[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

This is how taxes go up. Add a level of responsibility that requires more time and work. I like that how we do it is not adding cost to anything. Add a little here and a little there and SOMEBODY has to pay for it.

The Villages Watch is doing their job and they aren't paid much for it but watching and reporting unusual happenings to the police and telling folks they left their garage door up and coming when they are called to be a "connector" to other services is very helpful. They are our not expensive but appreciated neighbors and they are not appreciated ENOUGH until you live here for several years.

Taxes always go up, you may get 10 cent break occasionally, but down the road the get it back and 400% plus more.

[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by charlieo1126@gmail.com

This is going to ruin the villages. People will now do whatever they want , the post above be careful what you wish for. , in these times no one is going to complain no matter how bad we he violation is

Only in district 5

[Jayhawk]

Originally Posted by eyc234

They must be better at disguises than Tom Hanks in Mission Impossible.

Follow the rules and your neighbors will stop reporting you.

Tom Hanks was disguised as Tom Cruise in that movie.

[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by tvbound

It's been interesting to follow the various threads on this issue. While I hope our eventual home will comply with all of the required deed restrictions (after all, we will have agreed to doing so when we sign the papers) if it doesn't I would have no problem being told so. As far as who is reporting me, I couldn't care less as I'm either in compliance, or I'm not. Even the police use anonymous tips, to minimize the potential of retribution or payback, and I would think the same reasoning would apply to those reporting a lack of compliance. As I understand it, the non-compliance has to be investigated by a TV representative before action can be taken, so what is the purpose of demanding to know the person who reported it? "Facing your accuser" doesn't apply in this case, since the actual accuser will be the TV rep after they've investigated and I'll know who that is when they contact me.

If you brought resale you could get blind sided cause there no Guarantee it was violation free. Majority probably has some kind of violations?

[yankygrl]

Originally Posted by Topspinmo

Only in district 5

The complaints should go DOWN. We all know of the trolls who drive around and look for issues. I have had a “neighbor”:turn me into compliance 2 times about a bush that is in the back yard of my villa. First time because it was over grown, (yes but not encroaching on anyone else’s property) second time same bush was “blocking” their sprinkler. Again if it was blocking the sprinkler then that sprinkler is on my property. I have yet to find out which neighbor. This week I’m calling community standards and want a representative to meet me there and tell me which neighbor it is.

[retiredguy123]

Originally Posted by yankygrl

The complaints should go DOWN. We all know of the trolls who drive around and look for issues. I have had a “neighbor”:turn me into compliance 2 times about a bush that is in the back yard of my villa. First time because it was over grown, (yes but not encroaching on anyone else’s property) second time same bush was “blocking” their sprinkler. Again if it was blocking the sprinkler then that sprinkler is on my property. I have yet to find out which neighbor. This week I’m calling community standards and want a representative to meet me there and tell me which neighbor it is.

If you don't have a violation, why not just tell community standards that? If you are in compliance, you don't need to do anything.

[GPGuar]

Originally Posted by villagetinker

Well since the genie is now out of the bottle, here are my 2 cents: This is a proposal to LIMIT the complaints to only those who live in the vicinity of the offense while still maintaining an anonymous system. I am sure this suggestion can be improved, but I think it is a start.

The CDDs through the VCDD would use this new procedure.

1. Anyone desiring to file a written, but anonymous complaint would be required to get a form from the VCDD (either online on at the office). Phoned in complaints will no longer be accepted.

2. The complainer would fill out the form, which would include the nature of the complaint, the location of the infraction, and whether it is a serious infraction. Serious infractions would involve, buildings, water flow/drainage, infraction of build lines, permits, etc. Minor infractions would typically be signs, lawn ornaments, pink flamingos, etc.

3. The completed form would need to presented in person, with complainer’s village photo ID to the VCDD. The reason for this is that going forward, only people living in the same village would be allowed to file complaints in that village.

4. There will be a charge to be paid for each complaint filed, cash only. My thought, if the fee is high enough, it will limit the number of complaints, and only the more serious ones will actually be filed.

5. If the review board finds the complaint to be valid, then the existing procedures will be used to get the property into compliance.

This is being present for discussion, please be kind with comments, thank you.

I think it’s a great idea, enough with these anonymous trolls I don’t live in the immediate neighborhood. My only concern is why Should there be a charge.

[Jayhawk]

Originally Posted by GPGuar

I think it’s a great idea, enough with these anonymous trolls I don’t live in the immediate neighborhood. My only concern is why Should there be a charge.

Why care WHO reports the violation as long as YOU are in compliance?

[mjdollard]

Originally Posted by CFrance View Post
I thought this was a developer's rule. How can that be changed?

You are correct, or at least you were. The deed restrictions (section 8) could only be changed by the Developer. When the CDD's were set up over time the developer handed the power to change things to the CDD. Section 2.28 of the original deed restrictions also covers rules/regs and how changes are reserved to the Developer. This section includes that the Developer has 5 days to notify you of changes to deed restrictions. From the wording here and in the 42 pages of CDD rules I would expect a first class letter, if not a certified letter when this was instituted - it could be argued that no notice, no change. As to what CDD you are in - most CDD's in 5 to 10 read about the same.

