CDD 5 supervisors vote to end anonymous complaint system
 

.
.
Personally, I am AOK with this initial move. Never did agree with the 'Anonymous' system. There are Pros & Cons, but IMO the CONS outweigh significantly.
-----------------------

From the 'online news site'>

Community Development District 5 supervisors have voted to end the anonymous complaint system that has been a crucial part of deed compliance in The Villages.

This marks a sea of change in the love/hate relationship when it comes to anonymous complaints.The CDD 5 board voted 3-2 on Friday to end the process which has been aimed at preserving harmony in the neighborhood.

“I am not a believer that anonymous complaints are good,” said CDD 5 Chairman Gary Kadow. He said 96 percent of complaints that come into Community Standards are anonymous. “I don’t think it’s any secret that we’ve got people driving around setting themselves up as the police. Maybe they feel empowered,” Kadow said.

Village of Bonnybrook resident Jim Shields agreed and called the anonymous complaint system “divisive” and “detrimental.” He said that “significant” issues should be addressed “neighbor to neighbor.”

Two supervisors stood firm in their support of the anonymous complaint system. “Most residents don’t want to give their name, address and phone number. They don’t want to talk to their neighbor. They don’t want that relationship to go south. They don’t want to be the heavy,” said Supervisor Jerry Knoll. He predicted the number of violations will go up. “It will impact the appearance of the neighborhood,” Knoll said.

Supervisor Chuck Wildzunas agreed. He said the vote to change the process was “totally inappropriate.”

However, Knoll and Wildzunas found themselves in the minority. Supervisor Jerry Ferlisi called it a welcome change. “We all have a right to face our accuser,” Ferlisi said. He added that if the change doesn’t work, the board could reverse its decision.

Supervisor Walter Martin said he bought his home in The Villages in 2004. He said a major selling point was the clean and neat appearance of the community. But he said times change. “The board should be amenable to change,” he said.

In a roll call vote, Kadow, Ferlisi and Martin supported the change. Wildzunas and Knoll voted against it. The change will not take take effect immediately.

The rule change and actual language will have to be advertised to the public for 28 days. The board will take a final vote in October.

Seems like a needed change.

Friends from an older part of TV said they have heard of two women who ride around the better part of the day looking for houses they can report.

I thought this was a developer's rule. How can that be changed?

Be careful what you ask for, you may get it.

A house in Duval had Halloween , Christmas and Valentine decoration s all at the same , last March.

Bad move IMO. There are some real hotheads out there who will refuse to take care of their property then over react when a complaint is made. Someone could get hurt.

And you should only be able to complain about houses in your immediate area.

Yes, yes. It's always someone HEARD about two women. There are about 10,000 people out there wanting to take a picture of them, but it has never happened. Can't take a picture of a myth.

This is going to ruin the villages. People will now do whatever they want , the post above be careful what you wish for. , in these times no one is going to complain no matter how bad we he violation is

Predition:

Violations in that district will increase dramatically. Neighborhoods will begin to look less attractive and will become less desirable to house hunters. Residents will begin to complain that their homes don't sell as easily as in other districts.

No big deal.............create a new gmail account and use a neighbor's name.


I'm using: ISpy@gmail.com. My name is Nucky



:1rotfl:

Maybe they are Bigfoot's sisters.. lol

If the overall goal of the violation and complaint system is to reduce violations, this will not help. And, it certainly won't make the system less "divisive". A violation is a violation, regardless of how it was reported or who reported it.

As far as I know, I don't have any violations, and, if I do, I don't care how I hear about it. I will just fix it because I want to be in full compliance.

Dang.. I was going to use Nucky. I guess I'll just have to use D. Wilson now.. lol

For a few bucks most names are for sale

Or it could be an urban legend.

They did seem to be sure this is true though for whatever it is worth.

So it's ok for backyard sheds and 12 year olds living in The Villages as long as not in your neighborhood?

Nevermind, I see your approving arguments on this in previous posts.

I've seen them more than once. I don't stop to take a pic because I really don't care whether you believe it or not. I wouldn't be hell bent on telling everybody they don't exist unless I was the one with the clipboard.

