|
Well, this thread certainly has gone on for a while. I would like to readdress a few things. First, and FOREMOST in this particular instance-most people are not thinking about the child. It is being covered up in discussions about whether he should be here or not because of "the rules". This situation is NOT optimal for the child!!! It is merely convenient for the grandparents, who I suppose don't want to rent out their home or move, because this is "only" fr 2 years. This is really what is wrong with the situation. It is NOT in the child's best interest to spend 2 of his very formative years surrounded only by adults, and older adults at that. It will affect his social skills and his ability to interact with children his own age. Any child developement specialist will agree with that. Children need to be with other children their own age. Not only it important for their social skills, but it is important to be around authority figures that will not consistently indulge them, and if like most grandparents speak "baby talk" to them. So the child staying at TV is only convenient for the grandparents and not in the best interests of the child. Also, since the father is deceased, what is to stop the mother from deciding that she wants to continue to stay on at TV when she gets out of the service After 2 years, how could you then say that they cannot stay because the child is not supposed to stay more than 30 days a year.
And how can anyone ask the rowdy child to leave just because someone doesn't like the way he acts. Sorry, but things don't work that way. If you allow one person to break the rules, you can't suddenly try to apply them to another person. What happens if someone moves near the sweet child that does object to a child living with the grandparents? I agree that this is a sad situation with the father dead, and the mother in the service. But this world is VERY much full of sad, sad situations. If you start letting emotions make decisions for such a large area with this many people, it won't be long before everyone will want an exception made because of..........(fill in the blank). Rules are made to protect the rights of the majority of the people. Every single one on you on this board knew the rules and regulations before you moved into the area, and there is no reason to be offensive by making references to "comrades" or "conservatives" just because they are trying to do the RIGHT thing by respecting these rules. I would very much like to thank the young mother who is serving our country. My own husband also served our country in Vietnam, and was blown up by a booby trap. He suffered severe injuries, and has had cancer and diabetes directly related to time spent in the infantry. He is now retired, and I have never seen him so excited about almost anything as he is about moving to the Villages. I imagine most of the people who move here are looking forward to moving to an area that they have been told was severly child restricted to 30 days a year. People of this age have raised their children, and are not as tolerant of children as they used to be. Should there be any less compassion offered to them by not expecting the rules everyone has agreed to to be enforced for EVERYONE equally. Again, every one has or has had a sad situation. I agree with whoever said that with such a large area, once you start letting things slide, TV will start falling apart. Not because of one situation, but that one situation will beome 2 and the 2 will become 3, and etc..... Maybe every household in the Villages can each choose 1 rule to break that they don't like-because that is what is being done now by the grandparents. If you don't like the rules, just ignore them. And if TV knows that the rules are being broken, and they do nothing, then any time they try to enforce any rule could be deemed discrimination, and talk about stirring things up then!!!!! Again, it boils down to 2 main things: 1. EVERYONE who moves here is aware of the rules, and if they should not have come if they were not going to abide by them. 2. If you are not happy with the rules, then I would think you would be putting your house on the market for sale, because why would you want to live with rules you don't agree with. |
1. Why would you assume the child has no interaction with other children? There are pre-schools, schools, day care, all kinds of activities for children in and out of TV, other children visit their grandparents in this neighborhood. This little one is very active in activities from preschool to gymnastics to dance -- all of which ensure playtime with other children.
