Talk of The Villages Florida
Page 2 of 6 1 2 3 4 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Talk of The Villages Florida (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/)
-   The Villages, Florida, General Discussion (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/villages-florida-general-discussion-73/)
-   -   In Today's Daily Sun Thursday August 9,2012 (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/villages-florida-general-discussion-73/todays-daily-sun-thursday-august-9-2012-a-58207/)

rhood 08-09-2012 10:17 AM
You can read the AAC agenda and minutes on the District's web site.


Quote:
Originally Posted by bkcunningham1 (Post 536935)
I wish the Daily Sun did a better job of covering meetings insomuch as the motion and votes were put in the stories such as this. I don't see that there was an official motion or vote. That isn't to say that there wasn't, just that the story doesn't indicate who made a motion, who seconded the motion and the the vote. The story only gives the discussion and says four of the board members voiced support for not wanting district staff to enforce the deed restrictions that prohibit residents from placing signs in their yards.

I'm not sure if that was an official vote but it sets and defines policy.

The slippery slope fallacy you give sounds good, except for the fact that these things you are saying haven't happened in all the years the restriction hasn't been enforced.

So, to me, now the board has set a policy for this one area of TV and the matter is settled. Do you live in Lake County/Lady Lake that this particular discussion is about? If not, then I suggest, very respectively, that you go to the appropriate meeting that does affect where you own in TV and voice your concerns.

bkcunningham1 08-09-2012 10:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cathyw (Post 536948)
Some of the individual CDD's meetings are scheduled for tomorrow at Laurel Manor and this issue is on all of their agendas.
8am CDD1
11am CDD3
1:30 pm CDD4
I attended the CDD Workshop on July 30th. The board members from CDD1 thru 5 were threre as well as the AAC board,District Staff and the lawyer for the CDD's.
They are all still in discussion mode, no votes requested YET. This will be discussed at the individual CDD meeting and a recommendation given back to District Staff. It seems like this could go on for a while.
The main issue is that ALL VILLAS north of 466 and several Villages, including Santiago, Santo Domingo and Rio Grande, to name a few, have in their current deed restrictions that they ARE ALLOWED to have signs in their front yard.
If you live below 466, the deed restrictions say you CAN'T have a sign in your yard. This has always been the case and has been enforced. The issue, as I see it, is whether they can now say no signs in the VILLAS and Villages mentioned.
Currently, the signs are still up.....have most of you even noticed them.....probably not.
This is only affecting a small part of the Villages, yet so many are up in arms.
So, come to the meeting,and you will hear the arguments for both sides.
Thank you cathyw. No, I haven't noticed that the signs are still up but, I haven't been in that area looking to buy a villa either. lol

cathyw 08-09-2012 10:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhood (Post 536953)
You can read the AAC agenda and minutes on the District's web site.
rhood..do you have a link. I only see minutes from July 11. The agenda is there for Aug 8th, but I can't find the minutes.
Thanks

bkcunningham1 08-09-2012 10:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhood (Post 536953)
You can read the AAC agenda and minutes on the District's web site.
Thank you, friend. That is true. I don't think they post the minutes from meetings until they've been approved by the committee at the following meeting. But thank you again. I was letting my know-it-all attitude get in the way of my commonsense for a minute. Sorry all.

