[billlaur]

[QUOTE=Daddymac;2459187]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Did they or did they exercise their right to choose the activities allowed on District properties?[/QUOTE

That corner is not district property.. And the Cop should of investigated that.. Not just listen to the dispatcher. He can be held accountable, and lose his qualified immunity.

thank you

[retiredguy123]

Most sidewalks that are located adjacent to a county or state road are located on public property. That is because, if they use Federal funding, they need to comply with the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act). This Federal law often requires sidewalks to be contructed in areas where they are not needed and are seldom used. People will often blame the county or state for wasting money on unnecessary sidewalk construction, when the sidewalk is required to comply with a Federal law. Courtyard villa areas in The Villages have private streets that are owned and maintained by The Villages or districts and they do not have sidewalks.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

Most sidewalks that are located adjacent to a county or state road are located on public property. That is because, if they use Federal funding, they need to comply with the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act). This Federal law often requires sidewalks to be contructed in areas where they are not needed and are seldom used. People will often blame the county or state for wasting money on unnecessary sidewalk construction, when the sidewalk is required to comply with a Federal law. Courtyard villa areas in The Villages have private streets that are owned and maintained by The Villages or districts and they do not have sidewalks.

I believe you mean that most county roads are required to have sidewalks so the county acquired the land and then built the sidewalks. First the land, then the roads, then more land, then sidewalks.

The sidewalks in the Villages were in place before the county had anything at all to do with the roads.

The Villages bought the land, the Villages built the roads, the Villages built the sidewalks, and only then did the county come into play. Some agreement was made that the county would maintain the roads. Perhaps the county purchased the roads that had been built or perhaps the roads were paid for through our bonds and then just turned over for maintenance. Perhaps the agreement was that if the county would maintain the roads then the Villages would install little red buttons so anyone could use the roads.

Turning over maintenance of the roads may not have included turning over ownership of the land the roads sit on OR turning over ownership of the adjacent land that the sidewalks sit on.

[bopat]

If you want to pray for the homeless and/or veterans, just pray for them. Or, if you want, do it in a socially acceptable way, like in a church or faith setting.

Signs with polarizing content, or internet services like Facebook and TikTok, amplify mental illness.

[Slainte]

Sumter County has a Veterans Court. Maybe they’d find help for him & dismiss the trespass (if there’s any validity to such as a misdemeanor charge). It sounds as though whomever said he was guilty of trespass just wanted him to move on. Normally, it’s at a business’s request and issued by police as an ‘advisory written notice that if you are found in that location again, you can be arrested & charged’. If he’s outside a business, they’d probably take him in next time if they actually gave written notice. The VA may be able to help him get the message across differently. I don’t know if there’s a Vet Center near the Villages. If he was a combat vet, they’d help.

[mraines]

Originally Posted by billlaur

Mid afternoon on a public sidewalk.the sign was handwritten on a piece of cardboard,size was approx 12x16 it’s said got bless the homeless vets….:bigbow…

Are the sidewalks really public? I think the Villages owns everything. The streets are public. The Villages would not be "enhancing" the sidewalks if they were public. By the way, for the last two protests, we were not allowed to park in the Aldi parking lot as it was "private" property. In this last protest, I was told we could park there as it was public property. So, which is it?

[Slainte]

After seeing the YouTube video of him, it’s just a scheme to get publicity & money by threatening a lawsuit. Sumter should ignore him & dismiss any ticket that may have been issued. Shyster. Not the best way to help the many homeless veterans.

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by Slainte

After seeing the YouTube video of him, it’s just a scheme to get publicity & money by threatening a lawsuit. Sumter should ignore him & dismiss any ticket that may have been issued. Shyster. Not the best way to help the many homeless veterans.

You have that right. He does the same scam many places. He tries to get a response from the police departments and then sues them if they take the bait. Hopefully the Florida police departments are on to this con man.

He is taking advantage of people's concerns for homeless veterans.

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by mraines

Are the sidewalks really public? I think the Villages owns everything. The streets are public. The Villages would not be "enhancing" the sidewalks if they were public. By the way, for the last two protests, we were not allowed to park in the Aldi parking lot as it was "private" property. In this last protest, I was told we could park there as it was public property. So, which is it?

The sidewalks are public. The roads are public and The Villages does not own everything.

The Aldi's parking lot is "privately owned". What's that mean? It means that the owner of the Aldi's property (The Villages) can determine who gets to park there or doesn't get to park there.

Except it's not that simple.

Aldi's (or a parent company) holds a Lease on the property, that includes access to the parking lot. That access is likely not "exclusive", but shared with other tenants and perhaps with others.

