Originally Posted by bowlingal (Post 2083348)

I personally think these trolls are hired by the developer to find out of compliance households. Why else would someone take the time to do this? They are not even in their own neighborhoods.

Originally Posted by villagetinker (Post 2083167)

Having been a 'victim' of this I disagree, our neighborhood had 35 complaints phoned in in one day, now understand many of the items reported were there for YEARS with non of the neighbors complaining.

Originally Posted by bowlingal (Post 2083348)

I personally think these trolls are hired by the developer to find out of compliance households. Why else would someone take the time to do this? They are not even in their own neighborhoods.

Originally Posted by midiwiz (Post 2083371)

The short version is - none of it is actually able to be enforced aside from the fact that TV 'owns' all the local courts, however in federal court most of these wouldn't stand. Even though they have used the "district" loophole, there still exists enough variance and non enforcement for them to lose any court battle should anyone choose to upset the apple cart. Courts that aren't 'owned' in this state side with the home owner rather than the organization leveling the restrictions.

just speaking from experience.

Originally Posted by MartinSE (Post 2083392)

And more people that hate The Villages chime in. Wonder why they are still here.

Originally Posted by MDLNB (Post 2083381)

I live near a corner intersection that has a Stop sign. The law says that one must come to a complete stop before proceeding. It does not say that if one sees that there is no oncoming traffic, they can drive through the intersection without stopping. Observing that stop sign on the corner, I have found that four out of five vehicles drive blatantly through the intersection without stopping. I have also had near misses when someone decided to blow through the intersection without even glancing in my direction, even when I had the right of way. I guess I should sit in my driveway and report every law breaker that coasts through the intersection without stopping. After all, it IS the law. AND everyone must be reported if they break the law. Sorry, but I have better things to do and if those violators blow through the intersection and end up in the hospital, that's their business. I am not my brother's keeper.
In my neighborhood, folks have all sorts of lawn ornaments. For those that say it devalues their property, I guess it depends on where you live. We have homes that sell the day they are listed. These are designer homes getting top dollar sales. One of the homes on our street has sold for almost $600K. Hey, maybe they could get more if neighbors were more considerate and hid their lawn ornaments, right? Maybe, like the rest of us on this street, we enjoy the diversity of personalized home properties.
Sorry folks, but we have had no derelict trucks or cars up on blocks in our neighborhood. I have seen an occasional flamingo, though. If you wish to spend all your time worrying about property values this late in your life, then go for it. It leaves more time for those that wish decent "T" times and less crowd at the pickleball courts. If you wish to spend your last few years on earth complaining about other folks, have at it. Hopefully, when I leave this life it will be with a smile on my face, not an angry frown. Some folks are not content until they make others unhappy. Some folks are happy when they can make a positive difference in other folk's lives.

Originally Posted by retiredguy123 (Post 2083006)

I think your No. 1 is the result of people interpreting a loophole in the definition of the "lawn". If something is placed under the eave of the house, technically it is not on the lawn. Or so they say.

Originally Posted by Windguy (Post 2083372)

Just because no one complains doesn’t mean it doesn’t bother anyone.

I see junk and things I consider offensive in people’s yards, but I am afraid of reprisals if I say or do something about it. I personally like the idea of people driving around and looking for violations.

We all signed on to the restrictions and we should honor them.

Originally Posted by Mortal1 (Post 2083121)

Actually believing that some people ride around in "remote" neighborhoods just to point out restriction violations appears to be a creation of someones imagination. Never seen it happen and assume as do those who might believe this action might be a tad bit paranoid....personally I have no issue with folks who do this(if they exist at all)because deed restrictions aren't typically addressed unless pointed out by someone. So having a person, who for whatever reason(nothing else to do, fed up with those who could care less about restrictions, or just ignorant)decides it's a worthy past time has my thanks.

Originally Posted by Laker14 (Post 2083261)

Some rules are best followed precisely, and others are best looked upon as a mechanism for controlling the most egregious violations.
For example, "no alcohol on the beach". OK, so I'm walking down the beach, quietly with my wife, and in my Yeti cup I have a gin and tonic. I'm minding my own business, I'm bothering nobody. Was that ordinance really aimed at me with the idea that there would be patrols out, spot checking quiet people who aren't causing any problems?
Or, was the ordinance enacted to provide law enforcement with a means to break up loud, raucous gathering, fueled on cans of beer that now litter the sand?
Any rule, foolishly enforced, can become oppressive beyond it's intended effect. People calling in violations simply because they lie outside of the written rule, which are in fact not bothering anybody, are going beyond the scope of what was intended.

