Originally Posted by Freedomtalks (Post 538079)

Gail Lazenby, Supervisor for District 3, said it best, "For the past 20 years signs were allowed because it was in the Developer's Best Interestto allow signs and not stop them from being used." And now it is not, so........ you can draw your own conclusion. What I don't understand is we have somewhat set our standards over the last 20 years. The VCDD has been allowing For Sale and For Rent signs but they have also been forcing residents to remove "Don't Poop On My Lawn" or " Curb your Dog" signs all along. If a complaint is received they have gone to homes that had had some construction and is now completed and told the owner to remove the sign.

Now all of a sudden we are not allowed to go back to that. WHY???? Is it because it is just a way for VCDD to once again try and intimidate us into voting the way they want you to vote, for the Developer. I think that what the AAC and the Districts are doing right now is absolutely the best thing for the people of TV. They are not "Drinking the Kool-Aide" that is being spooned fed down their throats by the VCDD staff and they are making up their own mind. Don't get me wrong What the Developer has created is great, but he took all of the advantages of creating the VCDD Districts and made a lot of money from them, us and now he has to accept the other side of our self governing, as it should be.

What the Daily "My Name is Morse and I Approve This Message" Sun did not print is the 2nd
message that Ms. Parr delivered. And in part it was........"What are you all going to do when I am not here anymore to deal with these problems. My children are working in the business some but we won't be around forever so what are you going to do when we're gone?" ARE YOU KIDDING ME. What a slap in the face to all of those who serve on the AAC and the District Boards. I bet they didn't realize that they didn't have the brains to figure all of this out. Well, they do and by voting how they have they are showing that we can govern ourselves.

Originally Posted by bkcunningham1 (Post 538212)

Peachie, do you live in TV now? Your last sentence confused me. Would you mind clarifying?

You said, "I don't live north of 466a but I have a dog in this fight, that may be the area of our next move."

Originally Posted by Freedomtalks (Post 538079)

I think that what the AAC and the Districts are doing right now is absolutely the best thing for the people of TV.

I bet they didn't realize that they didn't have the brains to figure all of this out. Well, they do and by voting how they have they are showing that we can govern ourselves.

Originally Posted by ilovetv (Post 536936)

This, quoted above, is the wisdom that matters.

And here is another perspective:

Virtually ALL homes south of 466 sold as RE-SALES have been sold and bought without a sign in the yard. IF it is so "difficult" and "uncompetitive" to market a home in The Villages without a sign in the yard, then how in the heck did all these hundreds/thousands of re-sale homes south of 466 get SOLD by both TV and MLS agents and homeowners themselves?????

Originally Posted by graciegirl (Post 536744)

Jennifer Parr, daughter of the developer and vice president of The Villages Home Sales has made a rare if ever speech to the Amenity Authority Committee regarding the issue of signs and it was quoted in the newspaper today.

Would any of you off campus like for me to type it here for you to read?

Originally Posted by bkcunningham1 (Post 538226)

I have bought and sold houses in TV. I have always used a realtor with each and every one of my business transactions. My realtor advertises in the Daily Sun, maintains a website and publishes a magazine that the Daily Sun
prints and circulates.

I've even used a realtor with TV. I currently own three houses in TV and I'm paying amenities fees on on all three. Of the houses I own, I live in one - and if the good Lord is willing - I will die living in this house. I love it. Another house we bought for my father-in-law. The third house I'm trying to sell.

In addition to paying the amenities fees, I keep the lawns and homes maintained impeccable. The houses I've bought and flipped have been remodeled and made to look completely new again. What I've done has improved, not only the houses, but the immediate neighborhood and TV as a whole. I've put money back into the area. I have a big vested interest in the area.

For the life of me, I can't understand why you or anyone else would have a problem with me selling houses in TV. Would you mind explaining that to me please?

Originally Posted by Villages PL (Post 538230)

Jennifer Parr made an excellent argument in favor of maintaining restrictions but of course it was only one (biased) side of the story. Of course it was persuasive, that's what they call salesmanship.

Who will present the other side of the story and have it published in the Daily Sun? Anyone? Would the Daily Sun allow it? I kind of doubt it. I haven't made up my mind so I would like to see an "official" presentation for the other side.

Originally Posted by PennBF (Post 538090)

Of course a couple of CDD's are waiting..They are waiting until after the elections. I would seriously doubt they don't have an opinion yet..They have had a great deal of time to understand the issues. If they vote to allow the signs they may anger a lot of residents and if they vote to not allow signs they will have allegedly violated their commitment to adhere to the developer's and Village Managements directions. Lets wait and see what happens AFTER THE ELECTIONS. :ho:

Originally Posted by Freedomtalks (Post 538079)

What the Daily "My Name is Morse and I Approve This Message" Sun did not print.

Originally Posted by Bogie Shooter (Post 538275)

It is worth noting that RE/Max had a 10 page insert in today's Daily Sun....hardly stonewalling the competition.

