I'm not quietman, but have my own opinion. Perhaps people were not that concerned about the For Sale/Rent signs, but are now concerned that not enforcing the sign prohibition now opens the door to any and all signs in any and all sizes. Posters claim the complaint process is still in effect. But, if I put up a sign and am told to remove it, I could refuse, pointing out the district's new policy to not enforce the deed restriction allows me to place a sign. And, the district has allowed similar signs in other places. Are we going to have a situation like defining porn, "I can't define what it is, but I know it when I see it." So the district can say one sign is OK but another one is not? What will the standard be, if there is any standard? Will the standard change as new people are elected to the boards? If so, will approved signs have to be removed if the new board doesn't like them? This, to me, opens up so many potential problems. Decisions like this one will be hard to undo once formalized.

I guess my attempt at sarcasm missed the point - sorry. I know the rules and would like to see them stay and enforced. Its one of the things I liked so there would always be a pristine look everywhere.

No signs!

agree with you, mikeod - a great big can or worms! but i have to think that on the other side of the coin...since there has been no enforcement of signage in the past and there has not been a plethora of signs in the past, how does one come to the conclusion that there is going to be an abundance of a variety of signs in the future?

A lot of comments that support signs have been made by people who are interested in purchasing in TV in the future. Once they are Frogs, their perspective may well change.

I agree with Mikeod ... If sign prohibitions are not enforced, it's like opening Pandora's box.

I just can't wait until the build-out and the developer turns The Villages over to us "inmates" and all our special interest.You want the definition for the word chaos, just visit TV after the build-out and you will see it first hand.Without the present strong leadership group in charge,the future growth and appeal of TV will be in jeopardy.We might as well start junking up TV now with all these signs,and it will become a "Pandora's Box",so we can get an unequivocal representation of our future without the developer,his family, and his leadership group in charge.Just be careful what you wish for.

As a former condo board president, I have observed first hand that it is next to impossible to get the "volunteer" board members to ignore their personal agendae and vote for the good of the community even when it hurts.

With this new found wave of enthusiasm for deed restriction enforcement, every resident should get out the copy that they signed and was also signed by the developer's representative and refresh their memories.

Residents might be surprised that their village only allows two pets per household...that's two dogs or two cats or one of each. Some villages also have a 20 pound limit on the size of pets. Some new residents are under the impression that they can bring more than two pets. Some of the older neighborhoods only allow one pet per household.

Other residents, in the older neighborhoods, might be surprised that they are not allowed to have an outside TV antenna or satellite dish. This would eliminate Direct TV or Dish TV as an option for service.

Residents can't be selective in the deed restrictions they want to see enforced.

I think people noticed the only extra signs were those For Sale/Rent signs. While there may have been interest in personal signs it was apparent they were not being displayed or perhaps the restriction was being enforced for those. Once enforcement is halted for signs in general, why wouldn't other signs appear? No limit to number, size, location. Once enforcement is halted, you cannot put the genie back in the bottle.

grest points, janmcn! getting rid of a dish or antenna is one thing - but getting rid of pets! oh, my, my!

why won't other signs appear? how about because no one had a need/desire to put one out before and nothing has changed in the resident's life to need/desire to put one out now?

i just can't figure out why a cdd would exercise the selective enforcement of all signs other than for sale signs for many years and then suddenly make an issue of enforcing the restriction over for sale signs that were okay for so long.

i really do feel bad for the residents who want their homes and neighborhoods to look pristine, sterile, cookie-cutter, uncluttered or however it can be described and the vote of no enforcement of the signage deed restriction will cause them discomfort, pain and/or anguish. but i guess they will have to live with the vote of their supervisors. it seems it's in their hands!

Absolutely, Steve. And, while you and I may have had good intentions, I've found that the primary reason for people to seek Board positions is to control their neighbors lives.

I do believe any law banning outdoor antennae has already been deemed illegal by the courts....

Off topic, but I think the ruling was in regards to satellite dishes, but outside TV antennas are still able to be banned if there are alternatives such as cable or satellite.

With regard to pets, I understand new residents with more than 2 pets are allowed to bring them all, but cannot replace the extra pet(s) when it passes so they get down to two pets only.

Where is that pet waiver regulation written?