Villa being day leased to day workers

[TEXJK]

Hello,
Recently moved into the villages fantastic experience so far.
Question is it common practice for villas to be rented for a week or less to day workers? One currently rented to 6 non English speaking day workers.
What is the HOA policy for renting?
Thanks

[BrianL99]

Hello,
Recently moved into the villages fantastic experience so far.
Question is it common practice for villas to be rented for a week or less to day workers? One currently rented to 6 non English speaking day workers.
What is the HOA policy for renting?
Thanks

The Villages does not have an HOA.

Most deeds would appear to prohibit daily renting, as it's a "business" per Florida Law.

Residents don't seem willing to step up to the plate and invest enough money to fight the daily rentals.

[Bill14564]

Would it be less of a problem if the renters spoke English?

Most deed restrictions do not prohibit rentals of any length of time. Renting is not the type of business prohibited in the restrictions.

[TEXJK]

Hello,
Recently moved into the villages fantastic experience so far.
Question is it common practice for villas to be rented for a week or less to day workers? One currently rented to 6 non English speaking day workers.
What is the HOA policy for renting?
Thanks

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Hello,
Recently moved into the villages fantastic experience so far.
Question is it common practice for villas to be rented for a week or less to day workers? One currently rented to 6 non English speaking day workers.
What is the HOA policy for renting?
Thanks

How is it that you already moved in, and don't know that there is no HOA?

How do you know they're day workers?

Why did you feel it was important to mention that they don't speak English?

[manaboutown]

Based on the number of occupants they could be in violation of occupancy laws. I wonder if the landlord knows what is going on?

50 illegal immigrants were stashed in an ABQ apartment. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuclXMKSpJs

[BrianL99]

Would it be less of a problem if the renters spoke English?

Most deed restrictions do not prohibit rentals of any length of time. Renting is not the type of business prohibited in the restrictions.

I think that's a minority opinion.

[Dotneko]

Being trolled......

[Bill14564]

I think that's a minority opinion.

That's okay; it doesn't matter whether it is a minority or majority opinion. What matters are the words in the deed restrictions, the words in Florida law, and the way both are enforced.

[Kelevision]

Based on the number of occupants they could be in violation of occupancy laws. I wonder if the landlord knows what is going on?

50 illegal immigrants were stashed in an ABQ apartment. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuclXMKSpJs

Well, those people weren’t paying rent. They were kidnapped and held hostage for ransom. Then they were rescued.

[JGibson]

I would’ve believed the post if you didn't put in the non-English speaking bit.

The Villa next to me has turned into a monthly rental. I’ve seen in 4 months 4 different sets of renters.

The Owner who lives around the corner and I quote “I know people don't like it but I don't care”

She is not going to like me as a neighbor if she turns into a timeshare.

[BrianL99]

That's okay; it doesn't matter whether it is a minority or majority opinion. What matters are the words in the deed restrictions, the words in Florida law, and the way both are enforced.

You should get your money back, from whatever Law School you went to.

[Bill14564]

You should get your money back, from whatever Law School you went to.

Simple English comprehension.

What do you base your disagreement on? Do you have deed restriction wording that specifically prohibits rentals? Have you read the Florida law concerning short-term rentals? Do you know of a case where a rental in the Villages was found to be a violation of the deed restrictions?

[brianherlihy]

keep all locked up

[Normal]

Hello,
Recently moved into the villages fantastic experience so far.
Question is it common practice for villas to be rented for a week or less to day workers? One currently rented to 6 non English speaking day workers.
What is the HOA policy for renting?
Thanks

6 adults would be a problem. Restrictions state “Single Family” dwelling.
VCDD Deed Compliance - Sumter County (https://www.districtgov.org/departments/Community-Standards/deedrestrict-SumterCounty.aspx)

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

keep all locked up

Nah, my neighbor is a Landlady, she rents her place out on occasion for a couple weeks at a time to tenants she vets. She also has family in the area who check on the property regularly. I don't think we need to lock up my neighbor. She's very nice.

[pauld315]

Based on the number of occupants they could be in violation of occupancy laws. I wonder if the landlord knows what is going on?

50 illegal immigrants were stashed in an ABQ apartment. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuclXMKSpJs

It is very normal in TV to have 6 adults share a 3 bedroom rental. I see it and its effects every winter when you can't get into anything. This is what happens when there are no rental restrictions.

[Whitley]

It depends on what language they speak.

