Looking at this photo: the ladies look quite young, from their neckline and toned calves, to have nothing else to do. They seem to have a golf club bag with clubs in the back of the golf cart. And if they were caught by night vision, then they were driving by at night. Might be hard to see any infarctions in the dark. To me it looks like they were returning from a game of late in the day golf. But I could be wrong.

This does not mean that yards can be out of compliance. The complaint can still be filed and the homeowner can still be forced into compliance. It just means you know who complained. If the trolls want to keep their vigilance they just have to put down their names. It is better than suspecting 95% of your neighbors for the trivial complaint than knowing the one who was displeased.

But, if the purpose for having a compliance enforcement system is to increase compliance, this new method will surely result in decreasing, not increasing compliance. The exact opposite of what you are trying to achieve. It makes no sense.

See post 72. If you’re out of compliance, who cares if you suspect “95% of your neighbors” ? If you don’t think there are nut jobs who live here that would intimidate—or worse—you’re sadly mistaken.

No one should have to put up with a neighbor who doesn’t abide by rules because they’re frightened as to how he’ll react.

The system may not be perfect, but it does protect residents. And it should.

Code inforcemeht
 

We pay dearly into Community Watch.! Why can’t they report what they see, as part of them r duties?

Sounds like the committee who was suppose to create a better horse and managed to create a Camel. Pitting neighbor against neighbor is not a good idea IMHO. Yep, careful what you wish for.

Well said. I think the advantages of anonymous reporting outweigh the other arguments. I am concerned about the deteriorating appearance of properties here without anonymous reports. I also worry about how unfriendly The Villages will become if reports are made without the benefit of anonymity. So, now that the 3-2 decision was made, what happens next? Does anyone know?

Not in district developer sold out.

They could of made not so trolling? How? By putting village ID on the complaint. This clears up several concerns. You have to be villages resident, you have live in that district to file complaint. No ID number, trashed, don’t live in that district, trashed. No one but district authorities would know who turned in the complaint and villager has to live in that district due to all district don’t have the exact same rules.

Each district have some differences in rules. IMO only it will work is have to be villager and living i. That district, name don’t have to be revealed with village ID number and not public information.

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

Only in district 5

Tom Hanks was disguised as Tom Cruise in that movie.

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

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.

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?

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.

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

Very interesting, how would the new buyer know?

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.

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.

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.

:shocked::shocked: 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.

:ohdear: So following this thought process if I see someone breaking in your house but I do not live in your village I just ignore it? Of course those bare electrical cables hung by zip ties out to the plug nailed to the tree in the front yard I will ignore as well!

Rules are not laws, laws are not rules. Might be helpful to distinguish between the two before making complaints to anyone about the violation of either one.

Ummmm, I pray you were joking :pray: because quite obviously I was! :1rotfl:

No, I"m not saying that. If I was saying that, I would've said that. I didn't say that. I posted what I posted. Stop interpreting it and take it for face value.

And here's the point - which is the last sentence, which is usually where people who post things put their point:

But just in case you are trying to interpret it and give it meaning that it doesn't have again, here it is again, in different words:

Complaint-driven enforcement is bad. Either a thing is against the rules, or it isn't. It shouldn't be up to ONLY someone complaining. Because when you leave it up to ONLY a person complaining, then you revert to the old 10-year-old-kid mentality of: it's not against the rules unless you get caught. That is exactly what complaint-driven enforcement means. It means it's only against the rules if you get caught.

That is super low standards, for supposedly civilized people.

That had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with my comment that you quoted. If you REALLY "believe the 2 ladies in a golf-cart" legend I have a big "Q" sign to sell you. :D Everyone "knows someone" who saw them but like the loch ness monster and bigfoot there isn't any verifiable proof. ;) Besides, they would probably be 99 yrs old by now unless they are a secret organization part of the "deep Villages."

Yep.

I can see it now. “Hey Joe, that pinwheel you just put in the front yard is not allowed. Can you take it down?” Joe says, what the h*** do you care what I put in my front yard? Mind your own business. ****you.” Oh yea, this is going to be interesting.

Why?
 

My biggest problem is not with the reporting system, but with those doing the reporting. Why do they wait until a major project is finished to report the violation? Are all the neighbors not at home when the work is being done? The big painted mural on a garage door or the driveway extension come to mind. These obviously were not two-hour projects. This is when the report should be made, not after completion. On major projects, require that the ARC approval paperwork be posted on/in a window where it can be seen from the street. Then if someone must make a complaint, complain that there is no approval paperwork posted and a project seems to be in the works.

As for resales, The Villages should have to sign off that the property is in compliance and could be used as a reference if a report came in about non-compliance. This should be for all resales by any realtor or FSBO. What is a violation in one area, is not a violation in another. Complaints should be held to submission of those in the reporter's area for this reason, if not for any other.

I can also assure you that everyone is not in total compliance with every single covenant, too. Please reread yours in its entirety, not just the parts about signage, landscaping, improvements...every single one of them. You might be in for a surprise and find you, too, are "in violation" of at least one.:icon_wink:

.
.
.
...from the 'online news source'>>>>

Some Villagers believe ditching anonymous complaints could be death of trolls
August 23, 2020

Meta Minton
Residents are reacting to a decision to ditch anonymous complaints when it comes to deed compliance in The Villages.

