Yeah I had that easy, neighbor-to-neighbor conversation about a homeowner's multiple cats roaming the neighborhood, crapping in my flowerbed, and tormenting my (singular) indoor cat through the screen. It didn't end well. Turned out this neighbor was truly unhinged.

She threatened the neighbor on the other side of her property with calling the police, because the guy was hanging out on the side of his own house, ON HIS OWN property, smoking a cigarette. She actually went over the property line, approached him, and poked him on his forehead and told him that he was a problem.

He didn't want trouble so he didn't try to fight back - he just told her she should absolutely call the police. Sadly - this guy and his partner moved out because they couldn't deal with the crazy lady next door, and she moved out shortly after to go be with "her people" whatever the heck that means.

These are the kinds of nut-jobs you do NOT want knowing that it was you who called Community Standards for violations of the rules.

Your accuser is The Villages CDD.

That is not how it works.
Let's use a crazy example… Mrs. Kravitz reports you for having asphalt shingles on your roof. That is clearly not an infraction of a deed restriction. If Mrs. Kravitz reported this the CDD would not be sending you an enforcement letter. The CDD only sends enforcement letters out if the reported violation is actually a violation of the deed restriction.
Before a letter is sent out by the CDD, a representative from the CDD does come to the property and makes a visual observation. If in fact the accusation is true then… And only then do you receive a letter from the CDD.

Mixed emotions about the issue. Certainly good that frivolous complaints are significantly reduced. Then we have those complaints that are truly legit. Unfortunately we have our own share of crazy people in TV (1 OR 2 in 100). Some own guns and truly shouldn't, which gives me pause about calling them out. Something to think about.

Not necessarily. A report is made by someone, who may or may not know the deed restrictions. The report is then investigated. Only then, if in non-compliance is verified will a notification occur. This move seems to be to cut down on frivolous complaints.

really the only way it will ever be an equitable system is when it is no longer complaint driven- either anonymous or non-anonymous.

I received a letter due to an erroneous complaint filled without verification as mentioned in a previous post.

That is the selective enforcement issue. I have actually seen this in a previous community with deed restrictions.

This has been debated before. Under our legal system you have the right to face your accuser. The original post states that complaints went down by 90% when no longer
anonymous.
There are few of us that have nothing that is in violation. Is that a garden plant? Your neighbor ANONYMOUSLY thinks it is an ugly WEED.

Both violate deed restrictions in most areas. There are at least two deed restrictions violated by running short term rentals out of one’s home while living there at the same time. Renting to non family members while living in the home violates the deed restriction requiring the home be used as a single family residential unit. And since the homeowner is essentially running a one room hotel for a fee that generates taxable income, they are also violating the restriction that prohibits running a business from the home. Unfortunately, these violations are not enforced.

Rentals of one’s home while they are NOT living there, regardless of the length of the rental, does not violate any deed restrictions as long as the tenants are a single family.

Seems more a potential Waiver issue than Selective Enforcement.
.

The right to enforce a restrictive covenant may be lost due to waiver where, by failing to act, one leads another to believe that he or she is not going to insist upon enforcement of the covenant.

Most of these things are debatable. We seek perfection but, perfection rarely exists.
Perhaps, teasing. An equitable system is when they BOTHER anyone else but ME.

in other communities they elect an architectural committee that travels the neighborhood looking for violations. What happens is, OH that is John, I play bridge with him, I didn't see his violation.

Many years ago my neighbor hired a, "landscaper," to design and build his landscape. They built a cement structure that was in violation. I spoke to my neighbor and pointed it out to him. My neighbor spoke to the contractor who refused to redo the work. The guy was nasty to me-swearing etc. He is the expert, kind of stuff. I told him I would be calling the villages.
The villages were great. They sent someone to look. The, "expert landscaper," was wrong, he never filed a plan. The villages told my neighbor not to pay him. I did not want to complain BUT, if you choose not to it sort of becomes grandfathered.

Another thought on this
 

Here is another thought on this. All the CDD boards use the one group of complaint administrators. The budget for the compliance office is then divided up and paid for based on the number of complaints they handle for your CDD. Each anonymous complaint that is then found to be bogus still cost you money. If you have to put your name to the complaint and CDD 5 complaint numbers are down 90%, then their cost for the complaint system should be down by 90% also. Seems like a way to trim our expenditures as a CDD without much effort.

The CDD is the accuser, as the violation is against the deed restriction not one person in particular.

That seems like a sensible compromise. Signed public complaints reminds me of countries where people are allowed to vote, but their vote is public. It discourages people from voting. Sort of like the complaint rate dropping by 90%.

On the other hand, perhaps most of those complaints are coming from one or two people in an area. I’ve seen plenty of violations but never considered reporting them.

The Clipboard ladies have a weakness , Margaritas and a Prolapsed Bladder…having a collection of clipboards hanging from your headboard is similar to a “get out of jail Free” card…

I agree. It's fine to keep the reporter anonymous from the violator, but that person should live in the same section. That way it is only those with a vested interest in the appearance of the neighborhood that can complain, and the two old biddies can shove their clipboard you-know-where.

I am not in favor of anonymous complaints, which is a good thing since I happen to live in
CDD 5. When I drive around I sometimes see things I suspect are not in compliance, but look nice, and one such example is a flower bed with a couple of metal sandhill cranes. I have often gone by there and thought "Gee, I hope the anonymous clipboard ladies don't complain about that"...
I think complaining anonymously is cowardly. If you can't look a person in the eye and politely explain why you want them to change something, maybe you are nitpicking and should find something else to worry about.

