Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BSLINY
Boomer You say there is a lot of reasons to allow people under 55 to live in the villages
But you don't say what they are I'm just curious to hear what they are
|
Hello again BSLINY,
The reason I am saying "again" is because I have tried to answer your question a couple of times and both times I managed to lose the post in cyberspace. The first time was because our local internet service cut out. It's been doing that lately. The second time was last night when I saw that I had duplicated the quote from you and while trying to edit one out, I managed to reduce the entire post to that squint print. I should have left it alone. But I could not and I managed to lose that post, that actually got here yesterday. That loss was my fault. I can't blame our subprime ISP. I am a technoidiot. And I need to confine my proofreading to before I go to print, not after. Oh well.
So anyway, I hope you saw my second post yesterday. It stayed for awhile. I am going to now try to get it, or a version thereof, in place again. Third time's a charm. -- Right?
You may have seen it and actually kind of wondered why I did not really answer the question. I ended up giving you my thoughts on how allowing a percentage younger than 55 would help 55+ communities to be able to hang onto their 55+ status.
If the actual law has a percentage written into it, an actual number, not "some" or "a percentage," it seems to me that would give the law some real legs to stand on rather than giving it the potential to grow all kinds of arms and legs.
From "senior citizen" communites to "active adult" communities the law has survived. I think allowing that percentage of younger "adults" is the reason the law has worked. Any law, or restriction for that matter, is only as good as its enforcement. A clean cutoff at 55 would make that enforcement pretty impossible.
We would not be bothering to go through all this rigmarole to buy a home in a community in the sunshine if it were not an "adult" community. As I said above, "adult" is the operative word. Of course, our darling grandchildren will visit. "Visit" is the operative word in that one.
You said that you are curious about the possible reasons that I referred to. Well, there are those May/December marriages, or maybe even February/December, that I was talking about above. There are those who are close to retirement age but not quite there. I think there are probably a few "kids" who own the houses that their parents live in. And I'm sure we could think of many more reasons.
But the bottom line, where I am concerned, is to welcome those percentages and hope they actually will help the "adult" lifestyle to stay off the endangered species list.
My guess is that with the size of TV, and considering the dynamics that can arise within families, sooner or later somebody in TV is going to push having kids move in. I never found out what happened in that other Florida community that I referred to in the last post.
Oh, and I am not an ogre. I like kids just fine. I just want the choice of an adult community. "Choice" is the operatvie word in that one. And I hope the choice that most of us want can continue to be protected.
Adults below 55 are not only good for house sales, those younger adults are a buffer that will help the lifestyle survive.
btw I have not researched any of this or read the law. I keep hoping those on here who are far better at researching and presenting than I could ever be, will do that. This is just one of those 2 cents things from me or a theory or the morning babble that I sometimes write, here in the kichen, drinking coffee.
And I hope I have sort of answered your question, BSLINY. And good luck in your journey.
Boomer