The Freedom to choose: The Villages or New York city
 

The Villages versus New York City: Both are communities defined by boundaries and both have restrictions. All communities have restrictions of various types based on the particular community. We have deed restrictions and the word "restriction" implies some loss of freedom, however big or small. We can't have TV antenas on the roof and we can't get mail delivered to the house etc. etc..

New York City has "city ordinances" that also restrict certain freedoms.

We have the freedom to choose: We can live in The Villages with its restrictions or we can live in New York City with its restrictions.

Hopefully, people will do their research before choosing where to live. Most people know the character of New York City versus The Villages.

New York City dosen't get to determine our restrictions and we don't get to determine theirs.

The difference being we knew the rules when we got here - nanny Bloomberg is changing the rules during the game.

I'm a NY'r TV wannabe. I can't wait till I become a full time TV'r. There are restrictions in the neighborhood I live in now but I'll take the restrictions in TV any day of the week. The restrictions in my neighborhood are not enforced and the people do what they want anyway even after complaining. I don't see that happening In TV and I hope that the restrictions will always be enforced. The villages are clean, manicured, well maintained & coordinated. This is one of the main reasons that attracted my wife and I to move to TV.

I've been happily living in The Villages for over 13 years and there have been some rule changes. There are provisions that make it possible for changes to be made.

Are you kidding me? You are comparing TV to NY? On any level I wouldn't go there.

Have you ever been to NY? NY is a world class city, TV is a manuactured illusion.

Bloomberg is temporary.

The comparison is in regards to our freedom to choose what restrictions we will live by.

Why? Are you planning on moving to Canarsie?

Canarsie? My husband lived in Canarsie for all of his teen years. He has many fond memories.

Is it something you think I should consider? Do you live there?

No, if I were you I wouldn't consider it, I somehow don't think it would be a good fit-LOL.

As someone who was born & lived a good deal of his time in upstate NY, we are sort of born with a gene that tends to make us automatically dislike NYC for a variety of reasons.

I do occasionally like to visit large cities, but I wouldn't EVER want to live in one. My parent's house was in the country & had 10 acres. My first house was a small farm with 40 acres. I'd always prefer to live where I don't see my neighbor by looking out the kitchen window, but I know plenty of people who would HATE that lifestyle.

However..comparing NYC to The Villages doesn't work. They are 2 entirely different lifestyles. Almost nobody comes to TV for any other reason but to retire. I doubt too many people move to NYC to retire.

If you leave out the Nanny McBloomberg question, virtually ANY community has various sorts of laws & restrictions that apply to life there. Some communities have more some have less.

In many ways where you live depends on what you want in your life. Comparing NYC to TV is comparing Apples to Onions.

Of course it's apples to onions, I never said it wasn't. The point is we get to choose what matters to us most. If freedom matters most, then we can look at that and compare one to the other.

Apples to onions? I know the term as apples to oranges. Assuming NYC to be the apple, I'd much prefer to refer to TV as an orange as opposed to an onion.

Love NYC, love TV. From totally different aspects. Restrictions are everywhere. Try living in a condo complex. What, you wanna spring-clean your boat or RV? You have two days to have it in your driveway. You wanna have an awning over your deck? Sorry. You wanna have a car parked in the apron of your driveway over the summer? Huh-uh. You wanna, you wanna...? We feel free down here!

I didn't mean any disrespect by using "onions". I use onions in my cooking everyday and I value them highly in my diet. On the other hand, I don't eat oranges because I prefer grapefruit. I eat grapefruit almost every day as part of my health regimen.

You say you feel free here. Well, I do too. But it's not because of a lack of restrictions. We have plenty of restrictions. I think we like it because we see the benefits of having them.

Sorry, I don't have time to complete this thought. To be continued:

I appreciate your thoughts and ideas, Villages PL. Just adding my two cents. I see the benefits of restrictions, both in the condo and here.

We did balk and fight, however when the builder up there arbitrarily decided there would be no satellite tv allowed. We fought back and won. It was against the FCC regs, what he was doing. So in my opinion, restrictions are okay (you know about them up front and choose to accept them when you decide to live in a certain place)... unless they are unlawfully infringing upon people's rights.

As far as rule changes go, as far as I know most, if not all of our "rules" are deed restrictions and those can only be changed by the original owner who wrote the restrictions and only prior to the first sale of the property. That is why many of us are here. The rules are here to stay. We just need to have the balls to enforce them.

Agreed. But... who is "we"? I think it should be up to the powers that be to consistently enforce the rules, and not leave it up to the residents to have to complain to someone who will then arbitrarily decide whether or not to enforce said rules (a la the "bushes on top of the berm" issue.)

Then we wouldn't have bits and pieces of stuff ignored here, and similar bits and pieces of stuff not ignored there, in the same neighborhood. I am simply not going to bring grief upon my neighbors unless it's a serious issue. At the same time, I would not be happy with the aggregate, piece-by-piece degradation of the neighborhood's property values due to restriction violations that were left unchallenged.

