. And, while you and I may have had good intentions, I've found that the primary reason for people to seek Board positions is to control their neighbors lives.

[rp001]

I do believe any law banning outdoor antennae has already been deemed illegal by the courts....

[Mikeod]

I do believe any law banning outdoor antennae has already been deemed illegal by the courts....
Off topic, but I think the ruling was in regards to satellite dishes, but outside TV antennas are still able to be banned if there are alternatives such as cable or satellite.

With regard to pets, I understand new residents with more than 2 pets are allowed to bring them all, but cannot replace the extra pet(s) when it passes so they get down to two pets only.

[janmcn]

Off topic, but I think the ruling was in regards to satellite dishes, but outside TV antennas are still able to be banned if there are alternatives such as cable or satellite.

With regard to pets, I understand new residents with more than 2 pets are allowed to bring them all, but cannot replace the extra pet(s) when it passes so they get down to two pets only.

Where is that pet waiver regulation written?

[Indydealmaker]

Off topic, but I think the ruling was in regards to satellite dishes, but outside TV antennas are still able to be banned if there are alternatives such as cable or satellite.

With regard to pets, I understand new residents with more than 2 pets are allowed to bring them all, but cannot replace the extra pet(s) when it passes so they get down to two pets only.

Mike, According to the FCC, TV antennae are also protected. Go to this link:Over-the-Air Reception Devices Rule | FCC.gov (http://www.fcc.gov/guides/over-air-reception-devices-rule)

[njbchbum]

Where is that pet waiver regulation written?

one example is:

http://www.districtgov.org/images/DeedRestiction/lake/L-1-2-3.pdf

pae 3 of the restrictions under 'use of property' 2.16

[janmcn]

one example is:

http://www.districtgov.org/images/DeedRestiction/lake/L-1-2-3.pdf

pae 3 of the restrictions under 'use of property' 2.16

All I saw under section 2.16 is one cat OR one dog allowed with a maximum weight of 20 pounds. Did I miss something?

[njbchbum]

All I saw under section 2.16 is one cat OR one dog allowed with a maximum weight of 20 pounds. Did I miss something?

i believe the explanation given by mikeod is the practical application of the deed restriction for new residents given that no one in the villages wanted to see the 'extra' pet[s] 'sacrificed' for the sake of the strict interpretation of the deed restriction. and just like other deed restrictions, residents are expected to abide by this one as well. you can see how that works - just like signage - venture into the lake county villages you will again find that this deed restriction is far from adhered to much less enforced!

[janmcn]

i believe the explanation given by mikeod is the practical application of the deed restriction for new residents given that no one in the villages wanted to see the 'extra' pet[s] 'sacrificed' for the sake of the strict interpretation of the deed restriction. and just like other deed restrictions, residents are expected to abide by this one as well. you can see how that works - just like signage - venture into the lake county villages you will again find that this deed restriction is far from adhered to much less enforced!

It sounds like this pet waiver is one of those 'slippery slopes' mikeod warned us about not going down.

[janmcn]

The deed restrictions clearly violate the Florida law that says deed restrictions may not ban clotheslines. How did the developer get around that law?


Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0100-0199/0163/Sections/0163.04.html)

[njbchbum]

It sounds like this pet waiver is one of those 'slippery slopes' mikeod warned us about not going down.

agree with you there...if a neighbor wants to issue a complaint about someone because of a for sale sign or some lawn ornaments - imagine the strife when someone issues the complaint because a neighbor has more that a 20 lb dog or more than 1 or 2 dogs! oh, my, my!

[njbchbum]

The deed restrictions clearly violate the Florida law that says deed restrictions may not ban clotheslines. How did the developer get around that law?


Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0100-0199/0163/Sections/0163.04.html)

my guess is that this particular language was enacted after the deed restrictions were created and deed restrictions were never updated to reflect same.

wanna got to target and get a clothlesline with me? :a20:

[Barefoot]

All I saw under section 2.16 is one cat OR one dog allowed with a maximum weight of 20 pounds. Did I miss something?

It appears that the Developer started off in Historical with the "standard" pet restrictions which are quite common in mobile home sites throughout Florida. And as time went on and the Developer wanted to sell more homes, the pet restrictions relaxed. Now we have huge dogs romping around The Villages, on leashes of course, followed by conscientious residents with huge poop bags. :coolsmiley:

[janmcn]

my guess is that this particular language was enacted after the deed restrictions were created and deed restrictions were never updated to reflect same.

wanna got to target and get a clothlesline with me? :a20:

If what you say is true, and I don't know when this statute was passed, shouldn't the deed restrictions be changed at that point to abide by the law? People don't usually get to choose which law they want to follow and which law they choose to ignore.