Spanish = max two non related with no more that 15 total
French = Just pass
German = Up to 5 non related entities, no more that 5 people total
Swedish = if stewardesses as many as one can fit
Farsi = no more that one per house. If you see two or more discussing something, contact ...Nevermind)

[oldtimes]

Nah, my neighbor is a Landlady, she rents her place out on occasion for a couple weeks at a time to tenants she vets. She also has family in the area who check on the property regularly. I don't think we need to lock up my neighbor. She's very nice.

I just found out why one of the houses in our neighborhood looks like crap, now that it's been sold, and why one of my neighbors is thinking about moving. Turns out - the person who bought the house - is living in it. But she sectioned off her living room and is renting it BY THE NIGHT to whoever answers an ad in an Orlando newspaper, for only $50/night.

She parked her car blocking one neighbor's driveway a couple of times. And another time she parked IN a neighbor's driveway. And no she didn't have permission - the neighbor comes home from work at lunch time every day and wasn't able to park in her own driveway because the other person had their car in it. I've also seen an SUV outside in front of this person's house - not pulled over, but just - parked - in the road. Basically turning our street into a one-lane street.

All of this is happening with just one property in the neighborhood. I've told my neighbors next time this lady or her tenant blocks their driveway, to not confront them. Just call the police. And next time they park IN a neighbor's driveway - don't confront. Call the police.

Don't bother with community watch, they can't do anything about it. Blocking someone's driveway, and trespassing on someone's property - are both things the police are paid to handle.

Bit of a hypocrite aren't we?

[Normal]

If construction workers building houses in TV are living in the Villa, not only is it unprofessional and conflicting on so many levels, it can be reported. Call Community Standards at 352-751-3939 . If you suspect undocumented workers ICE’s number is 1-877-2INTAKE. I’m sure TV would appreciate the press coverage.

[JMintzer]

Bit of a hypocrite aren't we?

Are you surprised?

[Stu from NYC]

I would not want to live in an area where tenants just come and go and there is no stability in our neighborhood. Rather like to know the folks we live nearby.

[Normal]

It only takes one time. If ICE raided a house in The Villages, the rental days would be over for good. A couple of news outlets would hammer in the death nail. Only an idiot would rent out to that situation.

[manaboutown]

Just knock on the door and when it is opened yell "Green cards!"

On second thought you might get shot or worse so don't.

[Whitley]

Are you surprised?


Perhaps not surprised, but terribly disappointed.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Bit of a hypocrite aren't we?

Not at all. I have no problem with people renting their properties. I have a problem with people who don't care who their tenants are, or about the community/neighborhood in which they live. The two homes, and their homeowners, are entirely different situations. One of them split their very small living room into a den and a third bedroom, on a property that is assessed as a two bedroom home. They didn't have a permit for the construction, and is renting the room for less than the cost of a hotel room in the no-tell motel across 441. This homeowner also has created what amounts to a continual construction site - with trucks and debris and materials all across her front lawn and in her driveway for the past several MONTHS. Basically since the week after she bought it.

The other, as I said, vets her tenants carefully. She did no construction to her property, with or without a permit. She keeps the place immaculate and goes out of her way to be a good neighbor.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

I would not want to live in an area where tenants just come and go and there is no stability in our neighborhood. Rather like to know the folks we live nearby.

You should probably have a talk with The Villages Property Management and ask them to stop renting short-term rentals then. They are still doing Lifestyle visits in neighborhoods where people have already purchased and moved in to their new homes, so you need to tell The Villages to stop the Lifestyle visits too. No stability when the -maximum- rental on a Lifestyle visit is only 7 days, right?

[retiredguy123]

You should probably have a talk with The Villages Property Management and ask them to stop renting short-term rentals then. They are still doing Lifestyle visits in neighborhoods where people have already purchased and moved in to their new homes, so you need to tell The Villages to stop the Lifestyle visits too. No stability when the -maximum- rental on a Lifestyle visit is only 7 days, right?
As I understand it, The Villages Property Management company is a private company and is not owned by or associated with The Villages. That is what they told me when I called them recently.

[Papa_lecki]

If you suspect undocumented workers ICE’s number is 1-877-2INTAKE. I’m sure TV would appreciate the press coverage.

It’s easy, change your WIFI name to “Immigration/Customs Van”

[Rwirish]

There is no HOA in The Villages. Regarding renters ……

[TheWarriors]

Would it be less of a problem if the renters spoke English?

Most deed restrictions do not prohibit rentals of any length of time. Renting is not the type of business prohibited in the restrictions.

And cue the racism comment. It’s as predictable as the sunrise.

