[NotGolfer]

If this is a poll....I'd vote for againest signs in the yard. I don't care for the looks--even though they were utilized 'up north' to sell homes! We all signed a deed compliance therefore we knew about the restrictions when we bought. To think we can sign something THEN try to change things afterwards is ludicrous!!

[cathyw]

Originally Posted by NotGolfer

If this is a poll....I'd vote for againest signs in the yard. I don't care for the looks--even though they were utilized 'up north' to sell homes! We all signed a deed compliance therefore we knew about the restrictions when we bought. To think we can sign something THEN try to change things afterwards is ludicrous!!

NotGolfer----All VILLAS north of 466 and some villages such as Santo Domingo and Rio Grande have deed restrictions that state that they CAN have For Sale/ For Rent signs in the yards.

[jandbrare]

Originally Posted by janmcn

The information provided at this meeting is inaccurate. Click on the attached link, select any villa neighborhood on the right hand side; Rio Grande Villas, for example, scan down to Article VII Section 4 and read the following: Professional signs advertising a property for sale or rent shall be allowed.


VCDD Deed Compliance - Sumter County

The fact that villas are excepted from the "No sign" covenant was mentioned in the recent meeting. I failed to note that in my account. Here are some pictures of for sale/for rent signs in a villa:https://plus.google.com/photos/117211458637250641413/albums/5771741068087104913

[CarolSells]

I don't live in or own property in TV so I'm not really in a position to post an opinion on banning for sale signs on lawns there.

What I would like to do is defend Realtors who always get bashed in threads on buying/selling houses IMHO.

1) When listing a property for sale or lease, the owners expect you to do everything in your professional power to get their home the maximum amount of market exposure possible. This usually includes a For Sale sign. It is just expected even tho you may say that most people shop via the internet. Many sellers still expect the agent to hold an Open House. TV is unique in regard to Open Houses because in most markets they are not an effective tool any more. People do drive around neighborhoods that they're interested in and make sign calls on houses that catch their eye. Buyers today educate themselves about the market before they ever contact an agent to represent them. A small, tasteful yard sign shouldn't hurt a neighborhood.

2) So the selling agent leaves the sign with the "Sold" rider on until the day of closing? And? Do you have a problem with your car dealer's logo on the back of your car for the entire time you own said car? How about your golf cart?

3) Please cut us some slack. We neither dictate any rules nor set the market values of the properties on your street.

Okay. I'm done.

[njbchbum]

jandbrare -

i question the applicabilty of the nar report:
1] it is from 2010 - what is the actual date of the statistics despite its publication date?
2] it reflects nation-wide data - aren't such statistics significantly different from the sales in the villages? after all, how many of us are relocating due to employment? based on many forum posts, i am of the opinion that real estate sales in the villages is considerably more unique that the market 'beyond the bubble'.

you posted, "Each of Districts 1-5 will have the choice of ignoring the deed restriction or enforcing it." so am i correct in assuming that the bottom line to riling up all of the concerned realtors and villagers is that nothing has changed and each of the districts will still be allowed to govern themselves through the wishes/wants/needs of their residents; and that the villagers who do not live in the impacted cdds and the developer will not have any impact on their decisions?

what i have not yet seen is the resolution to the developer's action to eliminate all real estate signage effective june 15th. are the impacted cdds still permitted to display real estate for sale signs until such time as they hold a meeting/vote on the matter or are they still strangled by the developer's edict?

[rp001]

why is it that the majority of folks here are very conservative,(less restrictions/government) but are insistent on MORE regulation..I don't get it...Too many rules.

[cathyw]

Originally Posted by njbchbum

jandbrare -

i question the applicabilty of the nar report:
1] it is from 2010 - what is the actual date of the statistics despite its publication date?
2] it reflects nation-wide data - aren't such statistics significantly different from the sales in the villages? after all, how many of us are relocating due to employment? based on many forum posts, i am of the opinion that real estate sales in the villages is considerably more unique that the market 'beyond the bubble'.

you posted, "Each of Districts 1-5 will have the choice of ignoring the deed restriction or enforcing it." so am i correct in assuming that the bottom line to riling up all of the concerned realtors and villagers is that nothing has changed and each of the districts will still be allowed to govern themselves through the wishes/wants/needs of their residents; and that the villagers who do not live in the impacted cdds and the developer will not have any impact on their decisions?

what i have not yet seen is the resolution to the developer's action to eliminate all real estate signage effective june 15th. are the impacted cdds still permitted to display real estate for sale signs until such time as they hold a meeting/vote on the matter or are they still strangled by the developer's edict?

njbchbum....This is what I took away from the CDD Workshop....Janet Tutt (Villages District Staff) stated that the district is not going to enforce the ban at this time. They also previously sent letters to some residents advising them of fines. She stated that this was an ERROR. No resident should have gotten a letter and no fines will be imposed at this time. Each of the 5 CDD's was asked to further discuss this matter at their upcoming individual CDD meetings and give a recomendation (whether to enforce the ban or not) back to Janet Tutt. So,for now, we are back to complaint driven deed compliance.

