[rustyp]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Let's see:
- What rule was not enforced?
- The Developer has no responsibility to enforce any rule (check your deed restrictions)
- There *may* be additional legal fees
- Additional fees will NOT come out of amenity funds
-The CDD is *asking* for this additional authority
- What negligence?

- People under 18 living in TV/ Running business from home
- Developer has no responsibility = selective enforcement - why not ignore my landscape violation 10 feet from the curb ?
- There will be legal fees
- The CDD and new residents are overreacting to the fear of short term rentals
- Negligence ? Look squirrel !

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by rustyp

- People under 18 living in TV/ Running business from home
- Developer has no responsibility = selective enforcement - why not ignore my landscape violation 10 feet from the curb ?
- There will be legal fees
- The CDD and new residents are overreacting to the fear of short term rentals
- Negligence ? Look squirrel !

According the Newspaper (the name of which is not to be mentioned) article quoted in the original post, the CDD's did not "ask for this authority".

Apparently the Developer, on his own motion, met with legal counsel for CDD #4. The Supervisors were unaware of the meeting, until informed about it last week.

According to the Supervisors, such an undertaking would result in higher fees to residents, to pay for the legal costs incurred.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by rustyp

- People under 18 living in TV/ Running business from home
- Developer has no responsibility = selective enforcement - why not ignore my landscape violation 10 feet from the curb ?
- There will be legal fees
- The CDD and new residents are overreacting to the fear of short term rentals
- Negligence ? Look squirrel !

1. If that is happening then it should be fixed but, os it actually happening or is it just a rumor?
2. There has been no selective enforcement described here. All complaints to the CDD are followed up. Complaints to the Developer would likely not be made public so there is no way to know if they were dealt with.
3. If your crystal ball is that good, would you share the winning lottery numbers with us?
4. The CDD may be overreacting to something but STRs do not violate deed restrictions and in any case, the CDD is asking for authority, they are not being forces to take it.
5. Again, what negligence are you referring to?

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

According the Newspaper (the name of which is not to be mentioned) article quoted in the original post, the CDD's did not "ask for this authority".

Apparently the Developer, on his own motion, met with legal counsel for CDD #4. The Supervisors were unaware of the meeting, until informed about it last week.

According to the Supervisors, such an undertaking would result in higher fees to residents, to pay for the legal costs incurred.

Looks like I need to do some digging. The article was not the first time I heard about this and I thought it involved a different CDD. When I find those details and source information I will post it.

[tophcfa]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Personally, I have trouble seeing WHY anyone would want to relocate to Florida, especially for full-time living. The summers are disgustingly HOT, moldy and unhealthy, in general. And G.W. is making every succeeding summer incrementally WORSE. The warmer air is holding more RAIN. Hurricanes are predicted to intensify. The property costs are sky-HIGH. The interest rates are HIGH. The insurance costs are 3 TIMES the national average. Sixty vehicles are backed up on 441 at every red light. The local hospitals are considered MARGINAL.
.......On top of all that, you have underage and overage children walking the residential streets that look as if they would be kicked out of any street gang because none would have them. One "child" walks the streets playing a guitar while staring THREATENINGLY at the passing cars. I am sure that they need psychological help. I am just NOT sure that the streets of The Villages are the best place for them to get help. If there is this "change of responsibility" that would enforce a one month rule for visiting grandchildren, then I would be all for it. There are NEWER problem areas for The Villages developing in the last 2 years involving children (unwanted children).

Yet you are presumably here and the Villages continues to sell homes as fast as they can build them. Go figure?

[rustyp]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Looks like I need to do some digging. The article was not the first time I heard about this and I thought it involved a different CDD. When I find those details and source information I will post it.

-

[coleprice]

Originally Posted by skippy05

Developer ready to hand off enforcement of rules against children and businesses. CDDs will need more money for legal fees to accomplish.....per The Village News.