Originally Posted by Peachie (Post 538246)

BK, I think you may be addressing me... but I don't have a problem with you selling houses in The Villages. I have a problem with yard signage because it clearly is a cheap tool for realtors and is an eyesore for most people and houses may be sold just as easily through other other, less intrusive techniques.

I'm not interested in "professional" renters because this is my home. I don't want the house next to me being moved in and out of constantly and the traffic that goes with the rental. I think that's a pretty human feeling. We want neighbors. Flipping is not my cup of tea either since it usually means making pretty and no substantial repairs to the structure, ie: wiring, roofing, plumbing and so forth. You are probably the exception but most flippers rule of thumb is cheapest effort in to get the biggest bang out. I'd like to see homes sold on their merit and repairs and enhancement completed by the proud new owner. That's my feeling only and doesn't make flipping right or wrong and that's why I stated there are methods for selling those homes too.

Originally Posted by bkcunningham1 (Post 538303)

Re/Max, Realty Executives and other locally owned realty companies pay to have inserts printed and distributed by the Daily Sun each week. Not only that, these same realtors pay to have classified ads in the same newspaper daily.

Originally Posted by mikeod (Post 538269)

If you read the posts above from realtors, FSBO people, and income property owners you will hear the other side of the story.

The fact is that people bought into this development where restrictions are in place to prohibit those signs (except in villa neighborhoods) and signed their acceptance of these restrictions. Now they don't like it and want the restriction ignored without consideration for those who bought here because there were restrictions to ensure consistency throughout TV.

Originally Posted by janmcn (Post 538315)

If you feel so strongly about "professional" renters, why did you locate in an area that allows rentals for as short as one week at a time? A number of mobile home parks and condo developments in Florida require a three month minimum on rentals.

Originally Posted by OldManTime (Post 538362)

From what I'm seeing most residents are obiding by the new sign regulation, the only ones not following the restriction is the Villages Real Estate people, they still put open house signs in the yards, signs that should be in the windows, are on the outside of the house, they are most likely the last to comply. I personally think the restriction is a good Idea.

Originally Posted by graciegirl (Post 536744)

Jennifer Parr, daughter of the developer and vice president of The Villages Home Sales has made a rare if ever speech to the Amenity Authority Committee regarding the issue of signs and it was quoted in the newspaper today.

Would any of you off campus like for me to type it here for you to read?

Originally Posted by mikeod (Post 538426)

So, when an outside realtor conducts an open house, they are not allowed to put up any flags or signs or other indications of the open house in the yard? Is that true? Not challenging, just asking. I have opined that if the developer follows the same rules on signs, he has no advantage in restricting them. If, OTOH, he does not follow the rules in the deed restrictions, he is wrong.

Originally Posted by hank & judy (Post 538446)

The only person I see that would benefit from signs on the lawn are the people putting them there - realtor,Joe the plumber or who ever. Its free advertizing for their business.
If someone is looking to buy in tv, they would already know to look at the windows.
THE ONLY THING THAT SIGNS DO IS TRASH UP THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND DEVALUE PROPERTYS.
Thats my 2 cents

Originally Posted by hank & judy (Post 538446)

The only person I see that would benefit from signs on the lawn are the people putting them there - realtor,Joe the plumber or who ever. Its free advertizing for their business.
If someone is looking to buy in tv, they would already know to look at the windows.
THE ONLY THING THAT SIGNS DO IS TRASH UP THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND DEVALUE PROPERTYS.
Thats my 2 cents

Originally Posted by njbchbum (Post 538445)

peachie - your post # 123 certainly presents a good case - for the developer. please allow me to present some counter points...

you posted, "The people spreading the hysteria about eliminating real estate for rent or sale signs off the lawns and putting them in the windows are primarily outside real estate agents, flippers and landlords." do you have factual statistics on that statement? if not, on what is it based?...observation, conversation, ASSumption?


You mean rummage sale sign and garage sale sign hangers should have been included?


"Place these [magazine/brochure] in the stores on perimeters of The Villages" - in my opinion, that is a decidedly unequal advantage since some house hunting folks have no opportunity to frequent stores on the perimeter of the village - those without transportation and/or time come to mind - like the lifestylers.

If they have no transportation, how would they get through all the neighborhoods to see "for sale" signs posted in every yard, walk?

"...get one major website for all outside realtors of The Villages listings and keep it updated daily." - most mls realtors already have their personal sites which advertise mls listings of their own and others - that's why they are in the mls business! there is no need for a mega site and the expense/maintenance of same - it is redundancy.

Exactly, why don't the realtors combine their efforts and present the one collective website link to prospective buyers, I think that's how The Villages does it. Village sales people also run their own ads, it appears.

"...they just have to spend some of their profits too." - very presumptive of you to ASSume that mls realtors do not spend some of their profits! in fact - they all spend exhorbitant amounts to place ads/inserts in the daily sun!

How much is an exhorbitant amount on one ad? I think you are assuming that almost every sale in The Villages is from all those signs in the front yard, I disagree. Do you have statistics to show us?

"...a sign in the front yard of a property is the cheapest advertising a realtor can use,..." - so what - it IS another advtg resource for the seller, TOO. is it not?