[njbchbum]

If what you say is true, and I don't know when this statute was passed, shouldn't the deed restrictions be changed at that point to abide by the law? People don't usually get to choose which law they want to follow and which law they choose to ignore.

maybe they could update the covenants and deed restrictions and get the dog regs and clothesline regs straightened out at the same time! or maybe someone will hafta lodge a complaint about the lack of compliance re the clothesline statute.

[graciegirl]

maybe they could update the covenants and deed restrictions and get the dog regs and clothesline regs straightened out at the same time! or maybe someone will hafta lodge a complaint about the lack of compliance re the clothesline statute.

Boy Howdy.

[njbchbum]

Boy Howdy.

you can say that again! ;)

[bkcunningham1]

njbchbum, what brought about the clothesline comment? I haven't seen any illegal clotheslines, just illegal dogs.

[njbchbum]

The deed restrictions clearly violate the Florida law that says deed restrictions may not ban clotheslines. How did the developer get around that law?


Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0100-0199/0163/Sections/0163.04.html)

njbchbum, what brought about the clothesline comment? I haven't seen any illegal clotheslines, just illegal dogs.

it was janmcn's post - check out the link!

[Indydealmaker]

maybe they could update the covenants and deed restrictions and get the dog regs and clothesline regs straightened out at the same time! or maybe someone will hafta lodge a complaint about the lack of compliance re the clothesline statute.

From what I have read, deed restrictions are cast in stone. They can only be changed by the original deed holder prior to the first transfer of title. As far as the deed restrictions that are superseded by state or federal statutes, then it is what it is...the deed restrictions cannot be enforced. No need to change them, even if you could.

[janmcn]

From what I have read, deed restrictions are cast in stone. They can only be changed by the original deed holder prior to the first transfer of title. As far as the deed restrictions that are superseded by state or federal statutes, then it is what it is...the deed restrictions cannot be enforced. No need to change them, even if you could.

Couldn't the developer change the deed restrictions on houses that have never had a transfer of title, ie new construction, so as not to be in violation of state statute?

[Bogie Shooter]

Saw in today's paper,District 5 will enforce the deed restriction, regarding signs.

[njbchbum]

From what I have read, deed restrictions are cast in stone. They can only be changed by the original deed holder prior to the first transfer of title. As far as the deed restrictions that are superseded by state or federal statutes, then it is what it is...the deed restrictions cannot be enforced. No need to change them, even if you could.

so that mean folks could put up a clothesline on their property and no one could do anything about it because of the statute. boy howdy!

[Indydealmaker]

Couldn't the developer change the deed restrictions on houses that have never had a transfer of title, ie new construction, so as not to be in violation of state statute?

He certainly could, however, the developer is not violating a statute unless he tries to enforce the restriction. If he leaves the deed restrictions as is, then if the law changes, the restriction is already there. No way to change it back, otherwise.

[Mikeod]

He certainly could, however, the developer is not violating a statute unless he tries to enforce the restriction. If he leaves the deed restrictions as is, then if the law changes, the restriction is already there. No way to change it back, otherwise.
I wonder if, when the laws were enacted (solar and/or antennae), there was an effective date such that restrictions existing prior to the effective date did not have to be changed and could still apply.

[bkcunningham1]

I can't attest to the reliability of this site, but for what it is worth: HOA and Condominium Management Orlando - House of Management Enterprises. - - CLOTHESLINES AND SOLAR PANELS CAN BE REGULATED (http://www.houseofmgmt.com/houseofmgmt/item_list.asp?subcat=21&subtitle=CLOTHESLINES+AND+SOLAR+PANELS+CAN+BE+REGU LATED)

The site has some relevant information if anyone of you is interested enough to do some additional research from the information you can glean from the linked site.

[Barefoot]

From what I have read, deed restrictions are cast in stone. They can only be changed by the original deed holder prior to the first transfer of title. As far as the deed restrictions that are superseded by state or federal statutes, then it is what it is...the deed restrictions cannot be enforced. No need to change them, even if you could.

Indy, apparently there is a Florida friendly "water conservation" law that property can be rocked ... does that supersede the deed restriction about grass?

[Indydealmaker]

Indy, apparently there is a Florida friendly "water conservation" law that property can be rocked ... does that supersede the deed restriction about grass?

Good question. Maybe someone can expound upon that.