2. I truly doubt TV is aware this child is living here. I know that when my daughter lived with me, someone reported that I had a 17 YO living with me. She had to show her driver's license to Community Watch to prove she was 22 not once but twice. If TV knew, there is no doubt in my mind that the grandparents would have to come up with another solution. 3. Quite frankly, it doesn't matter how much anyone here objects to this child living here. You don't know where the child lives and, thus, you cannot report it to anyone. It is up to the neighbors to do what they deem is appropriate -- no one else can. You can rail about the grandparents breaking the rules until you're blue in the face. Doesn't matter -- the child will still be here until the mother returns. While the grandparents love their grandchild and their daughter, they want their lives back, too. They bought into TV lock, stock and barrel. There is no way that the mother or child would be here a day longer than necessary -- two years was the maximum time. Should something happen to the mother, I'm sure the grandparents would find another solution. It is one thing for a pre-schooler (or younger) to live in TV for a set period of time, it is another for a child in school with friends visiting, etc. to live here. The grandparents know and understand this. 4. If a rule is being broken and you object to that rule being broken, you do have recourse -- contact Community Watch. It will be checked out and proper steps will be taken. The only point I was trying to make was that rules are broken. We ALL have choices, especially when it comes to rules -- follow them, ignore them, deliberately break them, move to another locale if you don't like those rules. We also have choices when we see a rule is broken -- explain to the individual what the rule is and hope they quit breaking it; go along with the offender by allowing the rule to be broken; call an authority to stop the breaking of the rule. You do have recourse if you choose to take them. The choice really is up to you. I don't want to get into a discussion about the morality of breaking a rule or condoning the breaking of a rule. It is an individual choice. In this case, I choose to stand with the grandparents and the neighbors who have opted to let the child stay. Yes, we are all culpable but I can live with my choice and, obviously, so can the neighbors. I could not live with forcing these loving people to choose between their dream (TV) or their grandchild. Everyone breaks rules of some sort -- sometimes knowingly, sometimes out of ignorance. Some rules are truly important (not murdering someone is a pretty rule); some are minor (no jaywalking in my mind); some are downright silly (showering in the nude). Regardless, we all decide which rules we choose to follow and which ones we choose to break. But I doubt there is one person who can say (and honestly believe) that they follow every rule every time (think of the small piece of paper you threw on the ground; the time you drove a little too fast; ....). So far as we know, only one person has been perfect and even He had a heck of temper and knowingly broke some rules (He was arrested, tried and crucified). |
How do you know
I'm stiill waiting for a reply to the question regarding how do you know which kid is which, DNA, fingerprints?
Here's one no one thought of, how about twins or triplets,. et al.? How abow the pregnancy plant that had eight kids, octomom? Who keeps score and what kind of scorecard would they use? Personally, IDC. I keep my nose in my own home. |
Quote:
TH, I don't see where a formal process is specified on TV website. http://www.districtgov.org/departments/community-standards/deedrestrict.aspx I found a link that provides a good overview of how deed restrictions are typically handled. As you can see, it's not TV-specific: http://www.cityofbartlesville.org/ca...20Brochure.pdf Since a deed restriction is basically a contract between the developer and property owners, I would guess that if a homeowner didn't agree with a ruling by the deed compliance office, his or her recourse would be filing a civil suit. That is, unless a different method is specified in the deed restriction itself. I don't remember. Absent any other method specified in the contract (i.e., deed restriction), civil court is how contract disputes are settled. At least that's what I think, TH. Do you see it differently? |
Quote:
You are right. You don't alway find out when somebody cheats. Just as some people get away with crimes, some people get away with contract violations. It happens. We are required by our deed covenant to register our guests under 19 years old. We are contractually bound (by our deed agreement) to attest to our guests' age, identity and length of stay. A guest pass would be denied for an under-aged person who had already stayed 30 days during the calendar year. Some people cheat. Some people don't register their under-aged visitors or lie on their registration forms. No one takes a DNA sample when you register a guest. Maybe it will come to that if enough break the rules. Some people break the rules and don't get caught. If Community Watch or a neighbor reported a suspected violation, it would be investigated. Maybe if asked questions, the violator would lie. Maybe the violator would get away with it. It happens in criminal court. It happens in civil court. No doubt it happens in TV deed compliance cases. The fact that some people break the rules is no excuse in my book to break the rules. It's no excuse for law enforcement, civil authorities, deed compliance officers or affected neighbors to throw up their hands and forget about trying to enforce the rules they are trying to live by. |
Quote:
