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