graciegirl 08-09-2012 10:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cathyw (Post 536948)
Some of the individual CDD's meetings are scheduled for tomorrow at Laurel Manor and this issue is on all of their agendas.
8am CDD1
11am CDD3
1:30 pm CDD4
I attended the CDD Workshop on July 30th. The board members from CDD1 thru 5 were threre as well as the Acc board,District Staff and the lawyer for the CDD's.
They are all still in discussion mode, no votes requested YET. This will be discussed at the individual CDD meeting and a recommendation given back to District Staff. It seems like this could go on for a while.
The main issue is that ALL VILLAS north of 466 and several Villages, including Santiago, Santo Domingo and Rio Grande, to name a few, have in their current deed restrictions that they ARE ALLOWED to have signs in their front yard.
If you live below 466, the deed restrictions say you CAN'T have a sign in your yard. This has always been the case and has been enforced. The issue, as I see it, is whether they can now say no signs in the VILLAS and Villages mentioned.
Currently, the signs are still up.....have most of you even noticed them.....probably not.
This is only affecting a small part of the Villages, yet so many are up in arms.
So, come to the meeting,and you will hear the arguments for both sides.
Correct me if I am wrong Cathy. I don't think it is at Laurel Manor Rec Center..and I am not sure it is open to the public, but I could be wrong.

I think that it says that "Supervisors in districts that are responsible for deed restriction enforcement are being asked to decide if they want to enforce the the restriction on yard signs.

Supervisors in District 1 through 4 will hear the issue Friday at the Sumter Landing District Office Boardroom located at 1894 Laurel Manor Drive in The Villages.

District 1 meets at 8 a.m., followed by district 2 at 9:30 a.m., District 3 at 11:00 and District 4 at 1:30 p.m. District 5 meets Aug. 17 at 8 a.m. in the same location.

If you'd like to contact your supervisors to express your views on the sign issue, they can be reached at the following email addresses;

District 1: dist1board@district gov.org

District 2: dist2board@district gov.org.

District 3: dist3board@district gov.org

District 4: dist4board@district gov.org

District 5: dist5board@district gov.org." end of quote from The Daily Sun article August 9,2012

rubicon 08-09-2012 10:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeod (Post 536911)
I'm afraid the AAC has opened a large can of worms with this vote. If residents can ignore deed restrictions as far as signs are concerned, what other restrictions can be ignored? Turn your home into a storefront with the traffic that will occur? Cut down that ancient, pesky live oak that drops leaves into your pool? Install that 14' windmill in the front yard you've always wanted? Let that hedge grow to 20' blocking your neighbor's view? Why not?

Also of concern is that the AAC decision opens the district to lawsuits. I would expect the Morse's to file suit over each and every violation of the deed restrictions and be joined by homeowners doing the same. How long will it take before we are spending a lot of amenity monies trying to justify not enforcing existing deed restrictions.

Yes, we are an older population, and there will be circumstances when we have to sell a home. If the deed restriction on signs is so onerous, perhaps it would have been better to not buy here. Somehow, I don't see a large build-up of pre-owned homes inventory here. I also don't see the outside realtors going out of business because of the lack of signs here. And doesn't the developer also adhere to the "12X12 window only" restriction?

Apparently, a signature on the bottom line accepting these restrictions means nothing anymore. I didn't think we were the generation that decided to ignore rules when they became "inconvenient". I served a president of a homeowners association in CA and I can tell you truthfully that if you allow the slightest deviation from a deed restriction, someone will take advantage of it. And if you try to enforce it, they will point to that exemption and you will lose.
mikeod: spot on...that was my concern. Obviously this is an argument between the Developer's Home Sales Unit vis a vis other Realtors. I would suggest there is a solution to their dispute. However to drag district 1-4 and there was mention of District 5 into this fray and to challenge Deed Restritions, et is a vey dangerous game.

I have not been a big fan of the Developer from the standpoint of a consumer because of the monopoly he holds in Sumter County . As I have said it is good to be the king and as such I looked forward to when he stepped down.

However after the AAC decision concerning this issue it gives me reason to pause and wonder if perhaps we are better having the king.

Finally as I recall a member took a poll on this very issue on another thread and the overwhelming majority wanted the restriction on signage to stay in place.

Ciao All (tha't what Southern Italians say Y'all)

Madelaine Amee 08-09-2012 10:39 AM
Real Estate Signs
 
Under the District Supervisors to Hear Sign Issue it states:

"Supervisors in District 1 through 4 will hear the issue Friday at the Sumter Landing District Office located at 1894 Laurel Manor Drive in The Villages".