If you're gonna have rules, have enforcement in place. I still say it's passing the buck to put this on the homeowners.

Actually, NYC is a great place to retire, if you have the means. I have many retired neighbors who enjoy an abundance of rich cultural experiences like art classes at the Met, an evening at the opera, the Philharmonic in the Park, lectures at the 92nd St. Y, etc. They have easy access to public transportation, fine dining and some of the best doctors in the world. The problem is that I would need to work 15 more years to retire in NYC, while retirement in TV is possible right now. It all comes down to affordability. After over 3 decades in NYC, I am choosing to gain those 15 years of freedom...


Sent from my KFJWI using Tapatalk 2

I agree. New York City would be a great place to retire if you have the big bucks it cost to live there. I don't remember NYC having a lot of restrictions when I lived there. Of course, there's always the alternate side parking issue.

My niece and her family live in the lower east side and absolutely love it. They are busy all the time. My niece still runs the NYC marathon every year, even at age 43. She was recently honored on the PBS documentary "The Makers", along with Hilary Clinton, Gloria Steinham, Sandra Day O'Connor, Condi Rice, Billie Jean King, and many other women who have made a difference. Cheers to NYC.

I can relate to your post. Having "seen it all" as we were born and raised in New Jersey but would visit my dad's relatives in New York City.
Then, as teenagers, we'd go on a "date" to a show or restaurant in New York City, but if truth be told.........more commonly we'd go for a Sunday ride looking for the "country roads" in N.J.........we were more country mice than city mice. Preferred farmlands and wooded forests to Central Park.

At age 25 we made the decision to relocate with our two year old daughter to rural Vermont........where we've raised our family for the past 43 years.

Our relatives in New Jersey told us we didn't live in "THE REAL WORLD".
I guess not. We returned down there less and less, over the years.

We could have lived anywhere, yet we chose a "country area"......

The Villages greatly impressed us as being very "GREEN" for Florida.....very picturesque , neat and orderly. Perfect for retirement.

No pot holes and no frost heaves sealed the deal.......especially after this past winter........our "lack of sunshine" up here certainly made Florida's perpetual sunshine much more inviting........

Upstate New York is beautiful..........Vermont's great neighbor to the west.

p.s. I can also relate to someone else's post on "condo rules and regulations" from first hand experience. Nothing can be as bad as the rules in the condo we owned on the Gulf of Mexico beachfront in Venice, Florida..........unbelievable Homeowner's Group.....very set in their ways, very rigid rules and bylaws. We didn't want to rock the boat, just wanted to add a stackable washer and dryer in our condo unit while we were totally remodeling the place.......so as not to have to go to the "laundry rooms" which were on every other floor (via elevator).........was so glad to get back to our house in Vermont with my own washer and dryer. It's the little things one appreciates.......after condo living. It came out beautiful.......gorgeous condo, gorgeous view.........but it didn't feel like home. Vermont has very few rules and regulations...at least not for homeowners in neighborhoods. Each man's home is his castle.........as it should be.

I agree, the builder can't restrict certain basic rights, like freedom of speech. But other than basic rights, they can restrict almost anything they want to. Now that I've had some time to collect my thoughts, let me give a simple comparison to explain how you can compare The Villages with N.Y.C., regarding freedom.

We willingly give up many freedoms in The Villages for the betterment of the community. This is commonly done in most communities all across the country. So why single out the Mayor of N.Y.C. for his desire to create restrictions?

The Villages:

In The Villages, we give up the freedom to choose the exterior color of our house in exchange for a neutral (bland) color scheme. This restriction, a loss of freedom, was put in place by the developer. Why? Basically, it's a control issue. If left up to individual residents to choose their own color, they might not choose wisely. And this is seen as protecting the community.

New York City:

It's no different than what Mayor Bloomberg is trying to do in N.Y.C. He wants to control the portion size of soda and reduce it from 20oz. to 16oz. because he doesn't trust N.Y.C. residents to choose wisely. And this, like the previous example, is also seen as protecting the community.

Note: Whether one likes it or not is another issue.

New York or the Villages....That's a joke right ?

With all due respect, NYC and TV are two separate entities. They are to disparate in their lifstyles.

NYC - As Patty said, NYC is world class in terms of what is offered, plays, opera houses, museums, etc. If one can afford it, it could be a viable alternative to TV.

TV - With all that being said and done, TV is a well maintained place where one goes to enjoy the warmer weather and have a very active lifestyle of fun in the sun.

Being from N.Y., I have fond memories of being raised just outside the city but close enough to get to see a play and go back to the burbs. When I lived in a condo in CT, the rules and regu.lations were monitored by our board of directors who ran it like the owners didn't have a vote on anything. They knew what was better for us, like the Mayor of NYC. Like Patty said, he is temporary.