Having written this, I will not be participating in this thread anymore. You and/or others certainly may continue it, but don't expect a response from me. You and your thoughts will never be changed, and I feel we will never agree. This is my first experience with the boards, and actually my first interaction with any of the residents of TV, and I have to say that I am very disappointed. Regardless of what I have said (and I still stand by what I have said), I am not as upset by the child living here as much as the attitudes I have experienced on the boards. It makes me question whether I really want to move to TV. When we visited and toured, it truely looked like Mayberry with everyone happy and living their dream. What I have discovered on this board is that people not only disregard the rules and regulation, but have no guilt in doing so. I wanted to move to a retirement, over 55 community. I honestly have to wonder not only how many children live in TV, but am very sad to discover that there are so many people sneaking around, lying and happily doing things they have agreed not to do. For RedWitch, I feel sure you are only one of many that are hiding children. Maybe next time a goup of teen boys will move beside you-will you keep that secret? Would it conversley be ok to have a Meth lab in the neighborhood as long as everyone agrees it is ok. If people are breaking one rule, you can bet there are many, many more secrets than even you know. Remember that what goes around, comes around. And if you remeber Abe Lincoln's comment that "A house divided against itself cannot stand" When everyone starts doing their own "thing" in such a large place, many problems will ensue. My last comment will be to be careful. When you go against the rules, you could be inviting problems. Imagine this scenerio: a fire breaks out at the g-parents house at night or when all the people who know "the little secret" are gone. Suppose the g-parents are unresponsive from smoke, or have a heart attack trying to fight the fire. The child is hiding because he is afraid-maybe he even started the fire playng with matches. The fire dept comes and the only person around is ignorant of the child. The firemen get the g-parents out as the fire becomes hotter. They ask the neighbor if anyone else lives there and they say No because that is the rules. So the firemen do not go back into the house, and the child dies. Don't say it could not happen. I have spent many years on rescue squads, and emergency services. IT CAN HAPPEN. I have seen it. OK, that's all, like I said, I will not respond anymore. |
Some excellent points have been made by PT, VT and Gracie. You Go Girls!
A retirement community is no place for a child to reside on a permanent basis. The argument that those of us who oppose the child's residency lack compassion is ridiculously weak. As a former educator I have seen similar cases whereby a grandchild and grandparents have bonded to the point that the grandparents have sued for custody when the absentee parent has returned. So all those "faux" aunties and uncles today, could possibly find themselves permanent members of this child's extended family in a few years. I have no grievance with the grandparents raising the child, but since they made that choice, they should also make the move to a place outside TV and either rent or sell their home. I think this family has selfishly shown an utter lack of regard for their neighbors by involving them in their little scheme. I agree with the person who posted that some of the neighbors may have reluctantly gone along with this venture perhaps because they didn't want to be "ostracized" or for the sake of living peacefully amongst their neighbors. If I were shopping for a home in TV I would never buy any home on a street that had children as permanent residents. I dare say I am the only one who feels this way. Thank goodness for TOTV, I am learning new things every time I visit this site. Annabelle |
Twice, maybe three times, in all these posts the questions have been asked about the fines, how much, who imposes them, what is the process. No where did an answer ever come up. Someone gave the district gov link, which I went to, and could not find the info.
Fines imply some sort of penalty. In this country, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. If anyone is fining me, they have to go to court (civil or criminal) and prove their case. I get a chance to confront my accusers and present my side. Then there is a ruling. You can't just add a fine to my Amenity Fees because you feel like it. Like Talk Host, I sure would like to know the process, the fines, and the system to this. On a slightly related subject, someone said Community Watch checked the ID of a guest for their age twice. Details were lacking. Community Watch has no policing powers so if they checked the ID "on the street" or at the home, you should have refused to even speak to them, kicked them off your property. If they checked it at a pool or rec center, that is different - that is one of their duties. But all they can check for is the Guest Pass or Village ID - not an ID for age proof. Way too often I think the "squeaking wheel" approach is used to address deed and covenant violations. No complaint equals no enforcement. Complaints equals action (most of the time). What we need is evenhanded, consistent enforcement of the rules - not spotty enforcement on a whim. Furthermore, times change. What made sense five or ten years ago may not make sense today. That is why googling "silly laws" gets so many hits. We never go back and repeal invalid or outdated rules. Maybe that is what we need today - a review and rewriting of some of our rules to reflect current times. Get rid of outdated or useless rules, repeal them, trash them, or change them to fit today's world. |
we are new to TV but also believe in following the "rules". if i knew of a similar situation i would report it.