Basic Rule of Business: The CDD's should NOT accept the responsibility to enforce rules against children and businesses if there is additional cost to them UNLESS the developer also provides the funds estimated to execute the associated effort. To do otherwise would be irresponsible, as it would be like a Contractor accepting a Change (New Work) without an associated increase in Cost.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

According the Newspaper (the name of which is not to be mentioned) article quoted in the original post, the CDD's did not "ask for this authority".

Apparently the Developer, on his own motion, met with legal counsel for CDD #4. The Supervisors were unaware of the meeting, until informed about it last week.

According to the Supervisors, such an undertaking would result in higher fees to residents, to pay for the legal costs incurred.

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Looks like I need to do some digging. The article was not the first time I heard about this and I thought it involved a different CDD. When I find those details and source information I will post it.

Originally Posted by rustyp

-

In the March 8 minutes of the CDD4 board meeting at the 1:10:12 mark, there is a discussion of CDD4 assisting in the enforcement of internal deed restrictions. This was a follow-up on a request CDD4 made to the Developer. CD4 does not want to take over enforcement but wants to assist, particularly with complaints about children and businesses. There is a possibility that Florida Statute 190 may need to be amended to allow this. A meeting was set up for the following week (possibly 3/17?) with the Developer's attorney for further discussions.

CDD4 initiated the request. The meeting that was reported on was the follow-up meeting. CDD4 was not surprised and the Developer did not initiate.

I still believe I heard the same topic mentioned with another CDD but I doubt I will search the minutes to find it.

[Marathon Man]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Personally, I have trouble seeing WHY anyone would want to relocate to Florida, especially for full-time living. The summers are disgustingly HOT, moldy and unhealthy, in general. And G.W. is making every succeeding summer incrementally WORSE. The warmer air is holding more RAIN. Hurricanes are predicted to intensify. The property costs are sky-HIGH. The interest rates are HIGH. The insurance costs are 3 TIMES the national average. Sixty vehicles are backed up on 441 at every red light. The local hospitals are considered MARGINAL.
.......On top of all that, you have underage and overage children walking the residential streets that look as if they would be kicked out of any street gang because none would have them. One "child" walks the streets playing a guitar while staring THREATENINGLY at the passing cars. I am sure that they need psychological help. I am just NOT sure that the streets of The Villages are the best place for them to get help. If there is this "change of responsibility" that would enforce a one month rule for visiting grandchildren, then I would be all for it. There are NEWER problem areas for The Villages developing in the last 2 years involving children (unwanted children).

Wow. Just, wow.

[nn0wheremann]

Originally Posted by skippy05

Developer ready to hand off enforcement of rules against children and businesses. CDDs will need more money for legal fees to accomplish.....per The Village News.

They could hire Guido Two Fingers and the Joyzy Guyz who would do the enforcement cheap, or place a lien on the offending property and collect when the offenders sell.

[Justputt]

Originally Posted by Marathon Man

Wow. Just, wow.

Indeed! I want to type LOL, but they may be serious....

[4$ALE]

Originally Posted by Justputt

Indeed! I want to type LOL, but they may be serious....

May?????

[Veiragirl]

Originally Posted by tophcfa

I’m for whatever it takes if the CDD’s are willing to enforce two specific deed restrictions, properties shall be used as single family residential units and businesses cannot be run out of residential homes. That would take care of the problem of people renting out rooms to non family members while concurrently living in the home.

I totally agree. My biggest problem is teenagers/moocher kids who play video games and dont work. They also are a problem with crime here in TV. I hope someone in TV will report this behavior (seeing these people living where they shouldn't be)

They're parents should stop enabling them. They need a swift kick in ass .

[kcrazorbackfan]

Originally Posted by skippy05

Developer ready to hand off enforcement of rules against children and businesses. CDDs will need more money for legal fees to accomplish.....per The Village News.

Every thing comes at a price; do the complainers want children and businesses in their neighborhoods or not; if they don’t, get ready to scratch a check out for more money to the CDD’s.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

Has that message been vetted by the Florida Department of Travel and Tourism?

Have you heard - they want to make ME their spokesperson.