In Today's Daily Sun Thursday August 9,2012
 

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?

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 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.

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 ! !

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.

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

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

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.

A synopsis would be appreciated.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Real Estate Signs
 

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.

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?

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.

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.

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:

signs
 

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

Well said.

Logical
 

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:

Yup !

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?

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?

How does it clearly benefit the developer?

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

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.

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?????

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

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

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.

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.