We were the subject of a complaint in CDD5. When we asked the Community Standards rep who filed the complaint, we were told the name. We had already guessed but he confirmed our suspicions.

If you violated a deed restriction why not just correct it?

Blame the accuser?
 

Why are the reporters the villain? If everyone would follow the agreements they signed the whole reporting system would not be necessary. Grow up and be responsible to your obligation to follow the agreements!

Ok maybe
 

If your charged with a crime….of course…..but not if you keep a dirty yard.

Are the rules that hard to follow or am I missing something? Isn’t it easier to just follow the rules than get all mad? What is going on here??

Joe

No doubt that in a very few years it will be easy to tell you've entered CCD5, for we will be easily recognized by all of the junk cars on blocks, doorless refrigerators , and neon whirligigs spinning wildly in the yards.
Without anonymous complainers, we are doomed.

The fact that people want to "know" the accuser's name implies there is to be some form of retribution against the accuser. It's hard to argue otherwise.

As noted many times over, you sign an agreement when you purchase your home to abide by the restrictions. It's difficult to comprehend why a potential violation of those restrictions is now someone else's fault? Deed restrictions are intended to protect property values. If a homeowner has no intent of honoring such restrictions then they shouldn't purchase in a community with restrictive convenants.

I've lived in communities with a POA and deed restrictions for many years and I've never found it difficult to abide by those restrictions. Violations were reported to the POA and the POA took action without disclosing the name of the indivdual(s) who reported the violation. I don't think it's unreasonable for Community Standards (or whoever enforces the deed restrictions) to request the name of the person(s) who identify the non-compliance but there really is no reason for that name to be disclosed to the homeowner who is not in compliance - unless, that homeowner wants to exact some form of retribution. Sometimes we can get out of compliance unknowingly and sometimes people think they are above the rules. It doesn't matter the reason(s), out of compliance is out of compliance.

I personally want the restrictions enforced to protect property values. Homes are very, very expensive in The Villages and protecting those property values should be of great concern to all of us.

Did you correct the violation? Did you then speak with the person who
reported a suspected violation?

I believe in the ol’ adage “if it’s not broke don’t fix it”. I see no need for a change that could start a neighbor against neighbor quarrel.

Make sure your complaint is really a legitimate complaint if you do your homework instead of using your own personal feelings then no problem

Nobody is disagreeing that we need rules and we all signed on for them. The issue is they are not applied equally in a complaint driven system. My lawn ornament gets taken down due to a complaint. My neighbors exact same gets to stay up because no one complained

Because the reporters are often retaliating against other homeowners rather than the non compliance.

For example, six homes in a row have thre same non compliance, in place for over ten years, one gets reported.


.

There are people in the Villages who are just like some people everywhere: Angry, aggressive, unpleasant.

There are people who are angry with their own lives, so they lash out at others who aren't actually doing anything offensive. Such as - reporting someone for a violation on their property, when the violation isn't even a valid one. Example: getting your driveway widened after you received permission from ARC and CS to do so ten years ago, exactly as planned, in the exact correct color, and it was signed off on ten years ago. But someone wants to be angry and get you in trouble so they report it. It has to be investigated, it's a pain for ARC and CS and the homeowner, but it's 100% legit, and the complaining party gets to watch the sh&tshow from a distance, safe behind his wall of anonymity.

There are people on the other side as well - people who violate the rules because they know it'll stir up a HUGE to-do. Like having a little white cross sticking up from their flowerbeds. "It's JUST a little white cross" they say. But if it was such a nothing-berder, there wouldn't be posts here, and on the villages online news rag, and neighbors commenting, and the CS having to inspect, and present the homeowner with fines, and lawyers and hearing dates and what not. The people who leave the white cross up after being told to take it down are doing so because they can, because they WANT the drama. Not because they have any particular affiliation with any religion at all that requires they put a cross in their flowerbed. There is no such religion, it doesn't exist. They're doing it to proclaim "discrimination against religions, freedom of religion, mah freedumbs!"

That's all it's about.

So we have these rules that people /should/ follow, and are only enforced when someone complains. The people who WOULD be angry and loud and obnoxious about how they have their "freedumbs" to express themselves even if it's against their own deed restrictions - are the people who should not know that you're the one who complained. They can be dangerous, unhinged, and vengeful (because they think "vengeance is mine, sayeth the lord" applies to them as well).

The people who have nothing better to do than be angry at the world and complain all the time should also not have the homeowner find out it's them. You don't know why they're angry. If the homeowner finds out and tries to confront them, they could end up with their cat poisoned in their own back yard the next week.

Let the CS and ARC do what they do. Let THEM know who's complaining. But don't "dox" these people. It's dangerous business.

I don't remember signing one. The only change I've made so far is putting a bug zapper in the carport

That's just silly!

Then you don't own here. Or didn't know what you were signing at closing.

Thanks for the reply. So are there cases of people being harassed with bogus complaints they have to deal with? Like as in the example above of complaining about a cross and it was just a plant?

I thought it was more stuff like "no sculptures in your landscape features" (not sure if that's even a rule) so that you couldn't put a statue of satan sodomizing a cherub or something like that in front of your house. So if you don't let anybody have the satan statue you can't let anybody have a statue of some birds either. Not sure if what I'm asking even makes sense (sorry)

Joe

And how do you propose to identify the frequent complainer in an anonymous complaint system?

If the CDD notices a pattern of unjustified complaints.

Buy a home sign an agreement and then complain about the rules. Man up and except what you signed, getting tired of hearing people

You can find your deed restrictions here, then you will know
VCDD Community Standards

The mind numbing effects of the Koolaid.