we did ask about such a posibility when we were searching for a house in TV and were told of a similar situation. could it be the same one being referenced?? we were told TV was award of the issue, and it was being addressed. the grandparents were going to move and had agreed to a time frame. i am sure there is more then one child living in TV, and if were aware of one, so would the powers that be in TV. |
Correction
Quote:
There is a "family section" in TV. It is the Village of Spring Arbor. They are allowed to have children there but do not get the ammenity privileges (at least the kids don't). I don't know all the particulars, but maybe the grandparents in question could check that out. |
Quote:
|
I am afraid that this thread is giving the impression that this sort of thing occurs frequently in The Villages.
I believe that it does not. |
New twist
Let me put a new twist on the child in TV question.
When you buy a house in TV it is your house. You can choose to sell it when you wish. You can sell it to whomever your wish regardless of age. What if a financial stable young couple buys a resale home and a year later has a child? Does the child get deported or is he grandfathered in seeing he arrived after the purchase of the home?:police: |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
So what have we learned? If you think that a kid has over stayed there time limited or if a dog pees on the right of way in front of your house, no ,I remember the dog can stay over 30 days and the kid can pee on your yard for 30 days a year, wait Oh I give up "CAN"T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG" to quote Roddy King ( the drunk driver that started the L.A. Roits several years ago)
|
Under age children
Newbee,
I could not agree more. If the residents of the Villages don't band together and see to it that the rules and restrictions in their deeds are enforced then those few with their "I am above the rules" mentality can be damaging to he entire community and not just the street on which they live. We all know that "it only takes a few bad apples to spoil the barrel." Kayacker, Before purchasing a home, I would have the seller sign a statement that they have no "knowledge" whatsoever of children residing on their street or village. I would also go to all the neighbors, introduce myself, ask the same question..."do any children live on this street." Finally, I would ask the same information from the real estate agent. If I moved in and found that children do indeed live full time on my street or in my village, my next step would be to consult with an attorney. Annabelle |
Newbee, kids living here full time is few and far between. However, kids visiting grandparents is very common. So, there will be children of one age or another in TV on almost year round -- you'll see them in the Town Squares, etc. -- the same is true of any retirement community. The 80/20 rule is also true of any retirement community -- it is federal law.
I really wouldn't go asking about kids living in a village -- I think it would just make the neighbors wonder if you're going to complain when their grandkids come to visit and make you seem a little less friendly than you probably are. There are covenants to prevent children living here. You can ensure these covenants are enforced (the developer is very pro-active in keeping people in compliance when it is known that someone is breaking a restriction) by simply notifying the developer of the facts. Do check out the village -- visit at different times of the day; look carefully at the lawn maintenance; find out how many on your block are snowbirds, frogs, rental properties; if you like block parties and the like, find out if your mini-community has them. These are actually things that will much more affect you than full-time children. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
One case of a child living in TV has been revealed in this thread. In that hardship case, the child's presence is apparently known by the neighbors. Any neighbor at any time could choose to anonymously file a complaint. I suspect this might happen if the child stays longer than the two years promised. There are roughly, what, 35,000 homes in TV. I doubt if half a dozen children live in TV. Where would they play? Where would they go to school? There is almost no way they could be in TV full time and not get caught. I think 90-plus percent of Villagers would report a child living in their neighborhood, this one hardship case notwithstanding. Violations of the 30-day visit rule no doubt happen. It would be harder to catch violators. Unfortunately, anywhere you live there probably will be some people who think the rules don't apply to them and who have no regard for how their actions affect others. I think they are the exception. If you read some of the other threads on TOTV, you will learn that most posters strongly support the deed restrictions and want them enforced. |
WOW!!! I had no idea that I was opening such a kettle of worms. I'm just glad my question about the hoagie wasn't nearly as controversial. But I guess the answer to my initial question is, unless someone complains then probably nothing will be done. If that is done, the powers that be will approach the family and ASK them to leave or make other arrangements. I'm almost afraid to ask, but can they legally make them do that?