Last week, Community Development District 5 voted to end the anonymous complaint system that has been a crucial part of deed compliance in The Villages. The CDD 5 board voted 3-2 to stop relying on anonymous complaints, which make up 96 percent of the complaints made to Community Standards.

Lois Philbrick, of the Village of Briar Meadow, a resident of Community Development District 4, approves of the move made by the CDD 5 board.

She said this type of action could help put the “trolls” into permanent retirement.

“Anonymous reporting allows people who do not even live in a neighborhood to send in complaints,” Philbrick said.

She said that rather than having the trolls act as a vigilante force, it’s time for neighbors to start talking to neighbors again. She pointed to cases that have made deed compliance headlines in Florida’s Friendliest Hometown.

“Making the lady who put in astro turf remove it when the neighbors haven’t objected and even complimented her on the look it provides is just vindictive. Extending a driveway so a disabled vet can get in and out of his van easier just makes sense and it didn’t detract from anything,” Philbrick said.

Lee Gilpin, of the Village of Liberty Park, who attended last week’s CDD 5 meeting, said the move by the board makes sense.

“As I understand it, the common sense endeavor is intended to eliminate violations being frivolously and anonymously ‘reported’ to the Department of Community Standards,” Gilpin said.

“The party anonymously submitting the report may be exercising a grudge-related issue, or the report may just be a challenge to locate technical but harmless violations of ‘the rules.’ With this action in District 5 I see no likelihood of MORE violations occurring. There are plenty of proud homeowners who would gladly report seriously harmful or dangerous violations,” Gilpin said.

Earlier this year, the Village of Sunset Pointe was rocked when homeowner Thomas Rinker was the target of an anonymous complaint aimed at his landscaping that had been unknowingly placed 15 years earlier in a Sumter County right of way. Rinker’s whole neighborhood came out to support his landscaping, but the CDD 5 board was forced – by the rules – to find him in violation of deed compliance.

If CDD 5’s new rule that a complainant must provide a name is approved in October, the person reporting Rinker’s violation would have been required to provide a name.

Michael Jones, of the Village of St. Charles, fears that CDD 5’s decision could create chaos in neighborhoods.

“By not allowing anonymous reporting of deed restriction violations that would cause undue tension in neighborhoods or worse. This would pit neighbor against neighbor or non-reporting of these infractions,” Jones said.

He is encouraging CDD 5 supervisors to “rethink” the vote and “the repercussions that it could cause.”

The change is not taking effect immediately.

The rule change and actual language will have to be advertised to the public for 28 days. The board will take a final vote in October.

Do the deed restrictions require that the compliance committee impose fines, or do they merely say the compliance committee CAN impose fines of "up to" x...?

Because it it says they CAN impose fines, then the committee would also be free to dismiss a complaint, or reduce a fine and still impose it as a way of saying "yes, they violated something that we are not allowed to forgive, but we really don't care, so just give us $20 and call it a day."

They could even impose a $20 lien on the house, if the deed restrictions don't expressly forbid it. That way the homeowner can continue on as usual, and when he sells the house, he'll have to give $20 to the compliance committee. Or the $20 lien can convey to the next homeowner.

I just don't think this should be nearly as complicated as it seems to be. The astro-turf people should not be complained about, because astro-turf actually INCREASED the property value. But if it's against the rules, hey it's against the rules. Tell the homeowner "you can either remove the astro turf and replace with complaint landscaping OR we'll put a $20 lien on your house."

Same with the people with the mural on their garage door - which is actually gorgeous and a neighborhood landmark (telling your visiting aunt that you live 4 doors to the right of the mural is a great way to explain which house is yours). Just like I use "the red house" to describe directions to my house.

People visiting don't really understand the significance of "the red house" until they drive up toward it. And then they know immediately - oh yeah - "this is the house she said to do this next set of directions with."

NO. Complaint driven enforcement is NOT bad. It means that if you complain and it isn't against the rules, no action will be taken. AND no one will look at you with cold eyes if and when we ever have driveway parties again. In my opinion.

I hope that all people who have not done so, will take the class on how The Villages works offered monthly, as soon as there is no danger to catch Covid-19.

It also means that everyone who violates the rules, and are NOT complained about, get to continue violating the rules while the people who ARE complained about have to comply.

In other words, it's only against the rules if someone complains about it. For everyone else, it's not against the rules.

Yes. And a lot of these folks carry. Are District 5 supervisors willing to take on liability if someone gets hurt?

Yes. One may want to upkeep the deed restrictions but not necessarily antagonize their neighbors.

Regarding the Astro turf, if one is allowed it would set a precedent. If she can have it why do I pay thousands a year to upkeep my grass when a cheap artificial stuff I could get could replace it? Although hers maybe of good quality what about people who can’t afford the good stuff.

.
.
.
personally, I am ALL FOR the adherence of deed restrictions etc etc. Not for the anonymous reporting. It's easy to see violations, esp stacked walls, shrubs etc etc on easements riding around. If we had an 'issue' with someone simply make that call and Bam! Are these things (minor violations) hurting us or harming the beauty of TV? STRICT "Rules are Rules" could be a two-edged sword, becoming an "Eye for an Eye".
.
.
.