[jandbrare]

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

[big guy]

Originally Posted by jandbrare

Carl Bell is running against incumbent Don Burgess for Board of County Commissioners District 3 in the primary Election tomorrow, August 14, 2012.

Bell's website says he is for "Maintaining the beauty of the district properties". But, as a chairman of the Amenities Authority Committee, he voted not to enforce the covenanted deed restriction against signs. Unless the Developer enforces the restriction, all kinds of signs could be placed in resident's yards, not just real estate signs but political signs and commercial signs.

I think this is very poor judgement on Mr. Bell's part and I will vote for the incumbent Don Burgess.

Jerry Lester

Doesn't this belong in the POLITICAL FORUM?

[jandbrare]

Originally Posted by big guy

Doesn't this belong in the POLITICAL FORUM?

Thanks. I will move it.

Jerry

[jandbrare]

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

[jandbrare]

Originally Posted by Debbie Okruhlica Realty Executives

That is a poor excuse to not vote for this man.

It was obvious that the developers motivation was not to maintain the beauty of the villages but to stifle the independent companies in the villages.

We are not talking reducing the property value of the homes
Nor is the signs going to have a negative effect of
The beauty of the Villages. The homeowner has a first amendment right to choose what for sale signs go in or on his home. Let the homeowner make this decision not the developer.
Vote for Carl bell he is a good man and based
His decision was not based on being elected but for the need of the homeowner.

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

[Indydealmaker]

Originally Posted by Debbie Okruhlica Realty Executives

That is a poor excuse to not vote for this man.

It was obvious that the developers motivation was not to maintain the beauty of the villages but to stifle the independent companies in the villages.

We are not talking reducing the property value of the homes
Nor is the signs going to have a negative effect of
The beauty of the Villages. The homeowner has a first amendment right to choose what for sale signs go in or on his home. Let the homeowner make this decision not the developer.
Vote for Carl bell he is a good man and based
His decision was not based on being elected but for the need of the homeowner.

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.

[Indydealmaker]

Originally Posted by jandbrare

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

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.

[army one]

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.