|
Quote:
|
Let'd Live by the Golden Rule Not the Rule Book
In a previous post, I pointed out that we all ignore both laws and Villages Rules. This is not a suggestion for anarchy but rather one for common sense and compassion.
I gave several examples, but let me get closer to home. Approximately 20%, perhaps greater, will have a spouse with Alzheimer's. I know you do not know but based on national statistics, do you want the community to embrace your loved one and overlook their foibles? I have had two of my neighbors wander into my house hunting for home, my wife has similarly wandered, others I know of have undressed in the middle of the street. Do you (1) take them kindly and lovingly back to their home or (2) call the police and demand their immediate imprisonment? BTW, there is no middle path. I have no objection to rules, regulations and laws. What I do have is objection to applying these rules in a manner that ignores the golden rule. Justice tempered with mercy must prevail over the blind acceptance of the law. Solomon taught us this in the case of one baby and two mothers |
BBQ,
Yes we should all try to follow the Golden Rule...."do unto others as we would have them do unto us." As one who was raised for 12 years with a solid Catholic education ... believe me.... "compassion for the less fortunate members of society" was a huge part of our curriculum. Today you have given a perfect example (Alzheimers) as to why I, VT, Newbee and others feel that a child rearing in TV is inappropriate. Young children, teens and even young adults are very impressionable and I do not think it is healthy for them to see or hear of neighbors with illnesses such as Alzheimers on a daily basis. When hubby and I visited TV last year, I had the opportunity to speak with a saleslady in a store in SS. She mentioned that she had lived in TV when she first married her husband (who was already living there), but they left because she didn't like hearing that someone had developed cancer, or had a heart attack, or had even passed away on such a frequent basis. I could understand why this may have been depressing for her, because she was still in her 40's and in her own words it made her feel "old before her time." Of course, as seniors we know this is part of life, but why expose young children (and I include teens and young adults) in this "Senior World".....on a daily basis? There has to be a better alternative. On the other side of this coin there are a lot of seniors (hubby and I included) who are in great health, and we want to move to a retirement community and not have children living close by. Annabelle |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I have lived my entire life in the Wild West environment of small town upper midwest, where people live generally within the few rules written. My initial response to the deed restrictions in TV was, YOU GOTTA BE KIDDING.
On Fox News this morning ( which I am liking less all the time), I learned and now understand the necessity of deed restrictions. Lead in to the story was a deputy sheriff was told he would have to remove a sign on his garage door that said God Bless America. I am not religious but I respect free speech and freedom of religion. The intro implied by calling him a deputy sheriff that his employer had ordered removal of the sign. When he was interviewed it turned out he lived in a home owner association that had a rule against signs. The response to the story by the association was VERY good.. Your sign and its message are very appropriate to many people but if signs are not prohibited, signs and language that offend many people will also be put up. WOW, can you see it.. God Bless America, next door to God hates America, next door to God caused 911, etc etc. My sign would read, God hates signs. Signs everywhere on every issue... who wants to live in that kind of mess. NOT me. I have learned my lesson. Deed restrictions are a very good thing, and if you don't like them, don't move there. But I am still going to paint my house with purple and yellow stripes. :) |
Quote:
You are right JimJoe. I think you will love it here. |
I think Gracie is right.