If not the public, who are they going to hear from? I'm assuming there will be interested parties waiting to be "heard".

Poorly written ................ confusing.

njbchbum 08-09-2012 12:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhood (Post 536953)
You can read the AAC agenda and minutes on the District's web site.
not for at least another month! the minutes do not often get posted in a timely fashion. the minutees for the July 16, 2012 Amenity Authority Committee Budget Workshop have not even been posted yet. i doubt the 8/7 mtg minutes will be posted in time for residents to review them before their cdd meetings!

njbchbum 08-09-2012 12:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rubicon (Post 536963)
mikeod: spot on...that was my concern. Obviously this is an argument between the Developer's Home Sales Unit vis a vis other Realtors. I would suggest there is a solution to their dispute. However to drag district 1-4 and there was mention of District 5 into this fray and to challenge Deed Restritions, et is a vey dangerous game.

I have not been a big fan of the Developer from the standpoint of a consumer because of the monopoly he holds in Sumter County . As I have said it is good to be the king and as such I looked forward to when he stepped down.

However after the AAC decision concerning this issue it gives me reason to pause and wonder if perhaps we are better having the king.

Finally as I recall a member took a poll on this very issue on another thread and the overwhelming majority wanted the restriction on signage to stay in place.

Ciao All (tha't what Southern Italians say Y'all)
rubicon/mike -
1] do either of you reside or own property in the villages cdds 1-5 and/or in lady lake/lake county villages? if not, why do you even care or are you concerned about the signage issue in those areas.
2] does the aac make decisions that impact your cdd in the villages?
3] are either of you concerned that after the developer turns governance over to your cdd, that he can come in and just change your deed restrictions?
4] re the poll - unless the poll was restricted to impacted members, it has no bearing on the impacted residents and villages - does it?

RedChariot 08-09-2012 12:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roaddog53 (Post 536807)
With all the housing for sale and rentals out there, neighborhoods will look like highway billboards now. I think IMHO it will open up even more issues. Where will it stop? What about political signs, or any sign someone wants to display now. I like the pristine look myself as the Morse family tried to say.
Well said. Many came here because it is a well groomed, pristine environment. This is not going to look good. very very surprized by the vote.

bkcunningham1 08-09-2012 12:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedChariot (Post 537031)
Well said. Many came here because it is a well groomed, pristine environment. This is not going to look good. very very surprized by the vote.
RedChariot, the vote only effects the area where signs have been allowed anyway. This just says keep doing what you've been doing.

cathyw 08-09-2012 01:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by graciegirl (Post 536959)
Correct me if I am wrong Cathy. I don't think it is at Laurel Manor Rec Center..and I am not sure it is open to the public, but I could be wrong.

I think that it says that "Supervisors in districts that are responsible for deed restriction enforcement are being asked to decide if they want to enforce the the restriction on yard signs.

Supervisors in District 1 through 4 will hear the issue Friday at the Sumter Landing District Office Boardroom located at 1894 Laurel Manor Drive in The Villages.

District 1 meets at 8 a.m., followed by district 2 at 9:30 a.m., District 3 at 11:00 and District 4 at 1:30 p.m. District 5 meets Aug. 17 at 8 a.m. in the same location.

If you'd like to contact your supervisors to express your views on the sign issue, they can be reached at the following email addresses;

District 1: dist1board@district gov.org

District 2: dist2board@district gov.org.

District 3: dist3board@district gov.org

District 4: dist4board@district gov.org

District 5: dist5board@district gov.org." end of quote from The Daily Sun article August 9,2012
Gracie,
Thanks for pointing out the correct address. It is NOT in the Laurel Manor REC CENTER, it is across the way from the rec center. Coming from Buena Vista, turn in towards the Laurel Manor Rec Center, but make the 1st right into 1894 Laurel Manor Drive.