.
.
.
IMO this 'overseeing' and reporting should be open and 'legal'. Perhaps a Committee of an officially sanctioned group of residents in each CDD responsible to identify and report to CDD infractions. Allow each group to have this official responsibility. No anonymity. And the "accused" homeowner can face the "accuser".
.
.
.

Those two women were reported to be working south of 44, they must rent a golf car to make their weekly rounds down here or maybe there are 4 of them. They gotta be getting pretty old by now, maybe they're training new recruits for the southern villages.

According to my florist a group of contractors have gotten together to offer a reward for people making these complaints figuring it will generate extra jobs for them.

How is that for a conspiracy theory?

It's been interesting to follow the various threads on this issue. While I hope our eventual home will comply with all of the required deed restrictions (after all, we will have agreed to doing so when we sign the papers) if it doesn't I would have no problem being told so. As far as who is reporting me, I couldn't care less as I'm either in compliance, or I'm not. Even the police use anonymous tips, to minimize the potential of retribution or payback, and I would think the same reasoning would apply to those reporting a lack of compliance. As I understand it, the non-compliance has to be investigated by a TV representative before action can be taken, so what is the purpose of demanding to know the person who reported it? "Facing your accuser" doesn't apply in this case, since the actual accuser will be the TV rep after they've investigated and I'll know who that is when they contact me.

The reason for crime stoppers anonymous is that it is harder to take retribution. Why would you want to intimidate someone who tries to uphold the rules? If their reports are inaccurate nothing is going to happen anyways.

If the anonymous reporting stops I would like it to be replaced by paid regular inspectors to enforce the deed restrictions that we all accepted. There should be a referendum held on this topic. Let us see what the majority of the home owners want.

I would not like to see TV turn into a trailer park.

Well since the genie is now out of the bottle, here are my 2 cents: This is a proposal to LIMIT the complaints to only those who live in the vicinity of the offense while still maintaining an anonymous system. I am sure this suggestion can be improved, but I think it is a start.

The CDDs through the VCDD would use this new procedure.

1. Anyone desiring to file a written, but anonymous complaint would be required to get a form from the VCDD (either online on at the office). Phoned in complaints will no longer be accepted.

2. The complainer would fill out the form, which would include the nature of the complaint, the location of the infraction, and whether it is a serious infraction. Serious infractions would involve, buildings, water flow/drainage, infraction of build lines, permits, etc. Minor infractions would typically be signs, lawn ornaments, pink flamingos, etc.

3. The completed form would need to presented in person, with complainer’s village photo ID to the VCDD. The reason for this is that going forward, only people living in the same village would be allowed to file complaints in that village.

4. There will be a charge to be paid for each complaint filed, cash only. My thought, if the fee is high enough, it will limit the number of complaints, and only the more serious ones will actually be filed.

5. If the review board finds the complaint to be valid, then the existing procedures will be used to get the property into compliance.

This is being present for discussion, please be kind with comments, thank you.

And I’d like to see the charge to file financially compensated or even rewarded as you would have to do if you hire people as inspectors. Otherwise you are punishing the person who is trying to do the right thing!

Nuisance and unwarranted claims are a different thing completely. If the claim is unwarranted then the person filing it should be charged for the time wasted by officials. There has to be a way of discouraging them.

I don't see how the proposed new rules will improve anything. It will just allow more people to violate the rules and get away with it. If I have a violation, I'll fix it. No problem.

If the complainer pays a fee to file the complaint, I think the VCDD is legally obligated to correct bona fide violations, or they are accepting money under false pretense. Why doesn't the violator pay the fee?

There are pictures out there, most were picked up by outside cameras. More than one resident took cell phone pics as they would do drive by in multiple neighborhoods, with more than 50 complaints in a week. The 90 yo veteran that had to change landscape that had been there many years was a very sad story.

When we first moved here I thought Community Watch would report violations, or did I just dream that?

And the always "it must be you comment". Because after all, we need to try to silence those that apply fact and logic.

My night vision camera caught 'em ..... trying to enlarge the clipboad.




https://i.postimg.cc/4yfh4RQs/ladies.jpg

Oh thank you sir for this clarification. I feel much relieved. That is a good idea indeed.

It's my understanding of Florida law that everything turned into a local public agency would be very difficult to keep from public view. Thus, the system would not be anonymous. If data (names/addresses) are turned in they can be viewed by the public.