[GizmoWhiskers]

Would it be less of a problem if the renters spoke English?

Most deed restrictions do not prohibit rentals of any length of time. Renting is not the type of business prohibited in the restrictions.
The deed restrictions for villas state NO businesses can be run out of the property. Rentals such as ABnB's rented out daily qualify as short term rentals (any rentals less than 6 months signed lease) which REQUIRE a business license with the State of FL (unless the owner is living in the house renting a room while residing with the renter.)

Residents should be fighting ABnB's being in the Villas. Not seeing any Villa owners (creating say a class action to) force T V to comply with the deed restriction enforcement. Ka Sa Ra Sa Ra...

[Bill14564]

The deed restrictions for villas state NO businesses can be run out of the property. Rentals such as ABnB's rented out daily qualify as short term rentals (any rentals less than 6 months signed lease) which REQUIRE a business license with the State of FL (unless the owner is living in the house renting a room while residing with the renter.)

Residents should be fighting ABnB's being in the Villas. Not seeing any Villa owners (creating say a class action to) force T V to comply with the deed restriction enforcement. Ka Sa Ra Sa Ra...

Thank you. This is the first time someone has pointed out that the Villa restrictions are different than the other restrictions.

In that case, and even in the case of the non-Villas, anyone concerned about rentals should read the "Enforcement" section of the restrictions. The Developer is not obligated to enforce the deed restrictions. On the other hand, we have the right (and duty) to take the owner to court to force them to obey the restrictions.

[banjobob]

These fall under the internal deed restrictions that the Developer is to enforce , after 10 years living here that department is just a paycheck for one of the family members to enforce . I have never seen heard or gossiped about any enforcement from that department. Multiple pets , too many people in a home, adult and small children living here the list goes on. Can anyone cite an example of any enforcement .

[Bill14564]

These fall under the internal deed restrictions that the Developer is to enforce , after 10 years living here that department is just a paycheck for one of the family members to enforce . I have never seen heard or gossiped about any enforcement from that department. Multiple pets , too many people in a home, adult and small children living here the list goes on. Can anyone cite an example of any enforcement .

Can you cite the wording that says the Developer is to enforce the deed restrictions? (HINT: I haven't found it in any of the restrictions I have read)

[Bogie Shooter]

From Village Community Development Districts (http://www.districtgov.org) under Community Standards

Q: What is an internal deed restriction and who can enforce them?
A: Deed restrictions are declarations between the Declarant (Developer named in your individual
Declaration of Restrictions) and the Property Owner. Who can enforce the internal deed
restrictions?
• Any property owner of any lot may seek to enforce internal restrictions against another
property owner.
• The Declarant may seek to enforce internal restrictions.
• Examples of internal deed restriction violations include, but are not limited to,
underage children living in the home or running a business from the home.

[Babubhat]

Google maps shows businesses listing their home address. That implies a business being run out of a home

[Bill14564]

Can you cite the wording that says the Developer is to enforce the deed restrictions? (HINT: I haven't found it in any of the restrictions I have read)

From Village Community Development Districts (http://www.districtgov.org) under Community Standards

Q: What is an internal deed restriction and who can enforce them?
A: Deed restrictions are declarations between the Declarant (Developer named in your individual
Declaration of Restrictions) and the Property Owner. Who can enforce the internal deed
restrictions?
• Any property owner of any lot may seek to enforce internal restrictions against another
property owner.
• The Declarant may seek to enforce internal restrictions.
• Examples of internal deed restriction violations include, but are not limited to,
underage children living in the home or running a business from the home.

I was looking for a more legal document that uses the word "must" or "shall" rather than "may."

[airstreamingypsy]

Have any of them done anything wrong? Have they raped or murdered anyone? Broken into cars? Or is the fact that English isn't their first language the charge against them?

[Normal]

Have any of them done anything wrong? Have they raped or murdered anyone? Broken into cars? Or is the fact that English isn't their first language the charge against them?

Of course all US citizens must be able to read and write in English. It is a prerequisite for US citizen applicants.

[Battlebasset]

We have had this in our neighborhood, I suspect. As long as they aren't causing a nuisance, throwing wild parties, trash out front, etc., I don't worry too much about it. Pretty much my standard for any place I've lived. Live and let live.

It also wasn't right next to me. I figure if the permanent residents that live on either side of them don't care, I shouldn't either. However, if they approached me and said it was a problem, and asked for my assistance reporting them, keeping an eye on their activities, etc I would gladly help.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

I was looking for a more legal document that uses the word "must" or "shall" rather than "may."

