[MoeVonB61]

The "Developer" does not care about the "prehistoric" section. I know of (3) people who live in the prehistoric / historic section that have kids living with them. One is an Autistic child but it's not the new section and only the new section (bonds to be paid by the purchaser) matters.....just look at how poor the lots are maintained in the prehistoric section also.

[Topspinmo]

Actually I don't think resales or for rents can be stopped IMO. You go to zillow or realstate.com and it list local schools (which not village charter school) in the area and mentions nothing about being over 55 only. If so why wouldn't the information be noticable in the listings for resales?

[Indydealmaker]

Until someone has indisputable proof that there are residents in The Villages with kids under the age of 19, I am going to view these "eyewitness" reports as balderdash. With cranky old farts all too willing and eager to report "lawn ornaments", I find it unlikely that there are many families with children living here.

We have lots of posters on here who persist in claiming that there are villages, as a part of The Villages, that allow families. That is just not true. ALL of The Villages is age restricted.

As far as rentals go, I am sure that statistically residents under the age of 55 are being monitored because if The Villages residents 55+ drops below 80% of the total, The Villages will lose its federal designation as an age-restricted community. All sorts of bad things happen then. Not likely.

Until that threshold is reached, it is legal for 19-year old kids to buy even a new home here.

[TVMayor]

No way, those kids got to be from Stonecrest.

[onslowe]

I didn't know, and I do not think that resales and/or rentals are outside the scope of the rules here. I thought these were covenants that ran with the land.

[VT2TV]

Originally Posted by Indydealmaker

Until someone has indisputable proof that there are residents in The Villages with kids under the age of 19, I am going to view these "eyewitness" reports as balderdash. With cranky old farts all too willing and eager to report "lawn ornaments", I find it unlikely that there are many families with children living here.

We have lots of posters on here who persist in claiming that there are villages, as a part of The Villages, that allow families. That is just not true. ALL of The Villages is age restricted.

As far as rentals go, I am sure that statistically residents under the age of 55 are being monitored because if The Villages residents 55+ drops below 80% of the total, The Villages will lose its federal designation as an age-restricted community. All sorts of bad things happen then. Not likely.

Until that threshold is reached, it is legal for 19-year old kids to buy even a new home here.

I certainly hope everyone will call the Community Standards and find out if it is true.


I have never checked it out, but have heard that there are 2 or 3 Villages in TV that do allow children and/or families. I have heard that from many sources. I would like to know if that is not true. I also heard someone say, either on here or on the online newspaper, that a 55+ community can vote if they want people living in it that are under 55. (without loosing any benefits of the 55+ communities) I seriously doubt that is true, but wish that it was. Has anyone heard that before? Hate to cause confusion, but would like to know if these 2 things are fact, or just fiction.

[TVMayor]

Originally Posted by VT2TV

I certainly hope everyone will call the Community Standards and find out if it is true.


I have never checked it out, but have heard that there are 2 or 3 Villages in TV that do allow children and/or families. I have heard that from many sources. I would like to know if that is not true. I also heard someone say, either on here or on the online newspaper, that a 55+ community can vote if they want people living in it that are under 55. (without loosing any benefits of the 55+ communities) I seriously doubt that is true, but wish that it was. Has anyone heard that before? Hate to cause confusion, but would like to know if these 2 things are fact, or just fiction.

What benefits do 55+ communities have that could be lost?

[VT2TV]

I have no idea, that's just what I was told, and why I am asking if anyone has heard if it is true. Not saying I believed it, but wanted to check.

[redwitch]

There are three "villages" that are open to children. The only thing they have in common with The Villages are the golf cart paths. That is, their communities are golf cart accessible and they have access to our golf cart paths. They do not have access to any recreational facilities and they do not pay any amenity fees for TV. These villages were built for employees of the developer, its subsidiaries and contractors. However, they are open for purchase by anyone.

A friend of mine purchased a home in Buffalo Ridge (I believe that is the name of the development -- near Crispers) for her grandson and two great-grandchildren. The greats are not eligible for the Charter Schools unless the grandson gets a job within TV. They do have the in-county guest passes that allow them to use TV facilities so long as my friend accompanies them (the same as anyone who has qualified relatives living in the Tri-County Area).

As to the voting issue, have no clue -- first I have heard about it.