Yet they have never been identified, described or, with all the smartphones, have had their photo taken or published. Urban legend.

Myths abound.
I don’t believe any of this. Last I heard, the 90 yo veteran was 80. He aged significantly in a couple of weeks.
Some people believe anything.

...and if there's someone you met at a restaurant, who has decided he has a beef with you and finds out where you live -

he can MAKE UP FAKE OFFENSES and submit formal complaints against you, and there's nothing you can do about it, and there's nothing the compliance people can do about it, for as long as he is allowed to do so anonymously.

I've only heard of this happening once. But it has, and can, happen. Pretty sure it was an ex-husband or ex-boyfriend or former best friend, someone who knew the resident and had a falling out with them. They submitted several complaints, spaced apart by a few weeks, bringing the compliance folks over to her house fairly regularly to check out the complaints. They had to, because they had no way of knowing who the person making the complaint was, and had no way of knowing that the person making the complaint wasn't even a Villager.

First off - TV was founded as a trailer park. That's what it was, by definition, when Harold Schwartz built it. The "historic side" still has some of the original single-wides in it, and your snooty attitude toward trailer parks is frankly insulting. Yes there's such a thing as "trailer trash" but the Villages, even the Historic side, is generally not that. And - there are trailer trash who live in the nice areas right now. You can't tell by looking at their pristine lawns, but they are trailer trash from head to heart. You can tell them by how they behave at City Fire after their fourth happy-hour drink.

So can it with the trailer park nonsense.

Second off - MY neighborhood is gorgeous. Unlike the sardine cans that the rest of you call courtyard villa neighborhoods, MY neighborhood allows for us to display some actual personality. No, we are not allowed to put cars up on cinder blocks. No, tacky pink flamingos generally don't end up on lawns. There are very few political flags or signs displayed prominently anywhere. The lawns are in excellent condition, and people take pride in their property.

Third - anonymous reporting doesn't HAVE to mean that Community Standards can't know who's making the complaint. It only means the property being complained about doesn't get told who's making the complaint. Community Standards can still check to make sure that a) the person making the complaint is a Villager and b) the person making the complaint lives in the general vicinity of the property being complained about.

If an e-mail address is provided, then state law requires that the information be made publicly available. But a complainant shouldn't necessarily have to provide that information, or put it in writing. CS simply needs to see an ID, and perhaps mark the complaint with a code so they can identify the complainant, if that person turns out to be a harassing troll rather than a sincerely concerned resident.

My parents had a house on the historic side for decades (close to Mr Schwartz’ house actually) and I was very happy to visit, but it had to be sold when they died and my children weren’t allowed to live there.

I simply believe that if we buy into the deed restrictions in the first place then we need to live by them. It is more restrictive at Mallory, but I bought there because it was close to Barnes and Nobel.

I fail to understand why the anonymous system causes such animosity and debate. If an owner has violated a rule, what does it matter who the person reporting the violation is or where the person reporting the violation lives. The violator should correct the issue.

People who are unwilling to follow rules are typically the same people who are unwilling to listen to feedback regarding rules - regardless of how reasonable such feedback is presented. I completely understand why most people don’t want to directly confront such people.

And if I read one post correctly, there is a suggestion the person reporting the violation should have to drive somewhere to file the complaint in person and pay a fee! Ridiculous.

Here is a suggestion - if the violation is legitimate, TV should pay the person reporting the violation a fee as a thank you for their time and effort helping our community conform to the rules we agreed to when we purchased our home. TV can recoup the fee from the violator.

Such fees might discourage people from violating the rules in the first place. Less violations results in less reporting. Less reporting, and those mythical “trolls” can retire.

Most of the people who don't like the anonymous reporting system are the very ones who are violating the deed restrictions. I've lived with DR's most of my adult life and have never seen so many who want to break the rules we ALL agreed to when we bought here. Then they complain about the so-called but unverified "trolls" who report them.

:sigh:

And whether the alleged veteran was 80 or 90 had he not broken the rules "many years ago" (when he was 60, 70 or 80) he wouldn't have had any problems now. He should be thanked for his service but still have to follow all the rules we do. There is such a large number of vets here would that mean they should all be excluded from any violations?