[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by Debbie Okruhlica Realty Executives

Some of you don't understand the responsibilities of the AAC.
This is their job to rule on situations that have resulted
From complaints. However I don't think this was complaint driven.

For sale signs have always been used on the north side of the Villages.
Think about this, do you want the developer to control
All the resale market. When I moved here 13 years ago he did and guess what
His sales fee was 7%. He has competition now and he's had to adjust his fees to
6%.

I love the Villages when the signs were removed there was only
528 signs that is just over 1% of the total homes on the north side.
The national Association of Realtors credit for sale signs for 20% of the
Procuring cause of the sale of homes.

Jennifer Parr was at the meeting not to protect the beauty of the Villages but to eliminate
Her competition. This is a serious injustice for home owners 1st amendments rights. In this depressed, recession market the homeowner needs all the marketing tools that are available to them and the for sale sign is one of them.

Thank you for this considered response. It is difficult at times to figure out the motive behind peoples attitudes and in some posters it is more difficult than in others.

but in some the motive is crystal clear.

Jennifer Parr has enough money to take care of her and her family for many generations but she continues to sit at her desk and work and go home at night to her home here. Her children have worked at menial jobs anonymously around The Villages and attended The Villages schools. If I were Jennifer Parr I would not be interested in competition, the money is a non issue anymore to that family. They have every thing on this earth that money can buy. I think that if I were in her shoes I would be interested in protecting this legacy. The family have had many opportunities to be on national media but declined and declined to be interviewed by Forbes. I have to think that Jennifer Parr has made a rare appearance to protect the quality of the dream her family has built.

I don't know them, never met them but I have met and talked to two older people who came with them from Michigan at the beginning and whose family still work for the Morses. They are the ones that have told me about the Morse family with many compliments about them.

The Morse business here has transformed Sumter county from one of its poorest to one of it's most employed areas.

It is not difficult to sell a home here.

[Mikeod]

Originally Posted by njbchbum

mikeod - you wrote:

First, the absence of complaints does not, in itself, mean everyone in the district agrees with not enforcing the restriction.
- but it does mean that no one in the district is concerned enough to make it an issue Or that they're confused by the non-enforcement and trying to get along with their neighbors?
Should the board have conducted a survey/vote to get the actual opinion of the residents?
- we don't know that they did not - they may have done a random sampling by phone and/or by asking residents in person; they were each elected to their positions, so they must know a lot of people they could ask So an informal survey/random sampling is sufficient? People may be reluctant to venture an opinion face to face, but not at a secret ballot.
What about residents who bought because of the restrictions in the deed. Ignore them, too?
- is that not part of doing due diligence before one buys a property Same applies to people who buy a restricted property and then want the restriction ignored.
Second, as stated previously, what other restriction is next to be ignored or not enforced?
- lawn ornaments, parking, noise after 10pm, yard maintenance by absent owners and yard sale signs Yikes!
And what prevents that philosophy from being adopted by future boards without resident input since the precedent has been set.
- that ASSumes there was no resident input; and in these particular areas my ASSumption is that there has been lots of input over the course of 20+ years
Does not enforcing the restriction mean that if someone in the district complains, their complaint will be ignored? After all, the district has chosen to not enforce it. To me, it is a very slippery slope.
- that's a fair concern

my bigger concern is where does the developer come off enforcing something he should not be enforcing because he gave that responsibility to enforce to a board of supervisors. in my book he has forfeited his responsibility to even be involved in enforcement activity much less enforce deed restrictions. perhaps future villages areas can act to "protect" themselves by forfeiting their anticipated right to govern themselves and remain under the governance of the developer?I understand that concern. However, he still owns the squares and controls the central CDDs which may give him the ability to seek to enforce deed restrictions. Why he did it unilaterally instead of going to the appropriate residential CDD boards is where I get uncomfortable.

Enjoyed the discussion, but we are not going to solve the problem here. Enjoy your summer and welcome back in the fall.
We'll see what happens.