As to renters, a homeowner can rent to anyone so long as everyone living in the house is over 19. If you suspect someone under age is living in TV for more than 30 days, you can report them and TV will see that they move. They make no exceptions, regardless of circumstances.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by redwitch

There are three "villages" that are open to children. The only thing they have in common with The Villages are the golf cart paths. That is, their communities are golf cart accessible and they have access to our golf cart paths. They do not have access to any recreational facilities and they do not pay any amenity fees for TV. These villages were built for employees of the developer, its subsidiaries and contractors. However, they are open for purchase by anyone.

A friend of mine purchased a home in Buffalo Ridge (I believe that is the name of the development -- near Crispers) for her grandson and two great-grandchildren. The greats are not eligible for the Charter Schools unless the grandson gets a job within TV. They do have the in-county guest passes that allow them to use TV facilities so long as my friend accompanies them (the same as anyone who has qualified relatives living in the Tri-County Area).

As to the voting issue, have no clue -- first I have heard about it.

As to renters, a homeowner can rent to anyone so long as everyone living in the house is over 19. If you suspect someone under age is living in TV for more than 30 days, you can report them and TV will see that they move. They make no exceptions, regardless of circumstances.

All of what Red said is true.

[dirtbanker]

Originally Posted by VT2TV

I certainly hope everyone will call the Community Standards and find out if it is true.

At the least you would be informing them that others have noticed what Community Standards probably already knew...Surely they would be aware that a school bus is picking up children and shuttling those children to their charter school.

Please let us know how the conversation goes...

Originally Posted by TVMayor

What benefits do 55+ communities have that could be lost?

That is a really good question. There must be some financial benefit in meeting HUDs requirements for "Housing intended and operated for occupancy by persons 55 years of age or older"? LIHTC and LURA programs award tax credits that can be sold and the qualifications are 80% occupancy of over 55 along with the advertising of "over 55 community".

I suppose 20% of the residents could have children and they would still qualify?? But that would bring in the argument (possibly lawsuit) over why that resident can have children under the age of 19 living with them and another can only have them visit for 30 days...

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

Originally Posted by Rc Moser

Not familar with that address where the bus is stopping, But maybe bigger question would be why is school bus stopping in silver Lake addition if that address or corner signs are in village of silver lake? During my search for homes I found three villages that children are allowed and Silver Lake wasn't one of them. Maybe the 55 and over rules are being bent or not enforced in the Historic side?

The bus is stopping on Griffin Road, just outside the Jeffrey Gate, which is not in Silver Lake, but just outside of it.

[Bogie Shooter]

Originally Posted by sunnyatlast

Well maybe those who see the moms in bathrobes on the cart ought to call Community Watch who can follow them home.

Not Community Watchs' job.......................

[Bogie Shooter]

Originally Posted by mrich61

The "Developer" does not care about the "prehistoric" section. I know of (3) people who live in the prehistoric / historic section that have kids living with them. One is an Autistic child but it's not the new section and only the new section (bonds to be paid by the purchaser) matters.....just look at how poor the lots are maintained in the prehistoric section also.

Doesn't care? Re-purchase of 40 homes to be rebuilt by the Developer. Rebuilding of the golf course & country club.
Maintainence of lots is the homeowners's responsibility.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

Originally Posted by dirtbanker

At the least you would be informing them that others have noticed what they probably already knew...Surely they would be aware that a school bus is picking up children and shuttling those children to their charter school.

Please let us know how the conversation goes...




That is a really good question. There must be some financial benefit in meeting HUDs requirements for "Housing intended and operated for occupancy by persons 55 years of age or older"? LIHTC and LURA programs award tax credits that can be sold and the qualifications are 80% occupancy of over 55 along with the advertising of "over 55 community".

I suppose 20% of the residents could have children and they would still qualify?? But that would bring in the argument (possibly lawsuit) over why that resident can have children under the age of 19 living with them and another can only have them visit for 30 days...

My understanding is that 80% of the homes must be occupied by at least one person over the age of 55.

I think that in addition to what you mentioned this condition must be met in order to circumvent age discrimination laws. I'm not sure, but I think that this is how they can have a rule against people under the age of 19 living here.

If you think about it only about 20% of the people living here have to be over 55. You could have one person over 55 and three people under 55 living in 80% of the homes. The rest of the homes could have four people under 55 living in them.