But there's more.

The owner (The Villages) *may* have granted "rights" and or "licenses" for other people to use the parking lot or conceivable have granted a general easement to residents of The Villages and/or the county.

Just because a property is owned by a private entity, you can't assume no one else has the right to use it ... it's more complicated than that.

[Maker]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

The Developer & The Villages spend millions of dollars a year on legal fees. They continue to sell 1000's of homes every year, with Deed Restrictions.

The Developers (Uihlein family) of Lakewood Ranch in Sarasota, sell even more, all with Deed Restrictions.

It makes me wonder why the Morse's & Uihlein family spend millions on attorneys, when the answers are right here on ToTV.

"No More Deed Restrictions, per ToTV".

Since your conclusion is from someone who "doesn't need to read the court's decision" then I'll take your advice as rubbish based upon fictional opinions without gathering any facts.

No more sign restrictions per Supreme court. Didn't say anything else about other deed restrictions. Maybe that part wasn't read either.

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by Maker

Since your conclusion is from someone who "doesn't need to read the court's decision" then I'll take your advice as rubbish based upon fictional opinions without gathering any facts.

No more sign restrictions per Supreme court. Didn't say anything else about other deed restrictions. Maybe that part wasn't read either.

Here's some reading material for you:

Municipal Bans on Yard Signs ("In his decision, Justice Stevens acknowledged that towns have the right to regulate signs,"

U.S. Supreme Court Issues Two Decisions Impacting Local Sign Regulations and Flag Policies (City of Austin, Texas v. Reagan National Advertising of Austin (Signs)
This decision involved the Supreme Court’s revisiting of its holding in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Arizona.

Just a moment... (In homeowners’ associations: Even if it’s your own house, the rules for displaying political signs in your yard if you live in an HOA may be different than in other communities. That’s because these are technically private corporations (often nonprofits) governed by a board of directors that can set rules for signs.)

Sign Language: Can an HOA Restrict Political Yards Signs? | Fitzpatrick Lentz & Bubba, P.C. ("One of the fundamental precepts which we recognize, however, is the individual’s freedom to contractually restrict, or even give up, those rights. The Cappuccios contractually agreed to abide by the provisions in the Declaration at the time of purchase, thereby relinquishing their freedom of speech concerns regarding placing signs on this property""

Sign Language: Can an HOA Restrict Political Yards Signs? | Fitzpatrick Lentz & Bubba, P.C. (Can I Post my Political Yard Signs?

"Given the nature of the issues involved, before enacting or enforcing covenants relating to signs or political signs, an HOA should consult with legal counsel. Similarly, before an owner in an HOA posts a political sign, they should review any condominium and planned community documents carefully (possibly with an attorney) to fully understand the scope and nature of the restrictions. Ideally one should know this before they purchase the home as a part of their due diligence. In many ways, you are surrendering what you may perceive to be your rights, which may include posting any signage in your yard or even window. "

https://www.hoamanagement.com/hoa-political-signs/ (Is an HOA really stifling your First Amendment rights when they prevent you from displaying a political sign?

"The answer is no. To put it briefly, the First Amendment limits federal, state, and local governments from doing things that stifle freedom of speech. That includes taking action or making laws that would inhibit the rights guaranteed by the U.S. constitution.

However, your HOA is not a part of the government. It’s a private entity, albeit a non-profit one in most cases. Sure, your HOA is subject to the governing rules enacted by government entities. But the First Amendment, by itself, does not stop your HOA from restricting HOA political signs.

A homeowner, as a party to a binding agreement with the HOA, also agrees to adhere to the regulations imposed by the association.)

https://www.siegfriedrivera.com/blog...litical-signs/ ("The key for associations to remember is that restrictions on freedom of speech under the First Amendment apply only in governmental or public settings, so community associations, as private non-governmental entities, are allowed to restrict signage, including political signs, in accordance with their corresponding state law. Some states have enacted legislation specifically addressing the issue, but Florida has not and neither has the state’s Supreme Court addressed the issue specifically."

& before you say that The Villages doesn't have HOA's, that's not a relevant issue. The District did not take possession of ANY private property in The Villages, and were not a party to the contract everyone signed, agreeing to be bound by the Deed Restrictions & Covenant to benefit the Developer. Despite your assertion that you can "reclaim a right you signed away", you can't just "change your mind" about a private contract you signed.

The District would likely be prohibited from adopting a sign regulation that ran afoul of Reed vs Gilbert. The District is not a party to the agreements signed by homeowners in The Villages.

