[villagetinker]

Originally Posted by Mleeja

Ok, here is your tip. Emails are public records. If the “complaints” came in via email you can file a request to see them.

I was just going to point that out, thanks for doing it.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by dewilson58

do home inspectors certify compliance with covenants??

No, they don't. But I think rusty is saying they should. I agree.

[DonH57]

Originally Posted by Bogie Shooter

Representative from Community Standards advised us today we had a landscape violation. Flowers planted within the 13’ street right-a-way. Regardless that flowers have been there since 2005
Ours was one of 25, so far, submitted by the same individual. All anonymous via email, (the real cowards way). From Lady Lake to Fenny.

The flowers were removed before the Rep. had finished talking to a neighbor across the street….who also had a violation.

Now I'm curious if the same troll was on our street a couple days ago. Randomly stopping in front of homes taking pictures and scribbling notes. No one else on the street. When I pulled out of the driveway she left.

[Bogie Shooter]

Originally Posted by rustyp

You are not new to TV. No ifs ands or buts work at the meetings. 2005 is no defense !!! I don't like it either but you need a two front battle. The first one you already lost. The second one is up to you to rally the troops to amend the covenants.

Agree 2005 not a defense or was it intended. We were wrong and it has been corrected.
I posted to provide awareness that a person is turning in a lot of complaints. I don’t believe that was the intent of the original process.
I will not be doing any troop rallying…..the District boards are moving forward on that front.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by coralway

You had a landscape violation - you were wrong. If you feel violated, you can always move. The fewer Karens and Kens we have here, the better

A little harsh???????

Let's hope nobody opens an AirBnB next door to you.

[Bogie Shooter]

Originally Posted by blueash

If you knew who submitted the notice of your violation to Community Standards, what change would that make in how you would feel? Perhaps you'd like to check their home for violations to exact some revenge? Perhaps you'd like to confront them at their door to give them a piece of your mind? Perhaps you are a big supporter of second amendment solutions?

Maybe you think flowers in violation should require a person to give their name, but wrong paint, or a giant Buddha, or mold and broken lawn mowers on the grass should not? Give us the criteria you would suggest.

I have no desire to know the name of the person who filed the complaint. But going from village to village and filing random complaints is cowardly and an abuse of the system.

My views on the second amendment have nothing to do with this. I am offended that you even suggest that!

I believe all submissions of deed violations should include the name of the submitter.

[Bogie Shooter]

Originally Posted by coralway

You had a landscape violation - you were wrong. If you feel violated, you can always move. The fewer Karens and Kens we have here, the better

Do you think if I didn’t feel we were wrong, I would have removed the flowers?

Don’t feel violated. Have no intention of moving.

What is the implication in your last sentence?

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by rustyp

Another battle I would like to see is if a home inspection is made and a covenant violation was not identified then the inspection company should be financially liable for correction. None of this BS of returning the cost of the inspection.

I agree, except I've never seen a "contract" with an Inspector, that didn't limit damages to the price paid for the Inspection.

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

There really ought to be rule that you can only file a complaint for the Unit (neighborhood) where you live. What someone has in their yard up near Lake Sumter Landing is of no concern to me. My property is of no concern to anyone but my neighbors who have to look at it.

There are enough activities in the Villages as it is. We don't need to add trolling for compliance issues.

I agree with this idea. Problems on your street is one thing. But what kind of individual is so filled with bile that they will fill their miserable life with bringing difficulty and unhappiness to so many others. For all we know, the complaints could be from outside the Villages. villages haters!
(MY) New rule: Persons may only generate one violation report per month for adjoining properties. The representative checking out the complaints validity, will have the power to certify the current as being meeting standards if no safety or boundry issues are violated.
The "crying wolf" clause. If a complainer make more than two frivolous complaints which are baseless, that individual will be banned from any future complaints.

Another thought. What if the trolls are actually on the payroll? Could our administration be the source that sows the seeds of discontent? Okay conspiracy buffs, jump on that.

[Velvet]

My impression was the original intent of complaint driven enforcement was that things were okay unless people objected to them (in the neighborhood). For example, distasteful lawn ornaments, anything divisive such as religious or political symbols. I don’t think it was intended that people living far away would have the right to complain since they are not living near by. It was never worded that way in the deed restrictions and some people take advantage, maybe even delight in causing others problems. I can’t imagine how flowers could be distasteful or blocking view of traffic. Talk about nit picking!

[Garywt]

So it wasn’t the 2 ladies with a clipboard in a golf cart, it was someone different. I do agree that rules need to be followed but I feel if you are reporting on someone who lives miles away from your home it should be left to someone in the neighborhood to turn them in or to talk to the homeowner first. From where I live, I don’t care if someone in Fenney has a violation or not.

I thought they were not taking any unsigned complaints anymore or is that just certain districts. At the end of the day there will always be violations where the home owners knows they have them or not.

[Two Bills]

There is a report on the "other" site this morning of a CYV being reported for wrong shingles on roof.
They were there when buyer purchased home.
Multiple/many/several/ quite a few, other roofs of same material/color are also out of compliance in same location, but have not been reported.
Going to be a costly lesson.
May have even been a "Free" roof.

[Laker14]

Originally Posted by Velvet

My impression was the original intent of complaint driven enforcement was that things were okay unless people objected to them (in the neighborhood). For example, distasteful lawn ornaments, anything divisive such as religious or political symbols. I don’t think it was intended that people living far away would have the right to complain since they are not living near by. It was never worded that way in the deed restrictions and some people take advantage, maybe even delight in causing others problems. I can’t imagine how flowers could be distasteful or blocking view of traffic. Talk about nit picking!

I'm with you on this. I hope they stay away from my neighborhood. When I walk around or drive the cart and take "the scenic route" I see some very tastefully done landscaping that might be outside the letter of the law. I don't know for sure because I don't care. It would be fine with me if a neighbor felt the landscaping was "over the top" and didn't like to look at a violation every day, but I haven''t seen anything that anyone would find distasteful.

That someone derives some sort of joy from riding around in neighborhoods removed from their own, just to point out deed restriction violations is ridiculous, and mean spirited.

[Worldseries27]

Originally Posted by rustyp

you are not new to tv. No ifs ands or buts work at the meetings. 2005 is no defense !!! I don't like it either but you need a two front battle. The first one you already lost. The second one is up to you to rally the troops to amend the covenants.

wheres deep throat when you need one

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by Velvet

My impression was the original intent of complaint driven enforcement was that things were okay unless people objected to them (in the neighborhood). For example, distasteful lawn ornaments, anything divisive such as religious or political symbols. I don’t think it was intended that people living far away would have the right to complain since they are not living near by. It was never worded that way in the deed restrictions and some people take advantage, maybe even delight in causing others problems. I can’t imagine how flowers could be distasteful or blocking view of traffic. Talk about nit picking!

The people "taking advantage" are the folks who ignore the Restrictions they signed up for, when they bought their homes.

What you *think* was intended, isn't relevant, what's in black & white on your contract is what it is.

Play by the rules or move. Simple.