Actually neither one. Require name on the complaint, must live in the village and or the same district.

I understand that that is your preference and it is reasonable IMO but naming the complainer tends to intimidate the legitimate complainers also. I don’t see why we should blame the person reporting the infraction as opposed to the person responsible for the infraction.

:what:

Have never been upset about deed restrictions, it’s the waste of man/women hours to have 50%plus not even be a deed issue.

Why because someone is angry, and the get even with as many as possible is the agenda. We pay for community service to drive thousands of miles every day, why not have a standard group. At least their filing would be correct

I think that’s a great idea.

For what ever reason that did not work in the past……………

If the complainer doesn’t provide a name, how could it be verified that they live in the Village and or district where said complaint is being made? Also, don’t assume the person being accused in a complaint is responsible for an infraction. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty. Lastly, how is an individual reporting an infraction being blamed? They are blaming the person they are reporting.

I didn’t know TV had employees going out and checking properties in each village. I thought it was just a complaint generated from the public

Perhaps I didn’t make myself clear, of course the complainer should be identified to the Community Standards who will inspect the complaint. CS can verify the residence of the complainer too. What I was referring to is that the person who is complained against should not know who reported them. Now if Community Standards finds several unwarranted complaints from the same individual, they should start fining the complainer for the unwarranted investigations they have to do.

I don't believe the CDDs would want that. It could open them up to complaints about selective enforcement. An example would be if someone is cited for an actual deed restriction violation and they point out that another home has had the same deed restriction violation for some time. Essentially, they would need to catch every violation. I have seen this problem in a previous community. With the existing system, they only have to investigate the anonymous reports. I am not sure why residents get so upset about this. If you are reported and there is actually no deed restriction violation then you may very well not even know about the report. If you are in violation then you should correct it. If anyone should be upset it should be Community Standards that has to go out and investigate the reports of alleged deed restriction violations. It sounds like there might be non valid reports of deed restriction violations by some serial reporters.

The law requires that anyone using e-mail to file a complaint has no expectation of privacy; anyone can find out who they are.

For that reason, I'd suggest - e-mail complaints not be allowed at all.
Phone complaints can be submitted. And in-person complaints can be submitted. And here is how I would love to see it work:

Anyone complaining must provide their Villagers ID number. It's the bar code number on the back of their ID. The only people who would, or could, know who belongs to that number are the officials employed by The Villages (including Community Standards). They can determine if the person lodging the complaint lives in the general vicinity of the offending property.

Then there are criteria required before Community Standards checks out a complaint:

Possible violations would be categorized: serious (black mold, broken glass, boarded up property, sink holes, vines growing up the side of the building, rodent infestation, etc. etc), and less-serious (weeds/grass higher than 4 inches, a white cross on the lawn, flowers too close to the street, house painted the wrong color, etc. etc.) Could even name them "potential danger" and "aesthetics".

THEN Community Standards would determine, based on the ID number given and the property and violations:

1. Is this a repeat caller? If so, are they calling about an area in which they actually live? If so, is it repeat calls about non-serious violations? If so, are they on the same home or on multiple homes? And so on. If it looks like it's just a troublemaker making trouble, then Community Standards can check the property being complained about AND check the property of the person making the complaint. If the person making the complaint isn't in 100% compliance, then Community Standards can write them up too.

If it's someone making trouble for someone else's neighborhoods, AND those complaints are "less serious" or just aesthetics rather than potential danger, then they can go into the circular file, with a notation on the person making the complaint, that they've made the complaint. If they continue making these non-serious or aesthetics complaints about other peoples' neighborhoods, then THEY get fined for nuisance calls.

Nicely articulated. Best idea yet!

I mean, who wouldn't love a neighborhood full of these?

Y'know what's fascinating - that people who don't live in neighborhoods with these things, are OBSESSED about worrying about neighborhoods they THINK have these things.

Here's a clue: I haven't seen a -single- one of these "bent over" yard decorations in my neighborhood, in the three and a half years I've been living in it.

We're *allowed* to have them in my neighborhood. And yet - no one has them.

But some folks here sure are obsessed about it. Maybe they need to find a new hobby. Like - painting bent-over yard decorations to sell to the masses of imaginary people who want them in the imaginary yards of their imaginary neighborhoods.

I agree. When I think of lawn ornaments that would trigger a complaint, I think of something like the ornaments pictured in my attachment from post #268, not two bronze sand cranes in a well manicured landscape bed.
Somewhere along the way it was decided that to avoid one, we had to disallow any. I think it's a shame. On the other hand, one man's bird is another man's bent over lady tending flowers with her bloomers showing.

And therein lies the rub. Without the trolls we can have the esthetically popular and pleasing to the neighborhood nicely appointed enhancement, without the ugly ****. A sensible application of the covenants we've agreed to, rather than a strict adherence to the letter of the law allows one, and prevents the other.

It is unfortunate that we have so many "letter of the law" devotees who can't see that.