Quote:
JJ |
I was involved in this thread early on, and had to stop because I was just beating my head against a brick wall. The people on here involved with hiding this child are knowingly breaking the very rules EACH and every person who moves into the Village has to agree to abide by. They are even so very proud of thmselves for doing what they think is for the greater good. And someone keeps bringing up The Golden Rule which is a wonderful thing to practice. But what they are talking about are actually acts of kindness, and have nothing to do with delibertly going against the very rules that have allowed the Villages to be somewhere people are so eager to live. If everyone were allowed to "do their own thing", the Village would not be a uniformally beautiful place, because everyone would want everything to suit themselves.
In keeping any children here, you are opening yourselves up to all sorts of problems. It was mentioned that this particular child was well behaved, and loved by everyone on the street, so it was ok for him to live here for at least the 2 years. But what about the children who are not well behaved??? Is there a test kids have to take, and who decides which ones are well behaved. Parents and friends are NOT the best judges of which children are well behaved. And now that the rules have been broken, you have no recourse when other children are moved into the Villages. I read on another thread that the demographics of the Villages are changing, and more and more slightly younger adults are moving into the Villages. And with these younger adults often come children who have not graduated from high schools yet, and will be driving up and down the streets with radios blaring. It also may come with more and more younger children who will be selling for school fundraisers, going door to door. Also brings in the trick or treaters. Once you let any children live here, you can't say "NO" to any of them. Can we say DISCRIMINATION?????? Then comes the extra taxes for schools in the neighborhoods, and a constant line of "mommy traffic" taking kids to school and picking them up, and then taking them to all the fields, parks, etc in the Villages for soccer, baseball, and other outdoor games. All the public areas will be taken up with games and practices. Then comes all the school buses running up and down the streets. Is that what people here want?? Again, once you let one family have a child, you can't say no to the next. Now, let's talk about property values. There will probably be a mass exit of people who really wanted to live in a retirement community WITHOUT children, and the ones who can afford to take a loss on the home will be gone, and the rest will have a lot of problem finding anyone to buy theirs-or the whole concept of retirement will be gone, and the Villages will have become anywhere, USA. Now, there may be those unhappy with my posting, let me say that it is NOT my intention to annoy anyone on this thread. I am just trying to have everyone see what could happen if even 1 child is knowingly allowed to live in the Villages, and also if people start breaking the very rules they agreed to abide with. Do I expect this to happen??? Gosh, I hope not, but.... Don't say this couldn't happen-it only takes 1 child to ruin everything. |
VT2TV, you are incorrect in thinking that the breaking of a rule means there is no recourse for future rule breakers. That would be like saying if someone was pulled over for speeding but didn't get a ticket, that officer wouldn't be able to give a ticket to another party.
Please understand that had anyone in TV management known about the situation, the child would have been forced to leave here. This was a NEIGHBORHOOD decision. Any neighbor could have chosen to ANONYMOUSLY call Community Watch and that would have ended the child living here immediately. This neighborhood opted for compassion rather than strict enforcement of a rule. (BTW -- The mother has come home and has taken her child and moved near here but not in TV.) As to kids driving with radios blaring, that does happen. I dread Thanksgiving weekend when one set of grandkids comes to visit. These teens are rude, arrogant, destructive and noisy. I grit my teeth and remind myself they will leave soon. If they ever get seriously out of line and I can catch them in the act, I won't hesitate to call the police, let alone Community Watch. I don't care who we are, we all knowingly break some rules. Some of us break little rules that truly hurt no one (like having 3 indoor cats rather than the allowed 2 or jaywalking on a street where there is absolutely no traffic at that time). Some of us break rules that we know could be dangerous to others but feel we can control the risk (speeding, driving while impaired), not always a correct thought but it is what it is. Some of us choose to break major rules and deliberately cause harm. So, I'm really not sure what your issue is about this child, unless it is confusion thinking that TV allowed the child to live here. The fact this one group chose to break the rules does not mean that it can become a widespread problem in TV. It would be different if one of the CCDs or the developer or anyone involved in the practices and development of rules within TV agreed this family could have the child stay with them. Then others would clamor for the right to break the rule and would probably have legal standing to do so. However, this was not the case. The Villages was not aware this was happening. It was not condoned by The Villages. The reality is that most neighborhoods would have at least one if not several neighbors objecting and voicing their objections to TV management. Heck, when my daughter was living with me (she was 22 at the time), it was reported twice that I had someone under 19 living with me (she looks young). She had to show her driver's license on both occasions. Have no fear, deed restrictions are very strictly enforced when it is known they are being broken. |
Quote:
|
I guess I'll just have to find the neighborhood with the rules that will fit my criteria. Where does one go to get the neighborhood rules? I thought the rules were the same for every village.
