[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by crash

The main part of the lawsuit brought by the ACLU is the way the rules are enforced. I believe the way the rules are enforced will be changed because of the suit.

I think you are just whistling Dixie fellow. It won't happen, it shouldn't be brought. It is a nuisance and an expense to fight such things that are accepted AND appreciated by an enormous majority here. I am so tired of the minority view pushing, pushing, pushing. here there and everywhere.

[LG999]

I do not see the problem in having a cross in your yard unless perhaps it was unusually large. We are always able to fly and display the United States flag as long as we follow flag protocol. I would put them back up.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by LG999

I do not see the problem in having a cross in your yard unless perhaps it was unusually large. We are always able to fly and display the United States flag as long as we follow flag protocol. I would put them back up.

The deed restrictions allow them to be placed close to your home, under the eaves. This isn't about religion, although some try to make it so. It is about not being able to put yard art out. We all think we have excellent taste but sadly that isn't so. The deed restrictions were there when all moved here. Many of us sought to live in another deed restricted community so that our property values held steady.

[lkagele]

Here's an idea. The deed restrictions allow "season" decorations for up 30 days. "Season"is not defined. So, celebrate the "season" of January for 30 days then take your decoration down for 1 day. Then, put it back up on February 1 to celebrate the season of February. Rinse, repeat every month and you're good to go.

[Bjeanj]

Originally Posted by lkagele

Here's an idea. The deed restrictions allow "season" decorations for up 30 days. "Season"is not defined. So, celebrate the "season" of January for 30 days then take your decoration down for 1 day. Then, put it back up on February 1 to celebrate the season of February. Rinse, repeat every month and you're good to go.

So, you are in favor of “gaming the system”?

[lkagele]

Originally Posted by Bjeanj

So, you are in favor of “gaming the system”?

Sure. Why not? I bet you do the same "gaming" multiple times per day. Every time you exceed the speed limit in your auto or cart, you're 'gaming the system'. Do you take 'gimmies' when putting? That could be classified as 'gaming the system'.

If the Standards Committee had their own folks out monitoring for compliance, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Instead, they respond to anonymous complainers. I and a lot of others, however, don't like that anonymous aspect of the current system. It gives me the impression of cowardliness. I think it's some retired bureaucrat bullying people simply because they can.

[bgnn54]

Originally Posted by njbchbum

Yes! If you would like to see what your Village can become without lawn ornament/yard art restrictions, take a ride thru the historic side's original villages!

Don't like the historic side? Then please DON"T come here.

[Marathon Man]

Originally Posted by lkagele

Sure. Why not? I bet you do the same "gaming" multiple times per day. Every time you exceed the speed limit in your auto or cart, you're 'gaming the system'. Do you take 'gimmies' when putting? That could be classified as 'gaming the system'.

If the Standards Committee had their own folks out monitoring for compliance, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Instead, they respond to anonymous complainers. I and a lot of others, however, don't like that anonymous aspect of the current system. It gives me the impression of cowardliness. I think it's some retired bureaucrat bullying people simply because they can.

It is this kind of thinking that demands a system that allows reports to be made by those who are concerned about retaliation. "You are a coward. Come and face me like a man".

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by bgnn54

Don't like the historic side? Then please DON"T come here.

I bet my tacky pink flamingo can beat your white cross AND your garden gnome, while standing on one leg.

I'll take my pickup truck off the cinderblocks and drive over to your single-wide and challenge you to a yard duel!

[JoMar]

Originally Posted by lkagele

Sure. Why not? I bet you do the same "gaming" multiple times per day. Every time you exceed the speed limit in your auto or cart, you're 'gaming the system'. Do you take 'gimmies' when putting? That could be classified as 'gaming the system'.

If the Standards Committee had their own folks out monitoring for compliance, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Instead, they respond to anonymous complainers. I and a lot of others, however, don't like that anonymous aspect of the current system. It gives me the impression of cowardliness. I think it's some retired bureaucrat bullying people simply because they can.

I don't care who monitors compliance, as long as the folks that live here stand up to what they agreed to. Apparently this poster doesn't believe in taking responsibility for what they signed. Fortunately, most of us do and the trolls, neighbors that make the call anonymously or reporting by any other means support us since the deed restrictions are one of the reasons we moved here. If you want to live in a community that supports trashing please go.

[blueash]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

I think you are just whistling Dixie fellow. It won't happen, it shouldn't be brought. It is a nuisance and an expense to fight such things that are accepted AND appreciated by an enormous majority here. I am so tired of the minority view pushing, pushing, pushing. here there and everywhere.