[Maker]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

Here's some reading material for you:

Municipal Bans on Yard Signs ("In his decision, Justice Stevens acknowledged that towns have the right to regulate signs,"

U.S. Supreme Court Issues Two Decisions Impacting Local Sign Regulations and Flag Policies (City of Austin, Texas v. Reagan National Advertising of Austin (Signs)
This decision involved the Supreme Court’s revisiting of its holding in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Arizona.

Just a moment... (In homeowners’ associations: Even if it’s your own house, the rules for displaying political signs in your yard if you live in an HOA may be different than in other communities. That’s because these are technically private corporations (often nonprofits) governed by a board of directors that can set rules for signs.)

Sign Language: Can an HOA Restrict Political Yards Signs? | Fitzpatrick Lentz & Bubba, P.C. ("One of the fundamental precepts which we recognize, however, is the individual’s freedom to contractually restrict, or even give up, those rights. The Cappuccios contractually agreed to abide by the provisions in the Declaration at the time of purchase, thereby relinquishing their freedom of speech concerns regarding placing signs on this property""

Sign Language: Can an HOA Restrict Political Yards Signs? | Fitzpatrick Lentz & Bubba, P.C. (Can I Post my Political Yard Signs?

"Given the nature of the issues involved, before enacting or enforcing covenants relating to signs or political signs, an HOA should consult with legal counsel. Similarly, before an owner in an HOA posts a political sign, they should review any condominium and planned community documents carefully (possibly with an attorney) to fully understand the scope and nature of the restrictions. Ideally one should know this before they purchase the home as a part of their due diligence. In many ways, you are surrendering what you may perceive to be your rights, which may include posting any signage in your yard or even window. "

https://www.hoamanagement.com/hoa-political-signs/ (Is an HOA really stifling your First Amendment rights when they prevent you from displaying a political sign?

"The answer is no. To put it briefly, the First Amendment limits federal, state, and local governments from doing things that stifle freedom of speech. That includes taking action or making laws that would inhibit the rights guaranteed by the U.S. constitution.

However, your HOA is not a part of the government. It’s a private entity, albeit a non-profit one in most cases. Sure, your HOA is subject to the governing rules enacted by government entities. But the First Amendment, by itself, does not stop your HOA from restricting HOA political signs.

A homeowner, as a party to a binding agreement with the HOA, also agrees to adhere to the regulations imposed by the association.)

https://www.siegfriedrivera.com/blog...litical-signs/ ("The key for associations to remember is that restrictions on freedom of speech under the First Amendment apply only in governmental or public settings, so community associations, as private non-governmental entities, are allowed to restrict signage, including political signs, in accordance with their corresponding state law. Some states have enacted legislation specifically addressing the issue, but Florida has not and neither has the state’s Supreme Court addressed the issue specifically."

& before you say that The Villages doesn't have HOA's, that's not a relevant issue. The District did not take possession of ANY private property in The Villages, and were not a party to the contract everyone signed, agreeing to be bound by the Deed Restrictions & Covenant to benefit the Developer. Despite your assertion that you can "reclaim a right you signed away", you can't just "change your mind" about a private contract you signed.

The District would likely be prohibited from adopting a sign regulation that ran afoul of Reed vs Gilbert. The District is not a party to the agreements signed by homeowners in The Villages.

Your examples are great. However, since a CDD is not an HOA, everything related to HOA rules is not relevant here. Conclusions made based upon that information are wrong.

A CDD exists a subpart of state government as a regulated agency. Therefore it does fall under the scope of Reed v Gilbert. Therefore a CDD cannot do anything to restrict speech, and therefore lacks legal authority to take any enforcement actions. The government, and all it far reaching agencies and related organizations, are bound by Reed. Opinions against that are simply wrong.

As far as I am concerned, this issue is closed. Tired of your mis-quotes, invalid arguments based upon invalid criteria, and your attacking attitude (that violates the rules here). The law is clear, and if you choose to ignore it, that's your problem.

[ffresh]

Originally Posted by Maker

Your examples are great. However, since a CDD is not an HOA, everything related to HOA rules is not relevant here. Conclusions made based upon that information are wrong.

A CDD exists a subpart of state government as a regulated agency. Therefore it does fall under the scope of Reed v Gilbert. Therefore a CDD cannot do anything to restrict speech, and therefore lacks legal authority to take any enforcement actions. The government, and all it far reaching agencies and related organizations, are bound by Reed. Opinions against that are simply wrong.

As far as I am concerned, this issue is closed. Tired of your mis-quotes, invalid arguments based upon invalid criteria, and your attacking attitude (that violates the rules here). The law is clear, and if you choose to ignore it, that's your problem.

