[njbchbum]

maybe graciegirl or rubicon or someone who has the paper could just give a brief summary of the vote question and result? and please answer the question as to whether this vote pertains to all properties in lady lake/lake county as the agenda item indicated. thanx

[it should NOT be a surprise to anyone that jennifer parr would speak to the committee; after all, vice president of The Villages’ home sales division. who would stand to benefit from removal of for sale signs of the competition?]

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by njbchbum

maybe graciegirl or rubicon or someone who has the paper could just give a brief summary of the vote question and result? and please answer the question as to whether this vote pertains to all properties in lady lake/lake county as the agenda item indicated. thanx

[it should NOT be a surprise to anyone that jennifer parr would speak to the committee; after all, vice president of The Villages’ home sales division. who would stand to benefit from removal of for sale signs of the competition?]

The brief summary and the generalizations are not conducive to seeing the bottom line and for making informed judgments.

I don't support people coming in and buying up many homes and renting them and I don't support people flipping homes for profit. It isn't good for all of us and for all of our property values. That is just MY opinion.

I would like for people to read this article.

Admin? May I have permission to type it?

[bkcunningham1]

The story doesn't mention an official vote by the board, njbchbum. Districts 1-4 will take up the matter Friday and District 5 will address the issue on August 17.

Although the article doesn't mention a vote, it does indicate that members Rich Lambrecht, Carl Bell, Jo Weber and John Wilcox were in the majority of not wanting to enforce the deed restriction. Wilcox said the Jennifer Parr had some good points but he would support not to enforce the restriction. He said he'd consider looking at the matter again in six months.

Board members Gary Moyer and Ann Forrester were the members who supported the enforcement.

[bkcunningham1]

Originally Posted by bkcunningham1

The story doesn't mention an official vote by the board, njbchbum. Districts 1-4 will take up the matter Friday and District 5 will address the issue on August 17.

Although the article doesn't mention a vote, it does indicate that members Rich Lambrecht, Carl Bell, Jo Weber and John Wilcox were in the majority of not wanting to enforce the deed restriction. Wilcox said the Jennifer Parr had some good points but he would support not to enforce the restriction. He said he'd consider looking at the matter again in six months.

Board members Gary Moyer and Ann Forrester were the members who supported the enforcement.

Just so the moderator understands, these are my own words. The meetings are a matter of public information and come under the Florida Sunshine Laws. I am not quoting the copyrighted material out of the newspaper.

[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.

[The Shadow]

I think I got this figured out. What was not a problem until a few months ago then became a problem now we do not want to go back to what was not a problem because that would be a problem.

[inda50]

Eventually everyone here ( or their estate ) for various reasons will have to sell their home. I am in favor of one for sale sign on the property. It should be our right.

[rhood]

GG, type it and put it on your website and post a link here. Does it say anything in The Daily Sun that you can't copy or reproduce content?

[Roaddog53]

At what point do the members of this so called board reviewing this make a decision? What I fail to understand is the comment that the restrictions were not being enforced, so why enforce them now? Wilcox states he is in not in favor of enforcing the restrictions?? Or he is in favor of looking at this in 6 months?? This is called procrastination or failure to commit. I have said it before. If people in positions can not perform their function, than don't be in the position! I look at these posts and am astonished at the covenants that are in place and since they were not enforced they don't want to start now, or even worse, they telling everyone they are not enforceable. Than why have them at all than if anyone can do what they want?
Saying that Jennifer Parr benefits by not having the signs because she is VP of home sales is wrong. If people want to sell, rent their homes, use the various current avenues everyone is using now. With the "demand" down here and all the technologies, I would think IMHO, that most people out of state, and even here, sit down and are looking online or having a realtor do the checking! Those realtors and individuals have the same tools as TV to use for homes.

[Mikeod]

Originally Posted by rubicon

GGI I read the article this AM and would agree with Jennifer Parr that the resriction ought to remain in place. I am very disappointed with the Amenities Advisor Committee's decision in fact very surprised by their vote. People should speak up as this issue goes well beyond "For Sale" signs

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 as 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.

[graciegirl]

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.

You are right as usual BK. I am sorry I said that.

[janmcn]

Originally Posted by mikeod

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.

By the same token, if the villa neighborhoods are forced to give up a part of their deed restrictions that they signed and was signed by an agent of the developer, the same holds true. Next week or next month the developer could decide not to allow pets and give you 30 days to get rid of your animals.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by mikeod

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.

Well said.

[PennBF]

Consider that within the next year or so there will be a build out. Consider the only way to secure revenue then is through "resale's". Consider what an advantage it would be to be the alleged only source of this revenue. Now consider how you could to that. What if advertising was restricted and the
primary way to see what was for sale was to go to The Villages sales center.
Now consider who receives the benefit from this alleged attempt to block
others from entering the resale market. How do you do that..As they say in sports "you make the call". Not hard to see what is allegedly going on?

[rhood]

Originally Posted by Bogie Shooter

Once the inmates start running the asylum...............(fill in the blank)

Yup !