Originally Posted by Mortal1 (Post 2083121)

Actually believing that some people ride around in "remote" neighborhoods just to point out restriction violations appears to be a creation of someones imagination. Never seen it happen and assume as do those who might believe this action might be a tad bit paranoid....personally I have no issue with folks who do this(if they exist at all)because deed restrictions aren't typically addressed unless pointed out by someone. So having a person, who for whatever reason(nothing else to do, fed up with those who could care less about restrictions, or just ignorant)decides it's a worthy past time has my thanks.

Originally Posted by lee60car (Post 2083426)

I was "wrong" to have 8 2" colored solar lights in my flower bed. Later, 2 blue pottery spheres were "wrong." If I had put flowers in the spheres, it would have been OK. Go figure. This is the same person that has tormented the neighbors close to him for years. Such a waste of a way to live your life.

Originally Posted by Laker14 (Post 2083002)

The recent threads about the "clipboard ladies" and deed restrictions got me thinking more about them. I must admit that when we purchased our home in February 2021, I never bothered to read the document.
Having purchases the home as a "resale" I just assumed that it was in compliance, or close enough, and frankly, among all of the other burdensome legal documents to read, the deed restrictions were pretty low on my list of priorities.
So, I downloaded the "AMENDED AND RESTATED" declaration. A couple of items surprised me in their vagueness, and one surprised me that it existed at all. Among the more interesting to me were the following 3 items. Note that the numbering is mine, and not the same numbers that identify the items in the original document.

Although the original document refers often to "The Developer" I am assuming that at some point the authority ceded to "The Developer" in this document conveyed to the CDD. I am in CDD 5, and this document was downloaded from their page on the "districtgov.org" site.

1. "Lawn ornaments are prohibited except seasons displays not exceeding a 30 day duration."
What surprises me here is that I've read a few times that something that may be prohibited in the sodded area is allowed on a porch, or in a garden bed. I see no mention in the document to that effect, nor do I see any mention of the restriction applying only to ornaments of or greater than a certain dimension.

2. "No tree with a trunk 4" or more in diameter shall be removed or effectively removed through excessive injury without first obtaining permission from the Developer."
I was unaware of this restriction. I see palm trees coming down often. I'd be really surprised if the CDD is often advised of these removals. I had been told that only the oak trees were protected.

3.(Here's a personal favorite of mine, of which I was unaware: ) "All owners shall notify the Developer when leaving their property for more than a 7-day period shall simultaneously advise the Developer as tho their tentative return date."

This one got me to thinking about all of the posts I've read stating essentially "Well, if you read your deed restrictions, and follow the rules, you've got nothing to worry about." I have a hard time imagining even these strict rule followers bother to advise the CDD that they are leaving their homes for a week. And I have an even harder time imaging the reaction of whoever it is who is supposed to receive this notice, upon receiving this important information from the loyal rule follower.

I have no issue with the deed restrictions. I think they serve a useful purpose. I have seen my share of front yards in other areas, outside of TV, with more crap in the yard than I'd like to look at in my neighborhood, so I get the value of having deed restrictions, and I appreciate that to a significant degree, what I like about my neighborhood is protected by the deed restrictions.
Having said that, I don't see the value in riding around in remote neighborhoods looking for violations that evidently pass the standards of the immediate neighbors, and I do see a value in allowing a certain degree of artistic expression in the landscaping and adornment of one's property.
It strikes me as a shame that some people can't see their way to letting other people live their lives in peace, as long as they're not bothering their neighbors.

Originally Posted by PJackpot (Post 2083449)

I agree. It’s one thing if you have an issue with a neighbor on your own street. It’s another to appoint yourself the deed restriction police. The CDD should not accept complaints that are not in the complainers own neighborhood IMO.

Originally Posted by regas56 (Post 2083421)

Key word there is "You" think it's offensive, maybe "They" think it's beautiful.. A 250 pound 70 year old man at the beach wearing a thong is offensive to me but he thinks he's beautiful so it costs me nothing to just look the other way.

Originally Posted by Garywt (Post 2083440)

No one told me there is a beach in The Villages.

Originally Posted by Djean1981 (Post 2083054)

The palm tree is classified as a weed..

Originally Posted by Mortal1 (Post 2083121)

Actually believing that some people ride around in "remote" neighborhoods just to point out restriction violations appears to be a creation of someones imagination. Never seen it happen and assume as do those who might believe this action might be a tad bit paranoid....personally I have no issue with folks who do this(if they exist at all)because deed restrictions aren't typically addressed unless pointed out by someone. So having a person, who for whatever reason(nothing else to do, fed up with those who could care less about restrictions, or just ignorant)decides it's a worthy past time has my thanks.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2083545)

A person might not consider the TROLLS to be a "worthy pastime" if they had to change all of the rocks in their yard (after 20 years of having them) because some anonymous busybody wrote them up. Personally, I think that the professional grass cutters hate rock yards so much that they become like little 2nd-grade tattletales. Adults acting like whinny brats!