There is no such document, because the Declarant (the Developer) is not OBLIGATED to enforce their deed restrictions. They MAY enforce them. They have granted themselves permission to enforce them, if they so choose. It's an option.

Just like you, the homeowner, are not -obligated- to seek enforcement if your neighbor has a lawn ornament. You MAY seek it. But you don't have to, if you personally don't object to it being there.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Of course all US citizens must be able to read and write in English. It is a prerequisite for US citizen applicants.

No, it's not. This is the rule:
In all cases, the applicant must demonstrate the ability to speak English at the time of the naturalization examination, unless the applicant meets one of the age and time as resident exemptions of English or qualifies for a medical waiver.

So - it's not a prerequisite at all. They have to learn it, but they don't have to show up already knowing it. And there are exceptions, as specified above. A mute won't be required to know how to speak English. A blind person won't be required to know how to read English. A deaf person won't be required to know how to understand English.
A deaf blind mute won't be required to do any of the three.

If they're over 50 years old, they're exempt from the requirement.

There are other exemptions. But generally speaking, "it'll be on the test." It's something they have to learn as part of the process of becoming a citizen. It's not something they have to know when they get to the border.

[Bill14564]

Of course all US citizens must be able to read and write in English. It is a prerequisite for US citizen applicants.

The ability to read and write English does not make it someone's first language. An immigrant may very well speak non-English in his home and in his neighborhood yet still know English well enough to pass the citizenship test.

That's even if the people in the villa are US citizens and not green-card holders or here on work visas.

[gobuck827]

Of course all US citizens must be able to read and write in English. It is a prerequisite for US citizen applicants.

Well, maybe not "all";

1. Age and Residency Exceptions to English

An applicant is exempt from the English language requirement but is still required to meet the civics requirement if:

The applicant is age 50 or older at the time of filing for naturalization and has lived as an LPR in the United States for at least 20 years; or

The applicant is age 55 or older at the time of filing for naturalization and has lived as an LPR in the United States for at least 15 years.

The applicant may take the civics test in his or her language of choice with the use of an interpreter.

2. Special Consideration for Civics Test

An applicant receives special consideration in the civics test if, at the time of filing the application, the applicant is 65 years of age or older and has been living in the United States for periods totaling at least 20 years subsequent to a lawful admission for permanent residence.[3] An applicant who qualifies for special consideration is administered specific test forms.

3. Medical Disability Exception to English and Civics

An applicant who cannot meet the English and civics requirements because of a medical disability may be exempt from the English requirement, the civics requirement, or both requirements.

Chapter 2 - English and Civics Testing | USCIS (https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-12-part-e-chapter-2#:~:text=In%20all%20cases%2C%20the%20applicant,qu alifies%20for%20a%20medical%20waiver).

[Bill14564]

There is no such document, because the Declarant (the Developer) is not OBLIGATED to enforce their deed restrictions. They MAY enforce them. They have granted themselves permission to enforce them, if they so choose. It's an option.

Just like you, the homeowner, are not -obligated- to seek enforcement if your neighbor has a lawn ornament. You MAY seek it. But you don't have to, if you personally don't object to it being there.

Exactly my point. Those who say, "the Developer is not enforcing the restrictions," don't seem to understand what you wrote.

[golfing eagles]

No, it's not. This is the rule:


So - it's not a prerequisite at all. They have to learn it, but they don't have to show up already knowing it. And there are exceptions, as specified above. A mute won't be required to know how to speak English. A blind person won't be required to know how to read English. A deaf person won't be required to know how to understand English.
A deaf blind mute won't be required to do any of the three.

If they're over 50 years old, they're exempt from the requirement.

There are other exemptions. But generally speaking, "it'll be on the test." It's something they have to learn as part of the process of becoming a citizen. It's not something they have to know when they get to the border.

They don’t need to know anything when they get to the border except how to cross illegally, thereby committing a felony against the citizens of the United States. Talk about not enforcing “deed restrictions” 😂😂😂

[PugMom]

@ OP: we have had workers on occasion staying in the rental next door to us. it gives the worker a place to stay while working on construction nearby. the last time, it was 1 guy, possibly late 20's, early 30's, & was very quiet, bothering no one. so i guess it's not unheard of, but i never saw 6 of them, lol.it would be pretty small for that many workers!

[shopnstop]

Well, those people weren’t paying rent. They were kidnapped and held hostage for ransom. Then they were rescued.

