To the Editor:
Although not from District 5, I have an interest in the outcome of its vote on Oct. 16 on its rule change pertaining Declaration of Restrictions and the removal of Anonymous Reporting of Complaints. My hope is the District Supervisors will adopt the change and set a precedent for other Districts to follow. In support of that I have sent a letter to all District 5 Board Members as well as the District Clerk, some of which follows.
With regard to violations and/or reporting of violations, minimally, I’ll say:
1) When an individual gets to a closing and is handed volumes of paper, told to “read this, sign here,” recognizes there are items in the covenants not to their liking … how many people up and walk away from a closing? There were 2 or 3 items in the Covenants affecting our residence not to my liking, but we still purchased believing “no way would some of this be enforced.”
2) It’s reasonable to believe in many instances, without even knowing, people have purchased properties already in violation of Covenants (i.e. plantings/curbing within rights-of-way; nuisance lighting, existing lawn ornaments and more.)
3), most importantly, per the Declaration of Restrictions, all owners have the right and duty to prosecute against a person violating or attempting to violate. Additionally, the Developer, has the right, but not the duty to enforce. So, where does anonymous come in?
From my way of thinking, for there to be a report of violation, an individual (neighbor), business (utility company), governing entity (District and/or VCCDD and/or Developer’s representative) should be experiencing a negative impact from a resident’s action or at least witnessing a negative impact before a report is made. If there is a threat or imminent danger, authorities should be contacted … not Community Standards. To investigate a purported violation against a Village’s resident or others, Community Standards should be provided with the name of complainant, address, and contact number, together with name and address of party in violation or location of violation, together with specifics on the violation and negative impact involved, before any investigation. I do not go along with the presumption an identified complainant is the major source for discontent between neighbors. It’s just a weak excuse not to change the Rule regarding anonymous reporting. Frivolous reporting and secretive (anonymous) reporting not only is the chicken’s way out or a troll’s way in, but does not correlate to an owner’s right and duty. Further, it produces billable hours to Districts from Community Standards. Just look under Deed Compliance Services in any District’s Budget.
I hope District 5 supervisors have the backbone to stand up for and make the change for doing away with anonymous reporting. If it turns out to have a negative impact on District 5 residents or District 5’s budget, it can always change the approach back to what I consider an archaic anonymous reporting practice.
The following was not part of my letter to District 5 Supervisors, however, I also hope they are not subjected to, influenced by or threatened in any way by personal meetings with the Developer’s representative(s). And, too, hope there isn’t a huge show of pre-planned force by individuals doing the Developer’s bidding at the District 5 meeting in opposition to the Rule change.
How The Villages now operates seems to have taken an untenable turn or maybe residents are just becoming more aware. Sadly, as was the case with the Amenity Authority Committee supposedly put in place to be a Committee representing the needs of residents north of CR 466, the AAC recently acted on the matter of the Hacienda Hills Country Club site in opposition to those residents. It rolled over to threats of “either/or from the Developer’s representative … “apartments or parking garage” and opted for apartments over the wants of residents. Further, it also handed over the amenities for the apartment units to the Developer sans Community Watch and Public Safety expenses. I thought the AAC’s responsibility was to use amenity funds for improvements north of CR 466, not give them away. It is all well and good The Developer minimally proposes a pool, sport and activity courts, walking paths and other open spaces which will be accessible to residents and guests. Isn’t that some of what was demolished? My presumption, although apparently incorrect, is what was represented as amenities and facilities for resident use at the time we purchased would remain intact or like facilities put in place. The Developer owned parcels were an evident part of that landscape. I don’t recall apartment complexes being a recognized aspect of The Villages lifestyle at the time. I further do not see where an apartment complex, regardless of the amenities attached, will enhance the property values of homeowners’ properties in the vicinity. Also, isn’t it reasonable to think with all apartment units rented the proposed attached amenities will get plenty of use, without the further demand from already existing residents. I can recognize the need for change, but there’s plenty of expansion south to do that. Another thought …I wonder how much long-range planning by the Developer went into changing Katie Belle’s into a facility unrecognizable to residents, unusable and foreign for its original purpose (a Residents’ Club/Cattle Baron/Katie Belle’s), just so down the road (because of lack of use) apartments would be the answer. I find the way The Villages is going a sad state of affairs. I, too, am one of those people who would not recommend it as a place to live. The “friendly” in Florida’s Friendliest Hometown has skipped town.
Mary King
Village of Summerhill