[dbussone]

Originally Posted by ColdNoMore

Throughout history, there hasn't been a tyrant, dictator or despot that didn't/doesn't really appreciate that attitude.

When discussing countries and political power your comment is an appropriate concern. Isn't this a different situation though? Property rights have long been upheld as existing for the individual good. I think the developer is entitled to put rules in place that protect or are favorable to the upkeep of his (and affiliated) property values...just as we can do for our individual properties. The OP was about carts for sale left on district property.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[RickeyD]

Originally Posted by dbussone

When discussing countries and political power your comment is an appropriate concern. Isn't this a different situation though? Property rights have long been upheld as existing for the individual good. I think the developer is entitled to put rules in place that protect or are favorable to the upkeep of his (and affiliated) property values...just as we can do for our individual properties. The OP was about carts for sale left on district property.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Correct. We aren't Villages citizens, merely residents.

[graciegirl]

There is nothing to make me think that things aren't run very well here, particularly where there is more developer control.

When I think things aren't going well, I will become an activist for change. I am very sincere in my respect for all of the folks who work behind the scenes taking care of things and trying to make wise decisions. There isn't enough money on this earth for anyone to want Janet Tutt's job. She is an amazing woman and I have seen her make good choices under fire. And she is often under fire.

[dbussone]

Originally Posted by RickeyD

Correct. We aren't Villages citizens, merely residents.

RD - the grin on your face shows right through your comment. [emoji41]


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Barefoot]

Post deleted. I should have bowed out of this discussion 100 posts ago.

[twoplanekid]

Originally Posted by Barefoot

108 Comments. The Prohibition applies only to district-owned property, not public streets at the Town Squares.

I believe that you are not correct! Please read what I received from the District Office - post # 1,69 and 75

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by Gpsma

Who is maligning people for being succesful? Certainly not me.

Perhaps success isnt judged by how much kool-aid you can drink.

No. I think that would have more to do with whether you just love it here or have to think about it. I know you have been thinking about it for quite some time and you said you had reservations about living in a 55+ community. I think you know right away if this is the place for you. My admiration for this place is genuine and I have seen a place or two in this old world. So perhaps this isn't the place for you.

It isn't for everyone.

[Gpsma]

You're 100% correct. But i have bought a new home recently. However, i will never buy into that the Villages is paradise.

Its nothing more than a white, republican relatively crime free, congested suburb with activities, entertainment and happy hour. None of which is bad.

But do we have to agree that it is run perfectly by the Morse Family Gods?

Maybe the powers that be could have passed a district law that said only residents of the villages can have For Sale signs on their cars in district owned property. Maybe not legal but i doubt anyone would have a problem with that

[ColdNoMore]

Originally Posted by dbussone

When discussing countries and political power your comment is an appropriate concern. Isn't this a different situation though? Property rights have long been upheld as existing for the individual good. I think the developer is entitled to put rules in place that protect or are favorable to the upkeep of his (and affiliated) property values...just as we can do for our individual properties. The OP was about carts for sale left on district property.

I have a deed that proves my home is not the developers property.

The entire CDD concept proves that the developer no longer 'owns' a lot of this property, as selling it is how they became wealthy (and more power to them for it).

I have no issue with the Developer becoming rich, I have a problem with people who like giving Total Control to ANYONE...and then trying to convince others that there's nothing wrong with that.

History proves differently and I was simply pointing out what IS wrong with it.

As the wise Barefoot (and a few others) have pointed out however, the for sale sign issue is ONLY on that property controlled by the developer.

So the developer (and his zombies) can go suck eggs, when I have my for sale sign (if I ever choose) in the window of my cart as I drive around.

[twoplanekid]

Originally Posted by ColdNoMore

I have a deed that proves my home is not the develops property.

The entire CDD concept proves that the developer no longer 'owns' a lot of this property, as selling it is how they became wealthy (and more power to them for it).

I have no issue with the Developer becoming rich, I have a problem with people who like giving Total Control to ANYONE...and then trying to convince others that there's nothing wrong with that.

History proves differently and I was simply pointing out what IS wrong with it.

As the wise Barefoot (and a few others) have pointed out however, the for sale sign issue is ONLY on that property controlled by the developer.

So the developer (and his zombies) can go suck eggs, when I have my for sale sign (if I ever choose) in the window of my cart as I drive around.

That is not true! Please read again posts 1,69 and 75.

[ColdNoMore]

Originally Posted by twoplanekid

That is not true! Please read again posts 1,69 and 75.

I understand that is the answer you received, I just don't believe it is correct.

After all, those who are used to Total Control (due to those who so easily give it to them) are also known to try and extend that control at every chance, whether legitimate or not.

I'll believe it when someone comes on here and says some kind of legal action/fine was taken toward them, while they had a for sale sign on public property.

NOT just told by someone driving around with a 'The Villages' sticker on their vehicle.

[twoplanekid]

Originally Posted by ColdNoMore

I understand that is the answer you received, I just don't believe it is correct.

After all, those who are used to Total Control (due to those who so easily give it to them) are also known to try and extend that control at every chance, whether legitimate or not.

I'll believe it when someone comes on here and says some kind of legal action/fine was taken toward them, while they had a for sale sign on public property.

NOT just told by someone driving around with a 'The Villages' sticker on their vehicle.

I understand your position. You are more than welcome to attend a Welcome Wednesday to ask the people who run The Villages that question. They can and will try their best to help you with any issue.

[dbussone]

Originally Posted by ColdNoMore

I have a deed that proves my home is not the develops property.

The entire CDD concept proves that the developer no longer 'owns' a lot of this property, as selling it is how they became wealthy (and more power to them for it).

I have no issue with the Developer becoming rich, I have a problem with people who like giving Total Control to ANYONE...and then trying to convince others that there's nothing wrong with that.

History proves differently and I was simply pointing out what IS wrong with it.

As the wise Barefoot (and a few others) have pointed out however, the for sale sign issue is ONLY on that property controlled by the developer.

So the developer (and his zombies) can go suck eggs, when I have my for sale sign (if I ever choose) in the window of my cart as I drive around.

We agree. I was one who pointed out that the the rule applied to the developer's/district property. Never said a word about your property. And I don't like dictators. I said I agreed with you on that point. [emoji41]



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[RickeyD]

[dbussone]

Originally Posted by RickeyD

Salted and buttered (real butter), I hope.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk