[asianthree]

OP is commenting on use of fenced in courts. No matter how you feel it’s a shame that some residents just don’t care what they do.

[Velvet]

I think until there is appropriate consequences/punishment for dog owners not following the rules, there will not be compliance.

If dog ownership is allowed in TV at all then one needs to think of what can these owners do, that is easy and practical with their different types of dogs too. Dog parks have been suggested but for some people and locations that might take quite a bit of effort.

[GoPacers]

Originally Posted by PrudentLifer

I was very cognizant of this when I was doing a landscape island on my front lawn. I did not want to encroach on it, I like to keep things legal. 7' to the curb did not belong to me. I maintained the proper setback so as not to encroach. Many homeowners or should I say their landscapers do not.


"The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears..."
George Orwell

You've identified one of the biggest issues - who owns what here in The Villages. Like you, I also know exactly where our property lines are and there are areas that I maintain that I do not own. While I might prefer animals not pee in that area there really isn't much I can do about it.

[New Englander]

I just don't get it. Why in the world would someone bring a dog in a fenced-in court? It's ridiculous, inconsiderate, and just plain ignorant.

[anothersteve]

Since you are talking about easements

"An easement is a "nonpossessory" property interest that allows the holder of the easement to use property that he or she does not own or possess. An easement doesn't allow the easement holder to occupy the land or to exclude others from the land, unless they interfere with the easement holder's use. In contrast, the possessor of the land may continue to use the easement and may exclude everyone except the easement holder from the land.

Land affected or "burdened" by an easement is called a "servient estate," while the land or person benefited by the easement is known as the "dominant estate." If the easement benefits a particular piece of land, it's said to be "appurtenant" to the land. If the easement only benefits an individual personally, not as an owner of a particular piece of land, the easement is termed "in gross." Most easements are affirmative, which means that they authorize use of another's land. Less common are negative easements, which usually involve preserving a person's access to light or view by limiting what can be done on neighboring or nearby property."

I'm not getting into an argument, just defining "easement"

Easement Basics - FindLaw

Steve

[Polar Bear]

Originally Posted by Velvet

I think until there is appropriate consequences/punishment for dog owners not following the rules, there will not be compliance...

There's already major compliance. 100%? Of course not. Show me a rule that gets total compliance. (That would likely be a rule that is not needed. Heheh.)

Originally Posted by Velvet

...If dog ownership is allowed in TV at all then one needs to think of what can these owners do, that is easy and practical with their different types of dogs too. Dog parks have been suggested but for some people and locations that might take quite a bit of effort.

Way, way overcomplicating the issue.

Our dog does her business on our property and we pick it up as necessary. She still gets walks...without stepping on anybody else's yard...and does business in acceptable public areas, and we also pick that up. She gets golf cart/auto rides to acceptable public areas for her business/pickup also.

It's all so routine and easy and enjoyable. I'd bet most dog owners in TV have functionally equivalent routines of their own. And by 'most' I mean a LOT more than 51%

[PrudentLifer]

Originally Posted by anothersteve

Since you are talking about easements

"An easement is a "nonpossessory" property interest that allows the holder of the easement to use property that he or she does not own or possess. An easement doesn't allow the easement holder to occupy the land or to exclude others from the land, unless they interfere with the easement holder's use. In contrast, the possessor of the land may continue to use the easement and may exclude everyone except the easement holder from the land.

Land affected or "burdened" by an easement is called a "servient estate," while the land or person benefited by the easement is known as the "dominant estate." If the easement benefits a particular piece of land, it's said to be "appurtenant" to the land. If the easement only benefits an individual personally, not as an owner of a particular piece of land, the easement is termed "in gross." Most easements are affirmative, which means that they authorize use of another's land. Less common are negative easements, which usually involve preserving a person's access to light or view by limiting what can be done on neighboring or nearby property."

I'm not getting into an argument, just defining "easement"

Easement Basics - FindLaw

Steve

I find real estate law very interesting. Especially since many of laws we have today have origins dating back to Roman through early English law.


"The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears..."
George Orwell

[EdFNJ]

Originally Posted by GoPacers

Given how much a dog peeing in a yard can blow someone's mind, I can't imagine how much energy is wasted worrying about all the other critters that poop and pee in folk's yard every night with no owner to clean it up or to bitch at.

Do you stay up all night chasing rabbits, birds, etc.? Let alone a fox, bobcat or gosh forbid all the anoles that invade the yards. I get it, dog owners need to pick up the poop. If they don't, he/she deserves a good tongue lashing.

Some of you folks must have been really important in your earlier life.

Dogs, as opposed to anoles, wabbits, frogs, fireants etc often leave big mushy steamy stinky piles. Never seen a bobcat, fox, giraffe, elephant or fire breathing dragon in our 'hood (although I do know they exist in some of the other areas of T.V.). Difference is, those other "critters" are not walked with a leash (supposedly) under the control of their owners and therein lies the difference.

[Velvet]

Originally Posted by Polar Bear

Way, way overcomplicating the issue.

Our dog does her business on our property and we pick it up as necessary. She still gets walks...without stepping on anybody else's yard...and does business in acceptable public areas, and we also pick that up. She gets golf cart/auto rides to acceptable public areas for her business/pickup also.

Yes. My dogs had a sandbox at the back yard where they were trained to go, up north.

I understand the frustration of people who don’t own dogs or like dogs in the first place.

To look after dogs one loves almost as much as family involves work. As with children, the older one gets the more difficult it is to look properly after one’s dog and if it was made easier, eg. a close dog park or dog friendly area, it could be done in TV, it might help. But others property or courts are not the answer.

When designing TV if dogs are allowed then one needs to consider what will happen to the animals. This seems to be already in the works with the new fenced in verandas.

[Topspinmo]

After reading all this I feel constipated! I don’t worry about shyt I can’t control. If it’s not you’re property, you have no control over it. End of sentence.

[Polar Bear]

Originally Posted by Topspinmo

...If it’s not you’re property, you have no control over it. End of sentence...

In this world of easements, right-of-way, liens, and a myriad of other legal documents, that can be wrong on so many levels.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Though I can't say I "like" it - I don't object to people walking their dogs at the curb of my property, as long as they pick up the solids if the dog poops there. I would actually applaud the owner if I saw them spray a urine neutralizer on the affected area if the dog peed there (they exist, you can buy them in any pet store). If I saw a dog owner doing that, I'd probably buy some dog treats and offer one every time I saw the two walking toward our yard.

Meanwhile, I DO object to people who walk their dogs further onto our lawn. I saw someone do that a couple of months ago. He stepped off the street, around 20 feet onto our property, and let his dog take a poop next to our flower bed. He not only didn't pick up after the dog, he didn't even carry a baggie to do so if he got caught.

Since it was the first time I saw this happen, I decided not to say anything. If I see it a second time, I will absolutely go outside and confront the guy directly. And I won't be very polite about it.

[billethkid]

What control would be wanted in the first place.
And how many really care if they own the easement or not?So there is an easement. Who has had to do what about anything regarding the easement on their property since moving in here?

Me at 16 years.....nothing!!!!

It seems to be an issue that is not an issue and being intellectualized to the 16th decimal point......(especially when all one needs is whole numbers).

IMHO

[Polar Bear]

Originally Posted by billethkid

...Who has had to do what about anything regarding the easement on their property since moving in here?

Me at 16 years.....nothing!!!!...

So you’ve never mowed your front yard down to the curb??

[billethkid]

Originally Posted by Polar Bear

So you’ve never mowed your front yard down to the curb??

I did once!!

I make no distinction....I treat it as it is all mine like everybody else does.....that would be the whole numbers approach.