Community Development District supervisors continue to question the need for anonymous complaints when it comes to deed compliance.
CDD 6 had asked Community Standards for an analysis of complaints and found that from March 1, 2013 through June 30, 2016 there were 1,631 concerns called into Community Standards for CDD 6. Of those 1,631 concerns, 1,586 were called in anonymously and 45 were with a name given. There were 303 violations written; 297 anonymously and six with name given. There were four public hearings; three anonymously and one with name given.
Community Standards also prepared an analysis of the pros and cons of the anonymous system vs. giving the name.
ANONYMOUS
Pros:
- Encourages public participation in maintaining the aesthetic appearance and value of the community.
- Preserves the harmonious atmosphere of the Villages Friendliest Home Town.
- Eliminates the division among friendly neighbors who desire to maintain the aesthetics of their neighborhood without destroying friendships.
- Eliminates confrontations between already feuding neighbors.
- Prevents negative labeling – no one wants to be considered a “tattletale” when their only objective is to protect the value of their home.
- In the rare case where a concern is filed out of spite, it is only acted upon after staff verifies the concern is a valid violation and then it can be voluntarily brought into compliance thereby benefitting the community as a whole by upholding the aesthetics expected and guaranteed by the deed restrictions and adopted rule.
- The anonymous system has been a success as reflected on the attached detailed compliance sheet.
Cons:
- Violator does not know who filed the concern and would not be able to communicate with the complainant in a positive fashion.
NAME GIVEN
Pros:
- Less concerns received means decrease in district funding.
- Enables violators to apologize to the complainant.
Cons:
- Discourages reported concerns, including valid violations that would remain unaddressed negatively impacting the community.
- Deteriorates the harmonious atmosphere of the Villages Friendliest Home Town.
- Pits neighbor against neighbor which creates a hostile environment.
- May cause division among friendly neighbors.
- Potential for confrontations between neighbors.
- Could make an existing disagreement between neighbors worse.
- Creates negative labeling
- May cause an alleged violator to have the neighborhood, as a whole, shun the complainant.
“It’s a tough call,” said CDD 6 Supervisor Peter Moeller.
For the time being, CDD 6 has opted not to make a change.
CDD 8 Supervisor Duane Johnson said he is troubled by the anonymity issue.
“I personally don’t believe in the anonymous complaint system,” Johnson said.
One individual has lodged 41 complaints this year in CDD 8 and that individual provided a name.
But at least 90 percent of the time, complainers want to remain anonymous, according to Community Standards.
“People would be reluctant to turn in a neighbor if they had to give their name. It would erode the system we have that keeps our property values in place,” said CDD 8 Supervisor Dennis Hayes.
In addition to property values, there is a safety factor to consider, said another CDD 8 supervisor.
“There is a good reason we don’t disclose the name. Could staff or members of this board guarantee the safety of the neighborhood if the violator goes haywire?” asked CDD 8 Supervisor Sal Torname.
Earlier this year, a Village of Sunset Pointe woman told CDD 5 supervisors she was sick and tired of “nit-picking neighbors,” who were taking advantage of the anonymous complaint system to harass her. She cited a gazing ball and ornamental pelican she had in her yard that were the subject of anonymous complaints. You can read more about that HERE
CDD 3 has also had an ongoing debate about anonymity. You can read more about that HERE