Between this thread and the IRS thread, you guys are scaring me. I think I'll go back to my book now. |
Please not to worry Villa.
The rules are the same for everyone...except north of 466 the rules allow lawn ornaments without permission from the Architectural Review Committee. Everywhere, North or South, East or West, in The Villages, children under the age of 19 can stay no longer than 30 days, even if their mom and dad are serving in the military or if there is terrible illness in the family. That is what the rule says. It may sound harsh to some, but no one forces anyone to live here. |
Ah, the voice of reason. Thank-you Gracie. I feel much better now. But I must go back to my book because I only have about 70 pages left and it is getting real good.
|
[QUOTE=graciegirl;288737]Please not to worry Villa.
The rules are the same for everyone...except north of 466 the rules allow lawn ornaments without permission from the Architectural Review Committee./QUOTE] GG - That is only the older parts of 466 north. Any village established after June 2001 has the no lawn ornament rule. It was the older sections that forced that rule due to some of the garish displays. And permission was never required from the Architectural Review Committee for lawn ornaments in the older areas. |
Quote:
My issue with the child,(and I am sure you will forgive me if I don't believe that this child has miraculously disappeared, and problem solved. When the thread started they were going to be here for 2 years, and the mother was overseas-hard to believe that all this has changed in this short time. And, but your own admission, you have no problem lying) is that you signed a contract in which you agreed to abide by the rules and regulations. Neither you, nor anyone else in the neighborhood, has the right or authority to change those rules.You delibertly not only broke the rules, you are actually proud of yourself, and have set yourself above the rules. You have made yourself judge and jury when you did not have the right. Plus you then have the nerve to be upset about visitors of neighbors-are these neighbors the same one who aided you in your deception? I won't keep debating this back and forth. It will not serve any purpose, because you are proud of yourself, and don't think you did anything wrong. If people keep hiding children, it will impact this entire village. And yes, your action actually could cause problems for everyone. Does TV want to be known as the place to go if you want your kids or grandkids to live with you, and people will be glad to help you hide them. Again that would certainly impact everyone. And even your one little action could be the one that causes problems. Remember Rosa Parks?? One example of 1 woman in a little town who changed the course of history. Now that WAS for the greater good of many. Lastly, the example you gave about the police office and the tickets is not applicable in this case. Police are allowed some autonomy to make specific decisions about the penalities on speeding. People in TV are not allowed that autonomy. And Graciegirl, you sound like such a nice person. I enjoy your posts. I don't know if the post about no one being forced to live here was directed to me or not, but truely, we want very much to live in the Villages. The first time we were there it seemed so much like paradise this side of Heaven. My husband especially seemed happier to move here than I have ever seen him move anywhere. WE WANT to live here, we WANT to be great neighbors, we WANT to be honest and honorable, and actually, we WANT to be friends to everyone, and I include REDWITCH in that. But it has made me very sad to read some of these posts that threaten to change this wonderful place to live. And I am not just referring to this thread. But fortunately, it seems to still be so much still like paradise here, we really do WANT to live here. i can't imagine a nicer place to live. Signing off... |
Amen VT2TV. I owned a home in a 55+ community and I have seen all kinds of controversy because a few believed the rules weren't made for them. I do not want to go through that ordeal again.
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:39 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by
DragonByte SEO v2.0.32 (Pro) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.