The blanket statement that that what the majority wants should stand and those who push against it are a nuisance for pushing their opposition is simply wrong. I personally support the deed restrictions and include crosses in things that are included in the prohibition, but I welcome the efforts of those making "good trouble". And I hope they will lose.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Here's the thing: rules are rules. However, sometimes, rules become obsolete. The world evolves, and rules have to be capable of evolving as well. If that weren't the case, we'd still have slavery, we'd still have Salem witch trials, alcohol would still be illegal, and you'd be stoned to death if you were caught having an affair.

This community began over 30 years ago. I'm guessing that most, if not all, of the original residents are dead, replaced by the next generation. Many of THOSE people are now dead or in assisted living or similar, replaced by the generation after that.

Do you really think the new generation LIKES every single deed restriction? Do you truly believe that every single resident agrees with every single rule, and that none of them would love the opportunity to tweak them a little, to accommodate the next sets of generations to follow? Do you think that the tastes of 60-year-old people back in the 1990's are exactly the same as the tastes of 60-year-old people in 2020? Do you honestly believe that everyone who moves to the Villages thinks "nope, I agree with every single rule, there isn't a single rule that I don't really like, but will live with because the rest of the rules are fine?"

Some of the restrictions aren't even enforceable, because state or federal law supersedes them.

The #1 example would be the no TV antenna restriction. It is not enforceable. By law. The Villages is not -allowed- to enforce that restriction. Therefore, the restriction is obsolete, and should be either removed, or an addendum written to declare that the ARC will not attempt to enforce it, even if it has to remain in the deed. The "no clotheslines" restriction - cannot be enforced, by law.

There are also differences between "deed restrictions" and "community standards." The deed restrictions are not all that detailed. I've read most of them, because I couldn't figure out which one applied to my property when we were looking to buy.

The community standards are detailed. They specify the exact color palette allowed for painting a house, the material allowed for replacing the siding or roof, the types of grass allowed to be planted, the proportions of stone to growing landscaping allowed, etc. etc. etc. Those things can ALL be changed, they are not part of the actual covenants.

A cross can be re-categorized as a religious symbol, rather than a lawn ornament. A planter shaped like a garden gnome can be changed from "allowed, because it's a planter" to "not allowed, because it is intentionally bypassing the no garden gnome rule."

All these fuzzy little details can be changed, even with the existing restrictions, because the restrictions are not detailed and it's up to the ARC/Community Standards people to decide which details apply, and which don't.

[PennBF]

As they say, "the bottom line" is there are laws governing the homes in the Village's. Every person/owner signed up that they would adhere to the laws (Deed Restrictions) of The Villages. Now some want to violate what they signed up to and they want approvals to violate the law, (Deed Restrictions). It would be comical if it didn't have the potential of allowing all sorts of 'I want" to be put on yards. In one case it even led to a case on one reader challenging another to a confrontation! How crazy can it get. In another case a reader compared it to speeding. Using that as an example of a driver arguing with the cop that stopped them that the law is wrong and they should be able to do whatever they want. REPEATING THE BOTTOM LINE ..THE LAW IS THE LAW. OUR LAW IS DEED RESTRICTIONS AND IF YOU DON'T LIKE THEM WHICH BY THE WAY YOU SIGNED A CONTRACT TO ABIDE BY THEM THEN MOVE TO A COMMUNITY THAT ALLOWS YOUR WHIMS TO BE PLACED IN YOUR YARD. FOR ME, I AM THANKFUL FOR THE "TROLL"S" AS THEY ARE GREAT AT POLICING THE YARDS AND PROTECTING THE DEED RESTRICTION LAWS".

[Heyitsrick]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

I'm very interested to learn which religion requires its adherents to stick white crosses on their lawns. Is that some off-shoot of Christianity? Because I searched the old testament, and the new, and even the ancient Hebrew and Aramaic texts and the Talmud, and I find absolutely zero reference to "white cross" or "front lawn."

I do see that you must bind the ten commandments as a sign upon your gates, but that is the law for the mezuzzah and it goes on the frame of your door, or can be affixed to your actual gate, if you have one. And, that would only be if you're Jewish - and it wouldn't be a cross. And it doesn't have to be white.

So, essentially you're saying that white crosses aren't religious symbols, and shouldn't be characterized as such. That doesn't mean they couldn't be "lawn ornaments" as a deed restriction might prohibit, but your research as you state it finds no biblical references to white crosses. So, surely they can't be deemed as Christian symbols, right? Of course, insofar as anyone knows, there were no "front lawns" as we would understand them today in biblical times.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

I'm wondering if it's OK to display the white cross in the window of your home facing the street. A few years ago they did away with For Sale signs on the lawns and allowed them in the windows. I see political signs in windows so I wonder if crosses and anything else that you might want to display are allowed in the window.