Homes south of 466 are sold without the real estate signs, why does the area north of 466 need to advertise outside real estate agents if homes will sell without the signs?

"The Villages Real Estate teams have to employ the same method of signage and there is no advantage to them in that area." - everyone knows the villages has a sales office - not everyone looking for a home in the villages is aware that you need an mls realtor to view non-village realty listings...check posts on totv and see how many posters were surprised to find that out! without an mls realtor sign in someone's yard, someone looking to purchase a home might not make the inquiry re mls realtors...a decided advantage to the villages realty sales.

It does surprise me that people haven't visited here, checked out the area, asked questions, or have a computer and just happen to walk up to The Villages Sales office and offer to buy a home. But I really don't see how putting a "for sale" sign in the YARD will make that specific point to perspective purchasers. How does it happen south of 466?


"...get a good sign in the window..." - please put that 12" x 12" sign in one of your house windows......be sure to include a realtor business name, name of the salesperson and a telephone number...and then go stand in the middle of the street and let me know how much info you can discern on that sign and then try reading it while driving by it! and advtg in the daily sun again benefits the developer, a sign in the yard does not.

We did sell a house here in The Villages and used that technique, it worked. If sign size is an issue, how about working for a larger window sign maximum... say a 12" x 16" limit.

"He seldom took down the balloons, even when they were half or completely deflated, leaving a real eyesore in the neighborhood." - and i ASSume the ballons remained there because a neighbor did not speak to the seller about taking them down - much less take them down for him and the benefit of the neighborhood.

So you would give permission to anyone not approving of the signage to take it upon themselves to remove and dispose of said signage. Some realtors may be missing their signs.....

" I don't live north of 466 but I have a dog in this fight, that may be the area of our next move." - i think that statement pretty much takes your dog out of this fight since you are not a resident of the area and are not represented by any supervisor there. no matter how the residents ask their supvs to vote, you will have the option to move in the future to an area being fully aware of the deed restrictions at the time of your move. if you don't like the enforcement in the area - you don't have to move there. right?

Originally Posted by Peachie (Post 538466)

The area mentioned is part and parcel of The Villages and it does matter to everyone if all signage is allowed. If this system works extremely well south of 466, one has to believe it will work north of 466. You have been very tenacious in your efforts to protect signage rights. That is your perogative but please note that I addressed your questions as posed and never was uncivil, we disagree but I never attempted to use ASS when addressing you. :ohdear:

Originally Posted by Peachie (Post 538466)

The area mentioned is part and parcel of The Villages and it does matter to everyone if all signage is allowed. snipped

Originally Posted by Bogie Shooter (Post 538471)

Many of the posts on this thread supporting having signs, imply that home buyers are really stupid and don't know about local newspapers, Internet web sites by brokers, web sites by FSBO and flyers/advertisements piled up at supermarkets, restaurants, etc.
That just doesn't make sense...............of course what does about this sign issue.

Originally Posted by njbchbum (Post 538476)

only that the developer wants to enforce something he gave a board of supervisors the responsibility/authority to enforce - or not enforce - years ago. said boards having governed for all of these years - and now the developer thinks they are/will be incapable of governing themselves? maybe?

Originally Posted by Bogie Shooter (Post 538478)

Are there deed restrictions in New England and the Jersey Shore?

Originally Posted by hank & judy (Post 538475)

How do you know your home would not have appreciated more if the signs were not there?
A lot of thanks for home appreciation in tv should go to Gary Morse & family. A few years ago everything else in Fl tanked.
So maybe everyone should pay attention to there wisdom.
Yes, this is my opinion & theory.

Originally Posted by graciegirl (Post 536744)

Jennifer Parr, daughter of the developer and vice president of The Villages Home Sales has made a rare if ever speech to the Amenity Authority Committee regarding the issue of signs and it was quoted in the newspaper today.

Would any of you off campus like for me to type it here for you to read?

Originally Posted by rubicon (Post 539144)

On page 1 post #2 of this thread I had agreed with Jennifer Parr's opinion regarding the position the AAC took concerning the waiver of restictions on residential "for sale signs"

However I read the opinion of one villager in todays Daily Sun and to my unpleasant surprised it was signed Don Hahnfeldt. This guy is joined at the hip with the Developer and perhaps it is too strong a word to say, a synchophant, but when a guy like a long history with the Developer who has held and continues to hold leadership positions, writes an article that goes beyond support and enters a "I so sympathize with Jennifer.....causes me to pause and question motives ,sincereity and hence credibility.

I would have prefer and would have thrown my support further toward the Developer had this article been written by a villager with no direct relationship with the Developer

Originally Posted by Warren Kiefer (Post 539179)

What we are going to have as a final result is multiple and different rules from one District to the other, one having signs and the neighboring district having a no yard sign rule. You talk about a mess !!!!

Originally Posted by Moderator (Post 536810)

Just a reminder....full copyrighted articles can not be posted verbatim here...you can quote a few sentences but then must provide a link to the original site.

Sorry, them's the rules.

Thanks.... Moderator