[thekeithfan]

Originally Posted by bkcunningham1

How is flipping houses, which is what I've been doing btw and Gracie knows this, not good for your property value Gracie? When I invest money to rehab an old manufactured home on the Historic Side and make it look brand new again, that adversely affects you? I would like to understand how.

Problem is the majority of the rental homes ARE NOT kept like owner occupied homes. I have a rental accross the street from me it is mowed every 2 weeks, the shrubs are over grown, the house needs washing and there is very little weeding it looks like 13 13 Mockingbird lane!

[Mikeod]

Originally Posted by Debbie Okruhlica Realty Executives

Jennifer Parr was at the meeting not to protect the beauty of the Villages but to eliminate
Her competition. This is a serious injustice for home owners 1st amendments rights. In this depressed, recession market the homeowner needs all the marketing tools that are available to them and the for sale sign is one of them.

For that to be true, it would have to mean that the developer ignores the deed restrictions and places For Sale signs on properties while preventing outside realtors from doing the same. I don't think that's true. Perhaps Ms. Parr was trying to make the playing field level in those areas where they use window signs and outside realtors use outdoor signs. To my knowledge the only area where outside realtors may be at a disadvantage is the inability to have an office within TV. There are plenty of outside realtor ads in the Sun and as enclosures. I think it is impossible for the developer to "eliminate" the competition in resales, especially in a community to which many people move from great distances, necessitating the need to search via electronic means.

You may want to read up on 1st Amendment rights. It is not a universal right and can be restricted by mutual consent. When voluntarily agreeing to purchase a property with a deed restriction on signs, one cannot claim a 1st Amendment violation.

[bkcunningham1]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

I have great confidence that the developer is going to make the right choices for the greater good of all. Maybe it is because he will make more money and maybe because this place is his creation and he lives here too.

I don't have the same confidence that an elected homeowner is going to make the right decision for the greater good.

I like the CDD form of government in this case. I wonder just how it got changed north of 466? I wonder if it was caused by the lawsuit brought by the group of villagers including lawyers who won it and won several million dollars personally as a result of it.

I have never got it straight that the suit was brought to widen the cartpaths and because there was mold in one of the rec centers. The developer has painted the Odell rec center that was behind my house in Hadley completely in and out every year for the four years I lived there. The pool was immaculate. If a tree died at the Odell rec center, it was replaced. The planting beds were hand weeded. I see no evidence that he needed to be sued. Where I lived south of 466 was not involved in the lawsuit.

I am very confused by the undercurrents I feel against the developer and I suspect that it is class envy. Or perhaps it has to do with his contributions to his political party.

He had done nothing but take care of things nicely during the four and a half years I have owned property here.

Both new houses, anything that wasn't correct was immediately fixed.

I don't know who he is or what is on his mind but he seems to do the job for us.

We voted with our wallets to live here. Like others our home is the biggest financial outlay we have ever made.

Gracie, the form of government changed because that is the intent of the CDD form of government. Very basically, the intent and law specifies that after so much property is bought up by residents, the developer loses his/her control and the governing powers is given to the property owners. Although I won't get into it here, that is really at the heart of the IRS issue.

[ronat1]

Originally Posted by thekeithfan

Problem is the majority of the rental homes ARE NOT kept like owner occupied homes. I have a rental accross the street from me it is mowed every 2 weeks, the shrubs are over grown, the house needs washing and there is very little weeding it looks like 13 13 Mockingbird lane!

I bet the folks that own the house on 1313 Mockingbird Lane in TV love this comparison. Yes there is one.

[graciegirl]

[QUOTE=bkcunningham1;537575]Gracie, the form of government changed because that is the intent of the CDD form of government. Very basically, the intent and law specifies that after so much property is bought up by residents, the developer loses his/her control and the governing powers is given to the property owners. Although I won't get into it here, that is really at the heart of the IRS issue.[/QUOTE


Oh, Well, Then...I hope we exit stage right before the residents start running this side of 466.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by mikeod

For that to be true, it would have to mean that the developer ignores the deed restrictions and places For Sale signs on properties while preventing outside realtors from doing the same. I don't think that's true. Perhaps Ms. Parr was trying to make the playing field level in those areas where they use window signs and outside realtors use outdoor signs. To my knowledge the only area where outside realtors may be at a disadvantage is the inability to have an office within TV. There are plenty of outside realtor ads in the Sun and as enclosures. I think it is impossible for the developer to "eliminate" the competition in resales, especially in a community to which many people move from great distances, necessitating the need to search via electronic means.

