[Golfer222]

After data showing complaints dropped to less than 10% of what they used to be.
Time for all CDDs to follow suit.

[phylt]

Originally Posted by Golfer222

After data showing complaints dropped to less than 10% of what they used to be.
Time for all CDDs to follow suit.

SO agree. Anonymous simply rubs me the wrong way. Yes time for a Complete TV change.

[Velvet]

I disagree. I think in fact, it is a very bad idea - as we are in a complaint driven enforced community. We don’t seem to have any by-law officers. There is much latitude in my neighborhood already and people seem to get along just fine. So people move in to TV for its beauty and then ….. ? I am concerned of maliciousness and vindictiveness towards a complainer if it is not anonymous. As it is, the situation gets investigated and nothing happens if it is not a legitimate complaint. Now if one person complains often and without a legitimate reason, in my opinion, such a person should be fined, to discourage them making frivolous charges.

[JSR22]

Originally Posted by Velvet

I disagree.

So do I! There would not be any complaints if people followed the deed restrictions they signed at closing.

[Marathon Man]

Where is the information that tells us if the violations have increased, decreased, or stayed the same? Isn't that what really matters?

[shut the front door]

Op did not suggest that the identity of the complainer would be revealed to the violator. It may be that only the CDD knows. I don't know which it is, but before the hand wringing begins and the clip board ladies jump off a cliff, we should be aware of the whole story.

[Stu4206]

I believe you should know who your accuser is.

[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by Golfer222

After data showing complaints dropped to less than 10% of what they used to be.
Time for all CDDs to follow suit.

That number is meaningless.

What REALLY matters is what percentage of the complaints received were verified as legitimate.

It has to exist. Though I doubt we'll ever see it.

[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by Stu4206

I believe you should know who your accuser is.

They do. The accuser is the CDD in question. The person bringing the alleged violation to the attention of the CDD is the REPORTER.

[ThirdOfFive]

The REAL question here is, why isn't reporting violations the responsibility of Community Watch? Seems like a no-brainer to me.

[Velvet]

Originally Posted by Stu4206

I believe you should know who your accuser is.

What does it matter? If you are a violator, you have violated everyone in the whole community. If you run a stop sign does it matter WHICH policeman writes you up?

[Velvet]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

The REAL question here is, why isn't reporting violations the responsibility of Community Watch? Seems like a no-brainer to me.

Yes, that would seem right as they would be unbiased, but then we’d had increased their work so it will cost us more money.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

The REAL question here is, why isn't reporting violations the responsibility of Community Watch? Seems like a no-brainer to me.

Because Community Watch is to assist us Villagers and not to be a police force we try to avoid.

[Babubhat]

Nope. People can’t be trusted to follow the rules they agreed to. Don’t like it? Put up a for sale sign.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Stu4206

I believe you should know who your accuser is.

If the accuser is suing you in a court of law, then sure. But this isn't a court of law.
This is deed restrictions. Your accuser is Community Standards.

It's not a violation of law. It's a violation of the community rules that you agreed to abide by when you bought the property.

And I agree with whoever said that it shouldn't be anonymous to CS. CS should absolutely have a record of everyone who lodges a complaint against a property in The Villages. But the person the complaint is lodged against - should not be entitled to that information. That's what creates neighbor wars.