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

Here's some reading material for you:

Municipal Bans on Yard Signs ("In his decision, Justice Stevens acknowledged that towns have the right to regulate signs,"

U.S. Supreme Court Issues Two Decisions Impacting Local Sign Regulations and Flag Policies (City of Austin, Texas v. Reagan National Advertising of Austin (Signs)
This decision involved the Supreme Court’s revisiting of its holding in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Arizona.

Just a moment... (In homeowners’ associations: Even if it’s your own house, the rules for displaying political signs in your yard if you live in an HOA may be different than in other communities. That’s because these are technically private corporations (often nonprofits) governed by a board of directors that can set rules for signs.)

Sign Language: Can an HOA Restrict Political Yards Signs? | Fitzpatrick Lentz & Bubba, P.C. ("One of the fundamental precepts which we recognize, however, is the individual’s freedom to contractually restrict, or even give up, those rights. The Cappuccios contractually agreed to abide by the provisions in the Declaration at the time of purchase, thereby relinquishing their freedom of speech concerns regarding placing signs on this property""

Sign Language: Can an HOA Restrict Political Yards Signs? | Fitzpatrick Lentz & Bubba, P.C. (Can I Post my Political Yard Signs?

"Given the nature of the issues involved, before enacting or enforcing covenants relating to signs or political signs, an HOA should consult with legal counsel. Similarly, before an owner in an HOA posts a political sign, they should review any condominium and planned community documents carefully (possibly with an attorney) to fully understand the scope and nature of the restrictions. Ideally one should know this before they purchase the home as a part of their due diligence. In many ways, you are surrendering what you may perceive to be your rights, which may include posting any signage in your yard or even window. "

https://www.hoamanagement.com/hoa-political-signs/ (Is an HOA really stifling your First Amendment rights when they prevent you from displaying a political sign?

"The answer is no. To put it briefly, the First Amendment limits federal, state, and local governments from doing things that stifle freedom of speech. That includes taking action or making laws that would inhibit the rights guaranteed by the U.S. constitution.

However, your HOA is not a part of the government. It’s a private entity, albeit a non-profit one in most cases. Sure, your HOA is subject to the governing rules enacted by government entities. But the First Amendment, by itself, does not stop your HOA from restricting HOA political signs.

A homeowner, as a party to a binding agreement with the HOA, also agrees to adhere to the regulations imposed by the association.)

https://www.siegfriedrivera.com/blog...litical-signs/ ("The key for associations to remember is that restrictions on freedom of speech under the First Amendment apply only in governmental or public settings, so community associations, as private non-governmental entities, are allowed to restrict signage, including political signs, in accordance with their corresponding state law. Some states have enacted legislation specifically addressing the issue, but Florida has not and neither has the state’s Supreme Court addressed the issue specifically."

& before you say that The Villages doesn't have HOA's, that's not a relevant issue. The District did not take possession of ANY private property in The Villages, and were not a party to the contract everyone signed, agreeing to be bound by the Deed Restrictions & Covenant to benefit the Developer. Despite your assertion that you can "reclaim a right you signed away", you can't just "change your mind" about a private contract you signed.

The District would likely be prohibited from adopting a sign regulation that ran afoul of Reed vs Gilbert. The District is not a party to the agreements signed by homeowners in The Villages.

I am not a real property lawyer licensed in Florida but this poster's position looks like the most likely to follow the law.

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by Maker

Your examples are great. However, since a CDD is not an HOA, everything related to HOA rules is not relevant here. Conclusions made based upon that information are wrong.

A CDD exists a subpart of state government as a regulated agency. Therefore it does fall under the scope of Reed v Gilbert. Therefore a CDD cannot do anything to restrict speech, and therefore lacks legal authority to take any enforcement actions. The government, and all it far reaching agencies and related organizations, are bound by Reed. Opinions against that are simply wrong.

...

The lesson here folks, is don't believe everything you read on the Internet. Do your own research, without an agenda, and find the truth.

Everyone who's bought a home in The Villages, has Deed Restrictions and Covenants they signed and agreed to. We all made an agreement with our Seller, who made a contract with the Developer. We're bound by.that contract, unless and until the State of Florida changes their statutes or some court issues a contrary opinion.

The truth be told, the vast majority of Villagers bought in TV, for just those reasons. We liked what it was like when we shopped and most of us would prefer it stays exactly as it was, the day we bought. Those who believe we shouldn't have rules and restrictions, shouldn't have bought here and should perhaps move somewhere else.