I don't know. Funny thing it was given to me by my sister Who stayed for two weeks last Christmas.

Bogie I have no idea what makes my friends special except they are nice people and they saved the child from a very bad situation. They live in fear of some one complaining and they'd have to move.

What a way to have to live............
Rules are rules.

I am not a resident of The Villages, so I don't have a dog in this fight, but I hope your friends have a plan B, as their four year old granddaughter will need to start school in the next year or two. They must realize that this situation will need to be addressed eventually.

So, let me understand this. Everyone should follow the rules *except your friends*?

Yeah, really nice.

I didn't say they were right, I only pointed out that there are people outside the rules. Do I agree with them - no, do I understand they didn't want their granddaughter to be involved in a do estimate violence situation - yes.

I frequently see one on BV and El Camino Real. I have always assumed that it is cutting through TV to get to 441.

I know villages have different covenants, but I do remember reading that the no children under 19 rule living permanently in The Villages can be waived due to extenuating circumstances. This may be such a situation.

I haven't seen this Phantom school bus stop either.

Not true. If it were, we'd be over run by "extenuating circumstances..." The last person who took this to court was reminded that they had signed a statement at closing about the covenants - end of story.

We'll be back for Nov/Dec with a resident ID...can't believe it is 32F this morning in Minnesota..ugh

Where did you read that?

Bizdoc just offered some important information about this being challenged. Now I can't find it.

It is a deed restriction to not have children under the age of 19 live here for more than 30 days in a year.

Homes are not difficult to sell here in TV if they are offered for a fair price. People can rent out their homes. People can move nearby and when circumstances change they can return if they want to. There is always a way to do what the rules say.

There have been past discussions of grandchildren of deployed service people and children of parents who have had them removed from their custody and of other terrible situations.

This is absolutely true that there is always a way to comply with the rules. All complaints to Deeds and Covenants are complaint driven, as we all know. I think it would be a lot tougher to "drop a dime" on grandparents who are doing a good thing than to make a call about pink plastic flamingos in the front yard. (Glad no one has called about my flamingos yet).

I would drop the dime in a heart beat. If the choice is to have the grandkid(s), move to a family neighborhood.

There are very good reasons for the restrictive covenants. If you decide to "let it slide" because, well, you want to, you will find out that once you stop enforcing them, you soon can't enforce any. Want to allow kids? How about home businesses, cars under repair in driveways, large families, etc. Take a good look at what happened to some of the early 55+ communities (especially in the southwest) which started to make all kinds of excepts.

I disagree with you. The theory that a rule will become non-enforceable unless strictly applied doesn't seem to be the case here in TV, because the only way the rule will be enforced is if a complaint is made. So every rule will be enforced if there is a complaint. And no rule will go away if there is no complaint.

I think that when a place is advertised as not having children living there that it is a realistic expectation to have just that; a community designed and geared for older people who have no children. When there is a rule, no matter what heart breaking conditions occur, everyone should be expected to follow the rule.

It is not impossible to do so, but may be difficult. I am discouraged when a few expect for the majority to bend to their need.

Don't any of you start with anything that remotely sounds like "old children haters" because I am very sure that isn't the case at all for most Villagers.

I think most of us love little ones, but no longer want to worry about them and their safety.

I seem to remember a couple of years ago on this forum a person posted that they got extended permission for their grandchild to stay for 90 days as their parent was serving in Iraq and that when that parent was killed they had to move to a family village. The discussion was how they could continue to attend the classes etc that they loved and they were advised by all you wise people to buy an inexpensive patio home or manufactured home and rent it out with guest passes only leaving the regular passes for themselves.

Gracie:

As usual, you have found a way to say much more tactfully than I what needed to be said. Thank you.

Good suggestion.

If you really feel that way, then do you not agree that TV should accept the responsibility to enforce the rules it has put in place? TV should be the one to tell these people to leave, not the general public.

That is not how they work C. They just are not heavy handed.

I think children will be reported if children are bothering people or making their presence felt. Homes may have children in them, but if they aren't being a problem, who knows that? After a while, it just wouldn't be fair to the little ones to not be allowed to move about in their neighborhood and their driveways and ride their bikes.

I believe that most people are responsible.

Kids can be relatively hidden from community watch, unlike lawn ornaments. If the neighbors don't report a child, the odds are TV would have no clue it is there. So, it is up to the neighborhood. There might be a lot of sympathy for the grandparents, the child may be very quiet and adorable, no one wants to be the curmudgeon.