You may want to read up on 1st Amendment rights. It is not a universal right and can be restricted by mutual consent. When voluntarily agreeing to purchase a property with a deed restriction on signs, one cannot claim a 1st Amendment violation.

Good post.

[bkcunningham1]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

I have great confidence that the developer is going to make the right choices for the greater good of all. Maybe it is because he will make more money and maybe because this place is his creation and he lives here too.

I don't have the same confidence that an elected homeowner is going to make the right decision for the greater good.

I like the CDD form of government in this case. I wonder just how it got changed north of 466? I wonder if it was caused by the lawsuit brought by the group of villagers including lawyers who won it and won several million dollars personally as a result of it.

I have never got it straight that the suit was brought to widen the cartpaths and because there was mold in one of the rec centers. The developer has painted the Odell rec center that was behind my house in Hadley completely in and out every year for the four years I lived there. The pool was immaculate. If a tree died at the Odell rec center, it was replaced. The planting beds were hand weeded. I see no evidence that he needed to be sued. Where I lived south of 466 was not involved in the lawsuit.

I am very confused by the undercurrents I feel against the developer and I suspect that it is class envy. Or perhaps it has to do with his contributions to his political party.

He had done nothing but take care of things nicely during the four and a half years I have owned property here.

Both new houses, anything that wasn't correct was immediately fixed.

I don't know who he is or what is on his mind but he seems to do the job for us.

We voted with our wallets to live here. Like others our home is the biggest financial outlay we have ever made.

Gracie, the lawsuit was over disrepair and mold overtaking the Paradise Recreation Center as well as the lack of other services not being provided as promised contractually by the developer. Although residents were paying their amenities fees, the facilities and areas within TV weren't being kept-up.

[bkcunningham1]

Originally Posted by PaPaLarry

If I post a 12x12 sign in window, can I have flashing neon lights around it to attract buyers???? Just ask'n!!

Hahaha, I asked the same thing. Too funny.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by bkcunningham1

Hahaha, I asked the same thing. Too funny.

You could get a big tattoo on your midsection and stand naked in the driveway.

Use sunscreen!

[bkcunningham1]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

You could get a big tattoo on your midsection and stand naked in the driveway.

Use sunscreen!

I love you Gracie. You are funny. Since everyone here has lawn ornaments, mine is going to be a realty sign. If they remove one, they have to remove them all. Right?

Or how about enforcing the one cat or dog, a maximum of 20 pounds in weight that my deed restrictions spell out? Can I put a sign on my dog house?

[PennBF]

I bet that CDD's 1-4 vote to restrict signs? Now why do you think that is?
If you can't figure that out you have already allegedly lost your freedom and rights to determine your future. There is the 1st amendment which is meant to protect freedom of speach. Will that work in this case.
It will be interesting if a challenge will result in protecting what some are so willing to give up.

[njbchbum]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

You could get a big tattoo on your midsection and stand naked in the driveway.

Use sunscreen!

Originally Posted by bkcunningham1

I love you Gracie. You are funny. Since everyone here has lawn ornaments, mine is going to be a realty sign. If they remove one, they have to remove them all. Right?

Or how about enforcing the one cat or dog, a maximum of 20 pounds in weight? Can I put a sign on my dog house?

i'm beginning to think the ban on for sale signs could be a boon to a new sandwich board sign business start-up and custom printed tee shirts! both could be worn around the squares in the evening or any other time of day!

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by njbchbum

i'm beginning to think the ban on for sale signs could be a boon to a new sandwich board sign business start-up and custom printed tee shirts! both could be worn around the squares in the evening or any other time of day!

I was thinking of making a killing on tee shirts that say

There is no PEE in Lake Sumter.