Especially important in regards to the CDD "District Rules" that have been adopted - they add several significant changes including allowing anonymous complaints (It is no longer an 'Owner' it is 'the complainant') and adding that religious symbols are banned unless for seasonal display. I suppose that under that definition you could put up a white cross and pick your own season each month.

I do agree with several of the posts - you should have to live in the village where the subject property is located.

An observation - I was at the June meeting for CDD 9. The chairman of the board proposed a rule that you would need your neighbors written approval of the color before you could paint your house. Think about what could go wrong. BTW it failed for lack of a second.

[Arvilla]

We bought here because of a previous situation where we kept the peace by staying quiet. This will only junk up the lawns

[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by Topspinmo

If you brought resale you could get blind sided cause there no Guarantee it was violation free. Majority probably has some kind of violations?

Very interesting, how would the new buyer know?

[HappyRetired]

Originally Posted by villagetinker

Well since the genie is now out of the bottle, here are my 2 cents: This is a proposal to LIMIT the complaints to only those who live in the vicinity of the offense while still maintaining an anonymous system. I am sure this suggestion can be improved, but I think it is a start.

The CDDs through the VCDD would use this new procedure.

1. Anyone desiring to file a written, but anonymous complaint would be required to get a form from the VCDD (either online on at the office). Phoned in complaints will no longer be accepted.

2. The complainer would fill out the form, which would include the nature of the complaint, the location of the infraction, and whether it is a serious infraction. Serious infractions would involve, buildings, water flow/drainage, infraction of build lines, permits, etc. Minor infractions would typically be signs, lawn ornaments, pink flamingos, etc.

3. The completed form would need to presented in person, with complainer’s village photo ID to the VCDD. The reason for this is that going forward, only people living in the same village would be allowed to file complaints in that village.

4. There will be a charge to be paid for each complaint filed, cash only. My thought, if the fee is high enough, it will limit the number of complaints, and only the more serious ones will actually be filed.

5. If the review board finds the complaint to be valid, then the existing procedures will be used to get the property into compliance.

This is being present for discussion, please be kind with comments, thank you.

This procedure sounds reasonable, particularly the written form and ID for proof that you live in the same village. The name doesn't have to be recorded--just proof you live there. I don't think we need to charge as in-person/same village might cut down on the trolls. Although, one thing to think about is phone calls to question if an "offence" is actually reportable. I've called on behalf of people who want to know if something is allowed within my *district* (not necessarily village) before initiating a complaint.

My biggest peeve is the trolls who don't live in the area of the complaint.

[Velvet]

So what was the reason behind the proposed change in district 5? I thought the previous way was cheap (you didn’t have to hire anyone) and working.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

The community standards and ARC people are also members of that group of humanoids known as "anyone." There is no reason why THEY can't report violations as well. In fact - if they send someone out to handle a complaint against 123 Smith Drive reported in by Amos Jones, there's no reason why they can't notice that 125 Smith Drive next door has a shed in the back yard, and report that as a violation.

The reason they don't is arbitrary. They don't, because they don't. There's no reason why they can't. And if they choose not to report violations they SEE with their own eyes, then they should not have the authority to fine people who violate rules that are reported by anyone else. They should set the example.

Either a thing is against the rules or it isn't. If the community standards refuses to report something they SEE - simply because someone ELSE didn't report it - then no one should be getting in trouble for violating the same rule.

Complaint-driven enforcement is weakwilled, passive-aggressive, and creates disputes rather than solving them.

Again - either something is against the rules, or it isn't. Enforcement should be based on what is known, not just what is complained about.

[eyc234]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

The community standards and ARC people are also members of that group of humanoids known as "anyone." There is no reason why THEY can't report violations as well. In fact - if they send someone out to handle a complaint against 123 Smith Drive reported in by Amos Jones, there's no reason why they can't notice that 125 Smith Drive next door has a shed in the back yard, and report that as a violation.

The reason they don't is arbitrary. They don't, because they don't. There's no reason why they can't. And if they choose not to report violations they SEE with their own eyes, then they should not have the authority to fine people who violate rules that are reported by anyone else. They should set the example.

Either a thing is against the rules or it isn't. If the community standards refuses to report something they SEE - simply because someone ELSE didn't report it - then no one should be getting in trouble for violating the same rule.

Complaint-driven enforcement is weakwilled, passive-aggressive, and creates disputes rather than solving them.

Again - either something is against the rules, or it isn't. Enforcement should be based on what is known, not just what is complained about.

So you are saying some arbitrary ARC or community standards person aka troll (that no one has ever seen) should be making complaint!!!. How is this different than someone in the community with real need to keep property and property values up making a complaint? The entire matter comes down to meeting the deed compliance that you agreed to follow. If you buy pre owned home it is up to you to make sure the seller guarantees the property meets all legal requirements.