Here's the link to the agenda for the meeting.... definitely appears to be open to the residents. Remember, the CDD board is elected to represent the residents.
(We are talking about the older CDD's which have been turned over to the residents)
This thread does not really concern those that live in CDDs 6 thru 10 where nothing is being changed.
Currently, certain Villages are allowed to have signs and they STILL HAVE these signs. If you like the way TV looks RIGHT NOW, there will not be any change if the rules are not enforced.(CHANGED). I love the way the Villages look right now...it's been like this for 20+ years....lets leave it that way. The alternative might be costly.

Item 11 refers to this issue being discussed.
http://www.districtgov.org/PDFView/P...20120810030201

justjim 08-09-2012 01:37 PM
Those of us who live south of 466 probably should stay out of the "fray." One quick point. You are allowed (south of 466) to put up Open House signs for the time you are having an open house. We did and also an advertisement in The Daily Sun. The Villa in Caroline we owned was sold the second week we had an open house. In TV, the open house concept seems to work very well. It did for us. Yes, we did have a regular for sale by owner sign in the window. Someone posting on this Thread mentioned a build out in 1 or 2 years. For what its worth, I think its more like 5 or 6 years.

cathyw 08-09-2012 01:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by justjim (Post 537091)
Those of us who live south of 466 probably should stay out of the "fray." One quick point. You are allowed (south of 466) to put up Open House signs for the time you are having an open house. We did and also an advertisement in The Daily Sun. The Villa in Caroline we owned was sold the second week we had an open house. In TV, the open house concept seems to work very well. It did for us. Yes, we did have a regular for sale by owner sign in the window. Someone posting on this Thread mentioned a build out in 1 or 2 years. For what its worth, I think its more like 5 or 6 years.

Good points !

Mikeod 08-09-2012 03:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cathyw (Post 536948)
The main issue is that ALL VILLAS north of 466 and several Villages, including Santiago, Santo Domingo and Rio Grande, to name a few, have in their current deed restrictions that they ARE ALLOWED to have signs in their front yard.
This is only affecting a small part of the Villages, yet so many are up in arms.
So, come to the meeting,and you will hear the arguments for both sides.
I have looked at all the deed restrictions for Districts 1 & 2 in which the Villages of Santiago, Santo Domingo, and Rio Grande are located. EVERY section (except Villas) has the same prohibition on signs other than owner's name in Section 2.13 or 2.14. Please refer me to the appropriate sections on these deeds that allow signs other than owner's name.

I think the reason so many are up in arms is that a representative body has indicated it chooses to not enforce restrictions that were in place when the properties were purchased. If it can do this with signs, what other deed restrictions will it deem inconvenient in the future? There are many people that specifically bought here because the deed restrictions, in their mind, were appropriate and insured against the neighborhood changing in a manner they did not wish to see.

cathyw 08-09-2012 03:20 PM
Here it is for Rio Grande <( page 17 )
http://www.districtgov.org/images/De...o%20Grande.pdf

AGAIN, if the deed rectrictions were in place and everyone signed on , there would be NO iSSUE. The ISSUE is the fact that people signed deed restrictions 12 to 20 years ago, and now they MAY be changed,
If you live south if 466 , this issue does not affect you. The rules SOUTH of 466 will remain the same.

Mikeod 08-09-2012 03:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bkcunningham1 (Post 536935)

The slippery slope fallacy you give sounds good, except for the fact that these things you are saying haven't happened in all the years the restriction hasn't been enforced.

So, to me, now the board has set a policy for this one area of TV and the matter is settled. Do you live in Lake County/Lady Lake that this particular discussion is about? If not, then I suggest, very respectively, that you go to the appropriate meeting that does affect where you own in TV and voice your concerns.
Perhaps these things haven't happened as yet because some people were reluctant to violate a deed restriction. Now that the AAC has basically said it is OK to continue to put up signs in violation of the deed restrictions, why should any other restriction be any different?

