[BUC]

Originally Posted by newbee

I don't understand. If the concept of having children around is what your interested in, there are hundreds if not thousands of them to choose from.

The concept of age restricted communities is rather obvious, to most people, anyways.

That is what I am searching for....I should not be mocked for my efforts.

Oh, the "comrad" remark is very cute (not). I believe in democracy, which means I have the choice to live where I want.

Hey lighten up, don't be so stressed, just having alittle fun.

[Pturner]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

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.

Newbie and Annabelle, I think Gracie is right. I can understand your concerns and hope you are not getting a wrong impression.

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.

[getdul981]

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?

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by getdul981

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?

yes.

[BBQMan]

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

[Annabelle]

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

[Russ_Boston]

Originally Posted by Talk Host

I'm curious. Can children in their 30s and 40s live with their parents in The Villages? I know of one young fellow (maybe 35) in Chatham who lives with his parents. He wanders the streets after dark. While he appears to be harmless, people have been startled to see him plodding down the road at all hours of the night. There was one neighborhood report that he became confused and wandered into the wrong house late one evening.

He will be gone for months, then return for months. It's kinda strange.

TH - I'm surprised at you. You used to live here so I can only assume you ask to stoke the conversation? You know the answer because you once signed/read your deed restriction.

[Russ_Boston]

Originally Posted by The Shadow

I have talked to a homeowner on the historic side that is far short of being a senior citizen. I would guess that the lesser price houses on the historic side would be a selling feature for first time home buyers.

Jeez Shadow, get with the program. You've been on this site long enough to know that by FLA law up to 20% of homeowners can be under 55 at purchase.

[JimJoe]

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.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by JimJoe

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.

uh.....ummmm, before you do that, why don't we buy a big canvas for you and you can join my art class???

You are right JimJoe. I think you will love it here.

[JimJoe]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

uh.....ummmm, before you do that, why don't we buy a big canvas for you and you can join my art class???

You are right JimJoe. I think you will love it here.

Gracie, I think you are right. And I think I will keep my home here in corn country where I can paint, saw, and shoot em up at the local saloon in the summer and live in peace and quiet, lift, run, and golf, in the winter. See you all in October.
JJ

[VT2TV]

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.

[redwitch]

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.

[Bogie Shooter]

Originally Posted by redwitch

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.

Who gave the neighorhood hood the authority for this decision? What if my neighborhood decided to all park junk cars in our backyards? Come on, rules are rules!

[villa2]

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.