Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill14564
Probably right but you never know. Those that pay more for their homes might be more interested in retaining the rights to use those homes as they wish. I can see arguments on both sides.
What I was most surprised about was that a very clear prohibition on rentals was removed. If anyone was wondering which way the Developer might lean, this should make it clear.
|
There are a lot of smart real estate developers in the world. Not many of them are as astute as Gary Morse. He took 1000's of acres in the middle of no where and created The Villages out of whole clothe. He took a trailer park and re-named it the Historic District and the name has last 20+ years.
"Full occupancy" is a huge advantage to the Developer. Every one who lives in TV, knows what "in season" is like. The squares, the restaurants, the golf courses, are all inundated with people. For the owner of all those properties, the more the merrier.
The South is a different animal. They don't really have Town Squares. They're much more like traditional FL subdivisions. Different market, different clientele, different business model.
I think the Developer will continue to "allow STR's" in the Deed Restrictions down South, for his bread & butter homes. It suits his purpose and helps drive property values.
I think the higher-line, upscale neighborhoods he has planned, will be a different animal. I suspect those and only those, will have short-term rental restrictions. IMO, the upscale homes don't have the same rental potential. They really don't have all that much to offer a renter. There's no ocean, no town square, no golf, not much shopping. Everything in the newer areas, is still on the "promise plan".
Any renter with the money to spend for a very upscale home, is going to want the Full Monty ... which means an upscale house, near the real center of The Villages.
Living somewhere and renting somewhere for a short vacation, are miles apart in motivation and needs.