Originally Posted by MartinSE (Post 2083392)

And more people that hate The Villages chime in. Wonder why they are still here.

Originally Posted by Bogie Shooter (Post 2083411)

They seem to always show up.......

Originally Posted by lee60car (Post 2083426)

I was "wrong" to have 8 2" colored solar lights in my flower bed. Later, 2 blue pottery spheres were "wrong." If I had put flowers in the spheres, it would have been OK. Go figure. This is the same person that has tormented the neighbors close to him for years. Such a waste of a way to live your life.

Originally Posted by roob1 (Post 2083598)

Did they have to change all the rocks because they were written up, or because it was a covenant violation?

Which occurred first?

Originally Posted by MrFlorida (Post 2083721)

I like rules, that's why I moved here....

Originally Posted by midiwiz (Post 2083718)

that isn't hating the villages, that is reality. if you think it's hating then sorry for you because I don't have to mamby pamby overly politically correct anything for anyone.

The OP poised an interrogatory and I gave him an answer from experience in this state. I'm not about to sunshine and rainbows anyone on here or anywhere else. If you want to bend over and see sunshine that's your business but I take great offense to the suggestion that I hate it here when I am merely posting reality. It's bad enough I have to watch my references because those that monitor are not in the know.

VERY much insulted..

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2083890)

Rules can be good like speed limits. But, rules that are not made by the majority are bad rules. And rules made by one or several people are a dictatorship.

Originally Posted by MartinSE (Post 2083922)

Hmm, the Constitution received 9 votes.

Originally Posted by MrFlorida (Post 2083721)

I like rules, that's why I moved here....

Originally Posted by MartinSE (Post 2083922)

Hmm, the Constitution received 9 votes.

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2083944)

Moving to a development (like TV Land) that has rules / deed restrictions IS a good way to keep up the value of your property - usually a person's biggest investment. I have zero problem with that. it is the OVERLY strict interpretation of the "rules" that bothers me. I understand the general principle of "no lawn ornaments". That is a good concept. But if someone has a small blue globe in a rock garden - I am NOT going to be offended. I myself, would think that even a large globe or 2 in a front yard would look good to me. And I would not ever waste my brainpower to determine one person's trim color to be BAD and another person's to be GOOD. To me, those are details that are too small for me to complain about. So, I would suggest some degree of flexibility in the RULES.
The idea of self-appointed Trolls driving around (with clipboards) and trying to impose 100% conformity to a Village - is very foreign and extreme to my way of thinking. That is like the old song about house developments......." and they are ALL made out of ticky-tacky, and they all look just the same"!

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2083944)

Moving to a development (like TV Land) that has rules / deed restrictions IS a good way to keep up the value of your property - usually a person's biggest investment. I have zero problem with that. it is the OVERLY strict interpretation of the "rules" that bothers me. I understand the general principle of "no lawn ornaments". That is a good concept. But if someone has a small blue globe in a rock garden - I am NOT going to be offended. I myself, would think that even a large globe or 2 in a front yard would look good to me. And I would not ever waste my brainpower to determine one person's trim color to be BAD and another person's to be GOOD. To me, those are details that are too small for me to complain about. So, I would suggest some degree of flexibility in the RULES.
The idea of self-appointed Trolls driving around (with clipboards) and trying to impose 100% conformity to a Village - is very foreign and extreme to my way of thinking. That is like the old song about house developments......." and they are ALL made out of ticky-tacky, and they all look just the same"!

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2083947)

The Constitution is a living, changing document. It has been changed by Amendments and will likely be changed in the future. I can think of some improvements!

Originally Posted by Bambi (Post 2083990)

I am not a complainer in general but I do have a problem with the owners of a house across a pond and a fairway from me. The have mounted a high intensity spot light on the peak of their roof. It constantly rotates through an array of colors lighting up the ground and reflecting the different colors on the pond between us. It is very distracting to watch tv with with the light in the side of my vision. I no longer sit on my lanai at night to enjoy the peace and tranquility- instead I feel like I am in Wille Wonka’s chocolate factory. Of course it doesn’t bother the owners because they are inside but the light shines at my windows all night. Mounting such a light is prohibited in the deed restrictions. I do not want to confront the neighbors personally but this definitely decreases the enjoyment of my house. My next door neighbors shut their blinds but I hate a closed in feeling. The light changes colors every few seconds. It is kind of a psychedelic experience.

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580 (Post 2083993)

It is normal to want to avoid confrontation. With that in mind, I still think the best first step is to go with a friendly smile on your face and introduce yourself. Then explain your situation and ask if they would be willing to remove the light. If they say "no", then contact the appropriate official group and file a complaint. You made a friendly (keep it friendly) appeal. Keep date, time and conversation records for the complaint. Remember people are more likely to be receptive to a nice person's request than an angry jerks demand.
Good luck.
☺