I agree with several of the comments. If your own neighborhood people aren't offended by what's in your yard, why should TROLLS play the role of judge of the universe? What about adult children (40 + , 50+ years old) living with parents. A visit is nice; a forever stay is not why we moved here. Why must we all be exposed to degenerates, ill-bred people who should be living on their own rather than with elderly parents. It's time for these folks to get a life!

Can't make it up
 

You can't make this stuff up. Now with some posters God has nothing to do with grass and flowers, etc. Regardless how bad they sound some have to say something even if they are without substance so they make things up. These are people actually influencing the our children. :ohdear:

I don't like them, and they make me uncomfortable. But I'm not going to file a formal complaint about them, unless I start seeing it become a trend in the neighborhood. A house here and there with one is just something I'll learn to accept as just some weird southern christian trend. It isn't a "thing" where I'm from. But those crosses ARE against the rules. They're against the rules, you know this when you move in, so if you choose to break the rules, you should accept that someone might object enough to complain formally about it. You can think it's stupid, and I might even agree with you if it's placed tastefully, and not made to be some kind of "in your face statement." But rules are rules. There are areas in the Villages where you're ALLOWED to put these things. If it's that big a deal to you, you should move to one of those areas.

That's my objection. Not to reporting violations - people shouldn't knowingly violate the rules. Some rules are vague, some make no sense (see posts by Martian, who quotes actual nonsensical rules about pets), and some aren't typically "intentionally" violated (letting grass grow an inch too long because your landscaper was sick that week, for example).

The objection on my end is to the anonymity. There's zero accountability on the part of the person making the complaint, if the Community Standards doesn't have to record who that person is.

Totally agree!!! You choose to move here. You sign a contact. But for some people they decide they don't like some parts of the contract... so they should be able to ignore them. I have a neighbor that has a 6 foot lawn ornament in their front yard. I guess... based on some comments, I should just let things go. Even though I don't have any lawn ornaments in my front lawn because I know it's against the rules. And I think the 6 ft. lawn ornament is hideous. But I guess I should just suck it up...

Why does one need accountability when he/she reports a POSSIBLE infraction? After all, he/she is not the final determiner that a violation occurred, Community Standards is.

If CS had a record of the complainer, then what? Would the offender confronting the reporter result in anything positive?

[/QUOTE]The objection on my end is to the anonymity. There's zero accountability on the part of the person making the complaint, if the Community Standards doesn't have to record who that person is.[/QUOTE]

Those that don't like annoymous reports - The best way to end that practice is to get rid of all violations. No violations, no complaints.

I've gone into detail and given several examples over the last 15 pages of this thread, and of two previous threads on similar topics. But sure, here it is again:

There are people in this world who are not nice. They are petty and vindictive. This is a given and the Villages are not exempt from this.

Community Standards will investigate ALL complaints against a property.

Here's a new example, because this seems just so fitting and obvious:

Mr. Jones had a little ornamental statue on his front garden bed. Nothing tacky, just a simple little terra cotta bridge, three feet long, half a foot wide, curving over a winding stream made of blue river-rock. It had been there for the past 10 years, and he took good care of the garden bed, growing beautiful flowers and low-growing shrubbery with a few stepping stones leading to and from the little bridge.

Miss Smith was rebuffed by Mr. Jones when she found out he was a widow and wanted to hook up with him. Miss Smith was a petty, nasty woman, and reported Mr. Jones for the violation of the bridge. Not because she felt it shouldn't be there, but because she had a personal problem with Mr. Jones, and she was somewhat unhinged.

So CS came and made him move the decoration. He did - he put it under the eaves in a different flower bed. CS signed off on it and were satisfied.

Miss Smith, thinking she was going to create a lot of trouble for Mr. Jones, became even more unhinged, and decided she would take it out on CS. It was their fault, afterall, for not making Mr. Jones remove the entire decoration from his property.

So Miss Smith started reporting all kinds of violations in various neighborhoods. She just made them up, because she wanted CS to suffer. She wanted them to have to work harder than necessary over nothing at all, because she felt they didn't work hard enough on helping her "get back at" Mr. Jones for not wanting to date her.

And since she didn't have to give her name or address, there was nothing CS could do about it. They had to inconvenience themselves and look into every single non-existing violation.

That is just ONE example of one thing that COULD happen, if it hasn't already happened. I know of one situation that isn't the same, but is similar, in my own neighborhood in OB. Contrary to popular belief, there ARE restrictions in the historic area. They're very much more relaxed than the rest of the Villages but they do exist, and you can be in violation of them, and CS will infract you if you are. There are people who have personal scores to settle against neighbors, and will take it out on each other by using CS as their weapon.