All things considered TV is a piece of paradise no matter what the rules and regulations that are imposed and NYC has other interest that some people would never leave to live in another city. NYC has much better restaurants but at our age and the sake of out waistelines, we don't need to eat more. :jester:

Check your deed restrictions. There is no restriction on the color you can choose to paint the outside of your house in The Villages.

Do you live in the historic section east of 441? In that case, you may be correct. However, where I live in Belvedere I had my roof reshingled and there was no choice of color.

Like Henry Ford said, "you can choose any color you like as long as it's black."

You can choose any color you like to paint your driveway, but it has to be approved. And it will not be approved unless it's a bland nutral color that goes with the color of your house.

If you read the opening post, it was not the purpose of this thread to compare the amenities of N.Y.C. with the amenities of The Villages. It was to compare the nature and purpose of restrictions whether put in place by the developer or by a city council.

After suggesting that N.Y.C. couldn't be compared to The Villages, you compared your board of directors in your CT condo to Mayor Bloomberg of N.Y.C. So it seems that comparisons are possible. I agree that governing boards or mayors are temporary, and so restrictions can be changed. But that doesn't change the fact that there will still be restrictions of one sort or another.

The question is: What is the essential difference between one loss of freedom and another, other than the fact that you might like one but not another.

the fact that you even has to ask probably means you should stay in NYC.

Holy smokes.

After suggesting that N.Y.C. couldn't be compared to The Villages, you compared your board of directors in your CT condo to Mayor Bloomberg of N.Y.C. So it seems that comparisons are possible. I agree that governing boards or mayors are temporary, and so restrictions can be changed. But that doesn't change the fact that there will still be restrictions of one sort or another.

I wasn't trying to make that comparison with Mayor Bloomberg and my late condo board of directors but they operate in a similar manor. My way or the highway.

Secondly, to me there is no comparison to be made between NYC and TV. It is a preference I choose to make. I have experienced both and my opinion is TV is the best place to be, to have fun.

To each his/her own.

And the villages is no different. The developer has written restrictions into the deeds and it's his way or the highway. If you don't believe it, just try violating any of the many restrictions. It was in the Daily Sun not too long ago that some people were putting in window airconditioners. Someone complained and that was the end of that. They had to be taken down.

I would suggest it's because the specific loss of freedoms (i.e., restrictions) in the Villages are agreeable to you.

I am not in TV yet, but I view certain restriction for the good of the community at large. I wouldn't want to make an investment where my next door neighbor dragged down the value of a home with decorations that was garrish.

I really don't understand the nature of this post. Do you find living in TV oppressive? Do you not wanrt to be told what to do in terms of following rules? I believe I read several posts by you that you love Tv so I am perplexed why you post something that seems to indicate that your unhappy.

Like you title says: The Freedom to choose: The Villages or New York city - I choose TV.

We are in total agreement on that. I wouldn't want property values dragged down either.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I like TV and the deed restrictions. I'm just wondering if there is any fundamental difference between a proposed 4 ounce soda restriction in N.Y.C. and any other restriction that one might find in The Villages, or anywhere else for that matter.

It seems to me that a restriction is a restriction as long as it doesn't violate any human rights. If someone went to court over a soda restriction, in what way could they claim to be damaged?

Soda makers, restaurateurs, and movie theater owners sued on financial basis. And they won an injunction. The judge agreed with the beverage industry and other opponents that the rule is arbitrary in applying to only some sweet beverages and some places that sell them. He also said the Board of Health went beyond its authority in approving the size limit.

But it was mainly financial issues that they claimed were damaging, at least for most of the suit's parties.

No problem. I'm cool.

There probably isn't much of a difference but they are similar in that when you look at the big picture, it's a minor inconvenience. If it bothered someone that much, then they should consider living wherever a major annoyance.

Like you say, if it doesn't violate someone's civil rights.

The condo I lived in had a board member who wanted to insert a condition in the condo by-laws that people with a certain amount of kids couldnt live in our complex. He was quickly showed the error of his ways as that was a violation of civil rights and was voted down. TV has the 80/20 rule so it doesn't violate anyone one person's rights.

The mayor of N.Y. had his hands slapped by the courts. nuff said,,,,,,

If you could give me NYC without the taxes and crime and cold weather I would consider it a toss up.

NYC has come a long, long way with regards to crime. There are areas that 25 years ago, I wouldn't walk through during the day, I now feel completely safe at night. High taxes, yup, but there is such an incredible abundance of things to do, see and experience, it's worth it. Best thing about those long, cold winters are those first warm,beautiful Spring days when the earth itself seems to wake up.

It's not a real competition between NYC and TV. They each fill different needs and interests during the changing seasons of one's life. I was born, grew up, lived and worked in the City, and wouldn't trade that experience for anything. That said, I'm really looking forward to starting my second act in TV.

Take the best and leave the rest.