Quote:
Originally Posted by Wandatime
I was with you up til that last paragraph, which was rude and unnecessary.
|
Wanda, I admit that I get revved up on this overall topic. That's an explanation of sorts, but certainly not an excuse for my leaving in my last paragraph which was a gratuitous zinger and a hurtful one to other posters, you included.
It was wrong of me, and I acknowledge it and apologize.
I have to say, perhaps to clarify my upset, that it is not and has never been an under 55 issue as such. I knew full well about the rule when I bought. Indeed, my Villages sales agent himself bought here when he was 40. I am sorry for any offense to Bonny or any others that my own words may have caused.
The issue is oversight of seemingly out of control single or multi-house landlords. I know very well that steps and measures can be introduced as mandatory items in the leasing process. I believe also that some kind of penalty should exist for the wrongdoing tenants, even those who might not maintain the rented property and allow it to become an eyesore. Of course, the same holds true for errant homeowners.
If there is a sense that 'anything goes' then, in fact, everything will indeed go. A person or corporation or family trust should not buy a house or houses and rent them out solely for the biggest return. Property rights do not go that far. There can be reasonable mandates in place so that maybe those who are habitual wrongdoers, or evictees or who become wrongdoers while here are faced with very strict penalties for the good of this place and the law abiding retirees who live here and have invested here.
I'm not Chicken Little, nor am I making mountains out of mole hills. Sometimes, it is wiser to redirect things in the early stages for the good of everyone - and the value of their investments and their right to quiet enjoyment of their homes and surroundings.
I think it is broken and should be fixed.