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.

Originally Posted by rhood (Post 536953)

You can read the AAC agenda and minutes on the District's web site.

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)

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.