Increases coming to CDD?
 

Developer ready to hand off enforcement of rules against children and businesses. CDDs will need more money for legal fees to accomplish.....per The Village News.

It’s a poor decision for the CDD’s to accept. The Developer should clean up its mess and enforce the covenants in the real estate contract!

And everyone should pay their taxes and everyone should obey the speed limit and …. When faced with a non-perfect world, what do you do, continue to whine about the developer or make changes?

*If* CDD5 passes this then the questions remain:
- Will there be an enforcement mechanism?
- Will there be sufficient additional complaints to justify additional cost?
-Will any other CDD follow suit?

Too many questions to become concerned now.

I support enforcement even if it costs money.

Maybe all of the CDDs could band together and share the legal expense as well as the actual legal firms that would be involved, I believe this would be less expensive than going individually. I also believe the best approach would be a warning letter about the infraction including that the offender could (would?) be liable for the CDD legal costs if they did not cease immediately.
I am sure there will be many other considerations for enforcement, but that can be a future discussion.

How will this affect the two old biddies as they fight for truth, justice and the American way?:BigApplause:

I’m for whatever it takes if the CDD’s are willing to enforce two specific deed restrictions, properties shall be used as single family residential units and businesses cannot be run out of residential homes. That would take care of the problem of people renting out rooms to non family members while concurrently living in the home.

Where does the Developer derive the right to drop enforcement, onto the CDD's?

I assume the Developer has the right to assign his enforcement rights to whomever he wishes, but it seems the Assignee would have to affirmatively accept them?

I haven't read all that many TV deeds, so that's a question, not an assertion.

There are some homeowners who have live-in aides. They're not family, they're contractors/employees. You'd need to offer exceptions. And that means you'd have to be up in someone's health business, which is against HIPAA law.

Also how would you know that someone is renting a room to someone, and isn't in a non-marriage relationship with them? Best friends who aren't life partners, or the lady down the street who lost her husband and downsized and sold her house, and is now renting a room at a neighbor's house...

Also what of friends who share a property, but aren't related, and share expenses and sleep in their own bedrooms.

The only thing you could really enforce, is if you catch the property being offered for rent on a website, or newspaper, or a sign on the window.

The covenant says that the Developer MAY enforce internal restrictions. It doesn't say that they WILL enforce them. It wasn't all that big a deal until the last decade or two, when the older generation of owners passed on, and children inherited the properties. Once that happened, they would move in - or rent - or sell - without concerning themselves with who the buyers were.

There was also a wave of new construction when people could buy the land for little to zero money, with the contract to build on it. They got the home cheap, and flipped it as an investment. That was before the Developers realized how much money people were making off these new homes and built a "no flipping for the first year" rule into the new contracts.

Now, it -seems- as though everyone and their brother is either in the process of buying and flipping, or bought because someone else bought and flipped. I know it's just a perception and hardly the reality, but that's what makes the news.

Just a possibility:

The enforcement clause of the deed restrictions allows the developer to delegate (or some appropriate word) its right to enforce deed restrictions. All it would then take is an official agreement between the developer and the CDD laying out the specifics. The existing agreement could be modified or a separate agreement written to cover some or all of the internal restrictions.

As much as some would like it to be, hosting a guest for a night/week/month is not a violation of the deed restrictions in most areas (there is always an exception). It is not running a business out of the home, particularly not a business requiring inventory or customer visits, and it does not violate the single-family clause. It simply doesn’t.


EDIT: I cannot find any "single-family clause" in my deed restrictions. It isn't being violated anyway, but it doesn't seem to exist.

The post I responded to was positing that there should be some way to prevent people from renting rooms WHILE LIVING THERE AT THE SAME TIME. That constitutes "something other than single family residence."

Hosting my friends from MD for a time does not constitute something other than single family residence. Hosting anyone does not change the nature of the residence. When the address is used on a piece of govt issued identification THEN it might become a problem.

EDIT: As I also noted above, there does not seem to be a deed restriction requiring a single-family residence anyway. Hosting still does not create a multi-family residence, but I did not see a restriction against it anyway.