[chuckinca]

Note that most on TOTV don't want signs while most of the public at the meeting wanted signs.

Could it be that the TOTV folks are not in tune with the general public in TV?

Or, those who wanted signs took the time to attend the meeting while those who didn't want the signs expressed their position sitting at home in front of their computers?

Or - - - ?


.

[OscarOlden]

NO SIGNS! They are tacky.

[njbchbum]

cathyw,

thanx for that reply...now i am left to wonder why should any of those cdds get back to janet tutt with a recommendation to enforce or not when enforcement is clearly a decision left to the cdds!

[jandbrare]

njbchbum,

i question the applicabilty of the nar report:
1] it is from 2010 - what is the actual date of the statistics despite its publication date?
2] it reflects nation-wide data - aren't such statistics significantly different from the sales in the villages? after all, how many of us are relocating due to employment? based on many forum posts, i am of the opinion that real estate sales in the villages is considerably more unique that the market 'beyond the bubble'.

I can't answer your questions

you posted, "Each of Districts 1-5 will have the choice of ignoring the deed restriction or enforcing it." so am i correct in assuming that the bottom line to riling up all of the concerned realtors and villagers is that nothing has changed and each of the districts will still be allowed to govern themselves through the wishes/wants/needs of their residents; and that the villagers who do not live in the impacted cdds and the developer will not have any impact on their decisions?

Seems so.

what i have not yet seen is the resolution to the developer's action to eliminate all real estate signage effective june 15th. are the impacted cdds still permitted to display real estate for sale signs until such time as they hold a meeting/vote on the matter or are they still strangled by the developer's edict?

I have not seen any real estate signs outside of villas north of 466 in some time. According to Janet Tutt at the meeting on Monday, notices are being given to any resident who displays a sign on their property asking them to remove the sign. I have not actually seen one of the notices, so I don't know what it says.

I favor the restriction on real estate signs for aesthetic reasons, and having learned that I actually signed a covenant (I didn't know until all the hub bub.), I am completely content to comply with it. I'm not interested in getting into an argument about whether a home owner ought to have a "right" to put up a sign or whether the NAR report applies to The Villages.

District 5 has never allowed real estate signs and the District 5 supervisors present at the meeting on Monday were unanimously in favor of continuing their compliance with the deed restriction that prohibits signs. Their response reinforces my conviction, and I am hopeful that my District 3 supervisors will vote to comply and I hope that all other Districts north of 466 do likewise.

[Barefoot]

Originally Posted by chuckinca

Or, those who wanted signs took the time to attend the meeting while those who didn't want the signs expressed their position sitting at home in front of their computers?

That would be my guess. People who want signs feel passionately about it. People who don't want signs can anticipate the probable outcome and don't feel their attendance is necessary.

Hijack ... By the way, your cat is gorgeous.

[cathyw]

There are PLENTY of Real Estate Signs up on the lawns in the Villas north of 466.

[lovesports]

Originally Posted by chuckinca

Note that most on TOTV don't want signs while most of the public at the meeting wanted signs.

Could it be that the TOTV folks are not in tune with the general public in TV?

Or - - - ?


.

I never felt TOTV was a good representation of what is in the minds of most villagers. The Villages is over 90,000 people.
Remember back to 2008 when we had a vote on a Horse Park. The majority of TOTV members were all for it. It was voted down by a wide margin.

I notice that many of the posters don't even live here. One of the top posters had all the answers before he moved here. Others have made one visit. Some are going to buy.

Its not about Talk of The Villages but rather a chat room for many opinions. Look at what goes on everyday here and how little of it makes this forum. At the same time, look at all the talk that has nothing to do with the Villages.
That is all fine with me. What ever makes you happy.

[zcaveman]

Originally Posted by chuckinca

Note that most on TOTV don't want signs while most of the public at the meeting wanted signs.

Could it be that the TOTV folks are not in tune with the general public in TV?

Or, those who wanted signs took the time to attend the meeting while those who didn't want the signs expressed their position sitting at home in front of their computers?

Or - - - ?


.

How many of thse TOTV protesters actually live north of 466? After 11 years they are a fact of life to me.

Not that I would mind see them go away I am not going to lose any sleep over them.

Z