The matter is definitely not settled, as seen by the admission of counsel that the developer and/or homeowners can legally sue to enforce the restrictions.

From prior posts I can see that you have a very vested interest in the restrictions being ignored. But I also have an interest in looking at TV as a whole community, not a collection of separate districts. I have seen the result of that in several communities where different developers built separate neighborhoods that were dramatically different from each other, dragging down the value and appearance of the whole area. I bought here because I believe deed restrictions as set forth are necessary for the long term success of this community.

janmcn 08-09-2012 03:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeod (Post 537173)
Perhaps these things haven't happened as yet because some people were reluctant to violate a deed restriction. Now that the AAC has basically said it is OK to continue to put up signs in violation of the deed restrictions, why should any other restriction be any different?

The matter is definitely not settled, as seen by the admission of counsel that the developer and/or homeowners can legally sue to enforce the restrictions.

From prior posts I can see that you have a very vested interest in the restrictions being ignored. But I also have an interest in looking at TV as a whole community, not a collection of separate districts. I have seen the result of that in several communities where different developers built separate neighborhoods that were dramatically different from each other, dragging down the value and appearance of the whole area. I bought here because I believe deed restrictions as set forth are necessary for the long term success of this community.
Didn't the recent legislation passed by the Florida legislature say that the deed restrictions have to be complaint driven? If so, it appears the developer doesn't have a stack of complaints.

cathyw 08-09-2012 03:40 PM
According to District Staff, Deed restrictions are STILL complaint driven.

njbchbum 08-09-2012 03:48 PM
mike - you live in caroline - when was the last time you were in any of the impacted areas BEFORE this issue arose? cathyw and i have each provided you reference to the deed restrictions that DO permit the signage in question - why can you not accept that it is there and that the developer is attempting to take it away?

the villages IS a collection of separate districts - thus, we have separate governing bodies! they share their unity in their sense of commUNITY!

in the original historic district there are other deed violation infractions besides for sale signs - and ya know what - the neighbors there DON'T have a problem with it!

Bogie Shooter 08-09-2012 03:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by njbchbum (Post 537188)
mike - you live in caroline - when was the last time you were in any of the impacted areas BEFORE this issue arose? cathyw and i have each provided you reference to the deed restrictions that DO permit the signage in question - why can you not accept that it is there and that the developer is attempting to take it away?

the villages IS a collection of separate districts - thus, we have separate governing bodies! they share their unity in their sense of commUNITY!

in the original historic district there are other deed violation infractions besides for sale signs - and ya know what - the neighbors there DON'T have a problem with it!
The fact that mike lives in caroline has nothing to do with his interest, and he stated the reasons why.

Mikeod 08-09-2012 04:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cathyw (Post 537162)
Here it is for Rio Grande <( page 17 )
http://www.districtgov.org/images/De...o%20Grande.pdf

AGAIN, if the deed rectrictions were in place and everyone signed on , there would be NO iSSUE. The ISSUE is the fact that people signed deed restrictions 12 to 20 years ago, and now they MAY be changed,
If you live south if 466 , this issue does not affect you. The rules SOUTH of 466 will remain the same.
The deed restrictions you linked to are for Villas, only. I specifically excluded villas in prior posts. I did not see any indication that the developer was attempting to change the restrictions for villas.Please point me to wording that indicates such. I would side with villa homeowners were that to be tried. My concern is for the decision to not enforce the existing restrictions on other homes (not villas).

graciegirl 08-09-2012 04:05 PM
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.

Mikeod 08-09-2012 04:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by janmcn (Post 537178)
Didn't the recent legislation passed by the Florida legislature say that the deed restrictions have to be complaint driven? If so, it appears the developer doesn't have a stack of complaints.
He doesn't need to collect a stack of complaints, he can complain or find an interested party who resides in that district who will file a complaint and/or lawsuit.