I do know of other instances where kids have lived with grandparents. One until their house here sold. Another until their mother got back from Afghanistan. Not legally right, but their neighborhoods felt it was morally right, I guess. Neither was a permanent situation. The situation here sounds like it is pretty permanent. Going to school would be a non-issue -- the local schools only care that the child reside in the school district, not if the child resides in a retirement community.

I think if you look back at your last post, you will find that you are contradicting yourself. In one you say there are rules, and expectations that there will be no children. In another you say they will not enforce those rules, and that's not how it's done. I'm not asking how it is done. I'm asking how you think it should be done.

It's not the "most people who are responsible" that are causing the problem. It's the rule breakers.

I feel sorry for this little child, and I would not turn the grandparents in. But I feel it is the developer's responsibility to uphold the rules, and just as you said, the expectation is no children. Why should we the responsible people be the ogres?

And please don't tell me it is what it is, because I am in a TERRIBLE mood.
:grumpy:

:BigApplause:

Me too. I feel all down for some reason. I know I contradicted myself but I am a girl. Well an old woman then.

No, you are a gem!

I guess from the comments that *The Developer* should start doing monthly inspections of each person's home for activities contrary to the restrictive covenants...

On a more serious note, did you not know that the restrictive covenants come with your property? Did someone else sign the required statement about them at closing? Did you feel that you could later "pick and choose" what you would follow?

Haven't you quite gotten it that we are all (collectively) The Villages? Whenever people don't like something that The Developer has done, they jump up and down and cry and carry on about The Developer didn't ask them first. When it comes to acting responsibly, they duck and mumble "The Developer should take care of these things".

And I'm not even gonna comment about what horrible covenant violations people *are* willing to report their neighbors for, like lawn ornaments or messy landscaping. Then when a significant one comes up, people get all "but I don't want to be the nasty person here - the developer should be the bad guy so that I can keep saying fiddle-dee-dee and ignoring it because it is something they can picture themselves doing".

It would be better for the kid if someone did turn them in. What child would benefit living in an environment where there are no other children to interact with? What child would prosper in an environment living in fear of being discovered by the development they are living in? The Grandparents are thinking of themselves and not thinking of the child in this situation.

These people are not trapped, they have choices, one would be to sell the house and move to a kid friendly neighborhood. Another would be find a relative that does not live in a community with "no kids" covenants and move the child there.

Yes, life has dealt them something they did not plan for, now make the right decisions and move on for the betterment of everyone involved (the grandchild, the grandparents, and the neighbors).

I, for one, would make exceptions for children whose parents are on deployment and children who would otherwise go into foster care.

I certainly wish my life were as cut-and-dried, black-and-white as yours. And that no emergencies ever, ever happened, no child was "left behind," and I had enough handy $ to rectify the unforeseen situation if it arose.

Nobody even knows the whole situation. Maybe it's temporary. So yeah, if the developers cannot figure out a way to do their own rule checking, the problem's on them. Perhaps Kid Detectors at every gate.

My wife is/was an ECFE (Early Childhood Family Educator) coordinator both in Lake Park where we currently live and she also had all the schools in St. Paul, MN. She's a big advocate for No Child Left Behind, and is happy with our Governor's stance on that subject. These children are our hope for the future...

This sort of sounds like the guys who sue to put up their 100 foot flagpoles with giant flags. The story is always "the proud veteran... honoring those fallen... etc." Just soooo patriotic. Those opposing are usually shown as cranky, uncaring old coots.

What ever happened to living with the rules in place when you got here?

Possibly the same thing that happened to enforcing the rules you made yourself. Both take a conscious effort.

I don't believe the Developer has anything to do with your neighborhood once the homes are sold. I assume the Developer determines what are the terms under which the homes are sold but the enforcement policy is up the District. I also assume the District has decided that, rather than hire an enforcement force, it works better to let the neighbors decide how their neighborhood should both look and be managed. If you are happy with lawn ornaments then let them out there, you have to live with them. If there is a child living in your neighborhood then let them live there, you have to live with them. If neither work for you then make the call. Your neighbors all signed up for the same rules, then they move in and decide that they don't have to live by them. They are happy, neighbors aren't but they are "afraid" to challenge. That's how neighborhoods go down hill. It belongs to you...and if that's what you want in your block let it alone.