Carl Bell Voted Not To Enforce the Deed Restriction on Signs
 

Deleted to move to political forum. Couldn't delete completely.

Doesn't this belong in the POLITICAL FORUM?

Carl Bell Voted Not To Enforce the Deed Restriction On Signs
 

Thanks. I will move it.

Jerry

You wouldn't have a commercial interest in retaining signs north of CR 466, would you?

You wouldn't have a commercial interest in this issue would you?

You have a conflict of interest on this issue. You are placing your personal business interests ahead of those of your neighbors under the guise of trying to help them sell homes. Thin, very thin.

Bell's vote is typical of the type of governance that comes from HOAs, Condo Associations and CDDs once they are turned over to the owners. You cannot expect representatives to fully disassociate themselves from their neighbors. It is inevitable that they will vote to keep the peace in their neighborhoods.

This effect is "special interests" manipulating votes at its most local level.

This decision does not remove deed restrictions. It just formalized a refusal to enforce them. Investments have been made, in part, due to the restrictions with a full expectation that the CDDs will enforce the restrictions. It is a breach of fiduciary responsibility for the CDDs to refuse to protect our investments. Now we stand to incur legal fees to defend an indefensible position.

This is the only reason?
 

I have always found Carl Bell to be a reasonable and logical man. He has given his time freely to serve us in many different capacities using common sense, something that seems to be lacking in most political candidates. If you are making the decision not to vote for him because of his stance on this issue alone, shame on you. I believe you need to do a lot more research on both candidates and make an informed competent decision.