Mikeod 08-09-2012 04:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bkcunningham1 (Post 537038)
RedChariot, the vote only effects the area where signs have been allowed anyway. This just says keep doing what you've been doing.
Please show me where the deed restrictions have been amended for non-villa homes in Lady Lake. I am well aware of the distinction between villas and other homes as far as signage is concerned.

Mikeod 08-09-2012 04:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by njbchbum (Post 537188)
mike - you live in caroline - when was the last time you were in any of the impacted areas BEFORE this issue arose? cathyw and i have each provided you reference to the deed restrictions that DO permit the signage in question - why can you not accept that it is there and that the developer is attempting to take it away?

the villages IS a collection of separate districts - thus, we have separate governing bodies! they share their unity in their sense of commUNITY!

in the original historic district there are other deed violation infractions besides for sale signs - and ya know what - the neighbors there DON'T have a problem with it!
I care because I live in this entire community. I travel through it daily to play golf, go to rec centers, shop, and dine. As I responded to CathyW, the amended deeds link affected only villas. You state the developer is trying to take away something that is allowed. I have yet to see anything that states he is trying to enforce sign restrictions on villas. I would support the villa homeowners in that fight.

Yes, we have separate districts, but we all live in the whole community. I can recreate at any facility within TV no matter where I actually reside. If the governing CDD boards can ignore existing deed restrictions, can they also decide that the executive courses in their district, maintained by the amenity fees from their homeowners, are now restricted to residents of that district only? Where does it end?

Your last paragraph only makes my point. It cannot be "Whatever you want!" What will you do when someone put up something you don't like? What about those that bought because of the restrictions? Tough luck?

cathyw 08-09-2012 04:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeod (Post 537217)
I care because I live in this entire community. I travel through it daily to play golf, go to rec centers, shop, and dine. As I responded to CathyW, the amended deeds link affected only villas. You state the developer is trying to take away something that is allowed. I have yet to see anything that states he is trying to enforce sign restrictions on villas. I would support the villa homeowners in that fight.

Yes, we have separate districts, but we all live in the whole community. I can recreate at any facility within TV no matter where I actually reside. If the governing CDD boards can ignore existing deed restrictions, can they also decide that the executive courses in their district, maintained by the amenity fees from their homeowners, are now restricted to residents of that district only? Where does it end?

Your last paragraph only makes my point. It cannot be "Whatever you want!" What will you do when someone put up something you don't like? What about those that bought because of the restrictions? Tough luck?

Let's see who will be at the CDD meeting to show the support of their viewpoints ...that is the only way to really state your position.
Many people have a lot to say on TOTV but they do not go any further than that. Come to the meeting and state your points. Thanks

Roaddog53 08-09-2012 04:36 PM
"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. "
I have to 100% agree with GG on this one! It appears to be some kind of undercurrent here in many of the threads against the Morse Family. Sounds like envy, jealousy, political affiliation or whatever. They have done nothing I see but provide a value or service to others as in ANY good business. Now that DOESN'T mean that I agree with the way some of their sub-businesses operate or even some of their arrogance, but it goes with their success. Who can fault success.
There is nothing stopping any of you from starting a business or a similar "Villages" somewhere else. If you make it, good for you, other will than be jeolous of you and complain about what YOU do or don't do for them. If you don't make it, you can see what they had to go through to get where they are than! AND.. you can sleep at night maybe too.

cathyw 08-09-2012 04:45 PM
Once again, the thread has gotten hijacked.
Is this thread about " signs" not "love of developer".
I have absolutely nothing bad to say about the developer, but I do have an opinion about the "signs Issue"
Let's keep it to the issue. Thanks

Mikeod 08-09-2012 04:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cathyw (Post 537224)
Let's see who will be at the CDD meeting to show the support of their viewpoints ...that is the only way to really state your position.
Many people have a lot to say on TOTV but they do not go any further than that. Come to the meeting and state your points. Thanks
Cathy - I will not be at the meetings because I do not reside in those districts, as you know. While I have strong opinions on this matter (no surprise, huh?) they are more global and I would not expect to be allowed to speak before that board as a non-resident of that district. My participation in this discussion is to present an alternative point of view, present some potential pitfalls should the restrictions be ignored, correct some apparent inaccuracies, and, most importantly, stimulate some critical thought on the matter.