And if CS doesn't do what the neighbor thinks should be done, they'll take it out on CS.

CS has no recourse, because it is an anonymous complaint system.

Good morning. Might anyone Have any updates on the lofts at Brownwood ? I'm a High school teacher in NY and am looking forward to relocating to the Villages in the near future. In addition, I visited brownwood for a week this summer and loved it. Thank you. George

The older areas, east and north of 441/27 have very few deed restrictions. If someone reports something that is NOT a deed restriction anywhere in The Villages, than nothing happens.

If someone reports something that is restricted, a notice is given the homeowner and if the homeowner doesn't comply, they are fined. They are given a warning first. If someone reports something that has been given permission, nothing happens. Rarely does grass too long ever become an deed restriction. Usually only when a home is abandoned or owned by a lending institution. It really makes more sense once a person has seen how it works for a year or two.

Most of us think that the restrictions are good, we were aware of the deed restrictions before we moved here and think they are helpful in keeping the area looking nice and keeping property values up. Some are used to telling people things directly something unpleasant to hear and some are not. I think that anonymity keeps things a little more comfortable at neighborhood gatherings.

Just like anything else if we don't hire a staff to do it is costs less money and that keeps all costs down. Again, I say that none of us have perfect taste. Less is more. We can adorn our home indoors.

Deed restrictions are good for the continued beauty of this place and some things need reporting.

Ugly Garden Ornaments

:ohdear:
:ohdear: Well was talking with the boss and we remember discussions that went something to the effect if all the other kids jumped off the cliff would you? These thought processes are part of what is wrong with todays society. People pick and choose what laws/rules they want to obey or ignore. Just because others do it does not make it right or should be acceptable. If you start picking what laws/rules you want to follow/obey I choose to take $10 out of all Villagers into my account monthly.

As for rules in TV, you bought here, you new the rules, so live within them. Understand that the restrictions may not be administered 100% across the board but do we really want that? It would make for a whole lot of shrubbery trimming and removal, as well as seeing sights we do not want to see in backyards and a huge loss of privacy in some cases. As for statuary & yard art, if you are reported remove it for a few days and then put it back. If you do this enough times either the trolls will get tired & go away or they will have a heart attack from getting so mad/frustrated. As for the crosses paint them green and call them a plant stake. If you do not think restrictions are needed drive thru some of the unrestricted developments and get very scared by the nome villages, holiday lights up year round and more religious statues than the Vatican. These types of things are exactly why there are restrictions & rules.

An American flag or cross will hardly turn this into a trailer park. I understand the rules but let respect and common sense prevail.

I am that guy that normally never make an anonymous complaint, so when a contractor decided to dump his drywall mud and paint down the sewer I went over to talk to him and didn’t have a chance, I told community watch about
what had happened gave them his plate number and informed them I had no desire to remain anonymous. The owner showed up-after he left and was shocked when he learned what this idiot did. Hopefully the villages will keep him from working here in the future.

This is the problem that pro-restriction people have with homeowners, and anti-restriction people have with restrictions. The answer to the question you ask in the bold/underlined is - YES. Yes, we want restrictions enforced evenly and uniformly. If it's a bad restriction, then change the restriction. If it's a good restriction, then enforce it among ALL homeowners who are in violation of those restrictions. Not just the ones that have had someone complain about it.

As we are seeing here on this forum, and in other online sources (not just "that other news site" but on other non-Villages fora that have threads about the Villages)...

it IS an issue. The fact that this is a complaint-driven system - is the problem. Someone can have something that they never knew was a violation, for years. Maybe the property even came with it. Like a widened driveway, or extra landscaping, or an oversized awning over the front yard. No one complains about it, they bought it that way, and so they just assumed everything was hunky dory.

Fast forward 12 years and a new neighbor moves in, wants to do the same thing and is told they can't. They want to know why they can't, when their neighbor did? CS has to check it out, they find the neighbor has been in violation of this for the past 12 years, and forces the neighbor to pay someone to dig up the extra slice of driveway, or gut the garden, or remove and replace the awning. Even though it was like that when they bought it and no one brought it up for 12 years.

Either it should be enforced across all properties that have these restrictions, or it shouldn't be enforceable at all.

Come On
 

Come on!! None of this is rocket science. There are rules and follow them or move. You knew when you signed up to buy so
you are being just another trouble maker and God knows we don't need you if you are going to disregard the rules. The white crosses are just another form of advertising your religion and you could buy an ad on "Talk of the Villages" if you want to advertise. It is clear the ones who violate the rules are hypocritical as they knew them when they moved in. :ohdear: