[inda50]

For the last 20 or 30 years they were not enforced. Should I assume that all of a sudden because it clearly benefits the developer they should be enforced? If you bought here clearly you saw the signs. Why did you buy here where there were for sale signs clearly for so long?

[Bogie Shooter]

Originally Posted by Bambi

I was at the meeting yesterday and I am offended by this remark. The members of the AAC are dedicated people serving our community. Name calling is very immature and should not be tolerated by this forum.

The debate regarding the detrimental appearance of signs is a subjective one. However, the legal liability of prohibiting signs is a real one. The cost of defending the suit and the subsequent award if we lost would be the responsibility of all of us.....our amenity fees.

Sorry you were offended..........some will agree & some will be offended.
If the covenents say no signs and that is enforced, where is the legal liability?

[Bogie Shooter]

Originally Posted by inda50

For the last 20 or 30 years they were not enforced. Should I assume that all of a sudden because it clearly benefits the developer they should be enforced? If you bought here clearly you saw the signs. Why did you buy here where there were for sale signs clearly for so long?

How does it clearly benefit the developer?

[janmcn]

Originally Posted by Bogie Shooter

Sorry you were offended..........some will agree & some will be offended.
If the covenents say no signs and that is enforced, where is the legal liability?

Not all deed restrictions say no signs. Some clearly state that professional for sale and for rent signs are allowed.

[bkcunningham1]

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.

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.

[ilovetv]

"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."

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?????

[Bogie Shooter]

Originally Posted by janmcn

Not all deed restrictions say no signs. Some clearly state that professional for sale and for rent signs are allowed.

So, if that's what the deed restrictions say them allow them.

[Bogie Shooter]

Originally Posted by ilovetv

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?????

I agree, doubt if any agents will answer your question.

[bkcunningham1]

Originally Posted by ilovetv

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?????

Perhaps you have something there. Do you have the stats on the homes sold and by whom? Did the developer sell more than the MLS or was it the opposite? I'm curious and look forward to your answer.

That might answer a nagging question I've had regarding whether or not the developer will stay in the real estate business in TV after we are built-out. Will they continue to sell only pre-owned homes after the build-out? Will the developer sell their real estate business to an already established business or an outside person? I suppose it depends on how profitable the pre-owned sales business is for them.

[cathyw]

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.

[rhood]

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

Originally Posted by bkcunningham1

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]

Originally Posted by cathyw

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]

Originally Posted by rhood

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]

Originally Posted by rhood

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]

Originally Posted by cathyw

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