cathyw 08-09-2012 05:13 PM
Do you have any opinion as to why CDD's 6 thru 10 are NOT having meetings to discuss this issue ??? I do. ......It's because it doesn't affect these CDD's

batman911 08-09-2012 05:17 PM
I could live with a small (maybe 3" X 10") sign attached to the front yard lamp post just like the residents name signs. Another option would be to have a map at the mail boxes with home that are for sale marked so any prospective buyer could take a look and drive to see any they would be interested in.

cathyw 08-09-2012 05:22 PM
Thanks for thinking of alternative solutions !
I always LOVE when people think "outside the box"

Good post !

Wiserbud47 08-09-2012 05:46 PM
For sale signs should NOT be allowed on the lawns in The Villages! We have to stand up for what we believe in. If someone threatens a lawsuit, then we will have to fight for what is in the best interest of The Villages.

njbchbum 08-09-2012 06:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiserbud47 (Post 537281)
For sale signs should NOT be allowed on the lawns in The Villages! We have to stand up for what we believe in. If someone threatens a lawsuit, then we will have to fight for what is in the best interest of The Villages.
should the developer be allowed to take away a permitted practice you have enjoyed for 20+ years? what will you fight for re that issue?

and since when can one not fight for what is good for oneself?

and if one is fighting for something that has no impact on "we" why are "we" in the fight?

Bogie Shooter 08-09-2012 06:44 PM
Not sure why someone who does not live in Lake County cannot have an opinion about signs?

Mama C 08-09-2012 07:41 PM
I moved to TV because of the restrctions-keeps things nice and clean and orderly!

bob47 08-09-2012 07:51 PM
It seems to me that if Jennifer Parr and the rest of the developer's family feel so passionately about not having "For Sale" signs in front of homes, they could have followed this policy back in August of 2001 when we bought our resale home that had a sign in the front yard proudly displayed by Properties Of The Villages.

And they could have followed it in 2002, 2003, 2004, - - - 2011. A lot of folks think that forcing code enforcement now is just an angle to put outside realtors and residents who try to sell on their own at a disadvantage. I think they're right.

graciegirl 08-09-2012 08:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cathyw (Post 537234)
Once again, the thread has gotten hijacked.
Is this thread about " signs" not "love of developer".
I have absolutely nothing bad to say about the developer, but I do have an opinion about the "signs Issue"
Let's keep it to the issue. Thanks
Cathy. People blame the developer for the new attitude toward signs. There have been posts on this thread along those lines. That post was my response.

I'd choose the developer and what ever he decided over decisions by an elected homeowner. I have been in too many organizations that this whim, or that looney idea or someones dear project got used and the rest of us had to suffer. I LIKE the CDD form of goverment here. It works very well.

Mikeod 08-09-2012 09:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by njbchbum (Post 537302)
should the developer be allowed to take away a permitted practice you have enjoyed for 20+ years? what will you fight for re that issue?

and since when can one not fight for what is good for oneself?

and if one is fighting for something that has no impact on "we" why are "we" in the fight?
PLEASE show me where in the deed for your district it says signs other than the homeowner's name are permitted on non-villa properties OR show me where the developer has indicated his intent to initiate sign restrictions on villa properties and I will understand your displeasure.

You cannot claim that establishing a precedent of ignoring deed restrictions should be of no concern to me. It already has affected those north of 466 and there is no reason that residents and outside agencies pushing for this will not continue the fight to overcome existing deed restrictions once those districts south of 466 are turned over to resident boards.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:26 AM.
Page 2 of 6 1 2 3 4 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v2.0.32 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.