[2BNTV]

Originally Posted by Villages PL

And the villages is no different. The developer has written restrictions into the deeds and it's his way or the highway. If you don't believe it, just try violating any of the many restrictions. It was in the Daily Sun not too long ago that some people were putting in window airconditioners. Someone complained and that was the end of that. They had to be taken down.

I agree with you statement but one knows that going into TV. I consider that to be a minor inconvenience. Some people find that oppressive. To each his/her own.

I would suggest it's because the specific loss of freedoms (i.e., restrictions) in the Villages are agreeable to you.

I am not in TV yet, but I view certain restriction for the good of the community at large. I wouldn't want to make an investment where my next door neighbor dragged down the value of a home with decorations that was garrish.

I really don't understand the nature of this post. Do you find living in TV oppressive? Do you not wanrt to be told what to do in terms of following rules? I believe I read several posts by you that you love Tv so I am perplexed why you post something that seems to indicate that your unhappy.

Like you title says: The Freedom to choose: The Villages or New York city - I choose TV.

[Villages PL]

Originally Posted by 2BNTV

[B]I am not in TV yet, but I view certain restriction for the good of the community at large. I wouldn't want to make an investment where my next door neighbor dragged down the value of a home with decorations that was garrish.

We are in total agreement on that. I wouldn't want property values dragged down either.

I really don't understand the nature of this post. Do you find living in TV oppressive? Do you not wanrt to be told what to do in terms of following rules? I believe I read several posts by you that you love Tv so I am perplexed why you post something that seems to indicate that your unhappy.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I like TV and the deed restrictions. I'm just wondering if there is any fundamental difference between a proposed 4 ounce soda restriction in N.Y.C. and any other restriction that one might find in The Villages, or anywhere else for that matter.

It seems to me that a restriction is a restriction as long as it doesn't violate any human rights. If someone went to court over a soda restriction, in what way could they claim to be damaged?

[CFrance]

Originally Posted by Villages PL

We are in total agreement on that. I wouldn't want property values dragged down either.





Sorry for the misunderstanding. I like TV and the deed restrictions. I'm just wondering if there is any fundamental difference between a proposed 4 ounce soda restriction in N.Y.C. and any other restriction that one might find in The Villages, or anywhere else for that matter.

It seems to me that a restriction is a restriction as long as it doesn't violate any human rights. If someone went to court over a soda restriction, in what way could they claim to be damaged?

Soda makers, restaurateurs, and movie theater owners sued on financial basis. And they won an injunction. The judge agreed with the beverage industry and other opponents that the rule is arbitrary in applying to only some sweet beverages and some places that sell them. He also said the Board of Health went beyond its authority in approving the size limit.

But it was mainly financial issues that they claimed were damaging, at least for most of the suit's parties.

[2BNTV]

Originally Posted by Villages PL

We are in total agreement on that. I wouldn't want property values dragged down either.



Sorry for the misunderstanding. I like TV and the deed restrictions. I'm just wondering if there is any fundamental difference between a proposed 4 ounce soda restriction in N.Y.C. and any other restriction that one might find in The Villages, or anywhere else for that matter.

It seems to me that a restriction is a restriction as long as it doesn't violate any human rights. If someone went to court over a soda restriction, in what way could they claim to be damaged?

No problem. I'm cool.

There probably isn't much of a difference but they are similar in that when you look at the big picture, it's a minor inconvenience. If it bothered someone that much, then they should consider living wherever a major annoyance.

Like you say, if it doesn't violate someone's civil rights.

The condo I lived in had a board member who wanted to insert a condition in the condo by-laws that people with a certain amount of kids couldnt live in our complex. He was quickly showed the error of his ways as that was a violation of civil rights and was voted down. TV has the 80/20 rule so it doesn't violate anyone one person's rights.

The mayor of N.Y. had his hands slapped by the courts. nuff said,,,,,,

[Monkei]

If you could give me NYC without the taxes and crime and cold weather I would consider it a toss up.

[allus70]

NYC has come a long, long way with regards to crime. There are areas that 25 years ago, I wouldn't walk through during the day, I now feel completely safe at night. High taxes, yup, but there is such an incredible abundance of things to do, see and experience, it's worth it. Best thing about those long, cold winters are those first warm,beautiful Spring days when the earth itself seems to wake up.

It's not a real competition between NYC and TV. They each fill different needs and interests during the changing seasons of one's life. I was born, grew up, lived and worked in the City, and wouldn't trade that experience for anything. That said, I'm really looking forward to starting my second act in TV.

Take the best and leave the rest.