REALLY? Bet you don't live 'next-door'!

[Normal]

No, it's not. This is the rule:


So - it's not a prerequisite at all. They have to learn it, but they don't have to show up already knowing it. And there are exceptions, as specified above. A mute won't be required to know how to speak English. A blind person won't be required to know how to read English. A deaf person won't be required to know how to understand English.
A deaf blind mute won't be required to do any of the three.

If they're over 50 years old, they're exempt from the requirement.

There are other exemptions. But generally speaking, "it'll be on the test." It's something they have to learn as part of the process of becoming a citizen. It's not something they have to know when they get to the border.


Except all tests and directions are in English. One of the examinations is an English proficiency exam. There is also a detailed civics exam. Essay answers must be written in English. An applicant has two chances before being denied citizenship.

[Bill14564]

Except all tests and directions are in English. One of the examinations is an English proficiency exam. There is also a detailed civics exam. Essay answers must be written in English. An applicant has two chances before being denied citizenship.


Please take a moment to research the claims you are making:

From the USCIS Exceptions and Accommodations page (https://www.uscis.gov/citizenship/exceptions-and-accommodations):
You will be permitted to take the civics test in your native language.

[Normal]

Please take a moment to research the claims you are making:

From the USCIS Exceptions and Accommodations page (https://www.uscis.gov/citizenship/exceptions-and-accommodations):
You will be permitted to take the civics test in your native language.

Of course if you have a mental, special needs or physical disability, you can apply for a special exemption. You must apply for the exemption on a US Form N-68.

[Caymus]

Except all tests and directions are in English. One of the examinations is an English proficiency exam. There is also a detailed civics exam. Essay answers must be written in English. An applicant has two chances before being denied citizenship.

What % are actually denied?

[Bill14564]

Of course all US citizens must be able to read and write in English. It is a prerequisite for US citizen applicants.

No, it's not. This is the rule:


So - it's not a prerequisite at all. They have to learn it, but they don't have to show up already knowing it. And there are exceptions, as specified above. A mute won't be required to know how to speak English. A blind person won't be required to know how to read English. A deaf person won't be required to know how to understand English.
A deaf blind mute won't be required to do any of the three.

If they're over 50 years old, they're exempt from the requirement.

There are other exemptions. But generally speaking, "it'll be on the test." It's something they have to learn as part of the process of becoming a citizen. It's not something they have to know when they get to the border.

Except all tests and directions are in English. One of the examinations is an English proficiency exam. There is also a detailed civics exam. Essay answers must be written in English. An applicant has two chances before being denied citizenship.

Of course if you have a mental, special needs or physical disability, you can apply for a special exemption. You must apply for the exemption on a US Form N-68.

So maybe not ALL US citizens must be able to read and write English. And maybe not ALL tests and directions are in English. And maybe not ALL essay answers must be written in English.

And from the link above, the exceptions to the English requirement are:
You are exempt from the English language requirement, but are still required to take the civics test if you are:

Age 50 or older at the time of filing for naturalization and have lived as a permanent resident (Green Card holder) in the United States for 20 years (commonly referred to as the “50/20” exception).
OR
Age 55 or older at the time of filing for naturalization and have lived as a permanent resident in the United States for 15 years (commonly referred to as the “55/15” exception).

Again, please research the claims you are making.

[Escape Artist]

Based on the number of occupants they could be in violation of occupancy laws. I wonder if the landlord knows what is going on?

50 illegal immigrants were stashed in an ABQ apartment. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuclXMKSpJs

Yes, that’s what I thought. Six people in a villa? When I rented a villa before moving here it was made clear the rental was for two people only and you needed to pay more and get permission for one or two more occupants.

[Escape Artist]

No, it's not. This is the rule:


So - it's not a prerequisite at all. They have to learn it, but they don't have to show up already knowing it. And there are exceptions, as specified above. A mute won't be required to know how to speak English. A blind person won't be required to know how to read English. A deaf person won't be required to know how to understand English.
A deaf blind mute won't be required to do any of the three.

If they're over 50 years old, they're exempt from the requirement.

There are other exemptions. But generally speaking, "it'll be on the test." It's something they have to learn as part of the process of becoming a citizen. It's not something they have to know when they get to the border.

You’re missing the point of the OP’s post. The issue is there are workers who aren’t vacationing in TV so it’s akin to a boarding house and there are six people in one very small house coming and going perhaps in various vehicles. The part about them not speaking English might be the OP’s frustration attempting to communicate with them and trying to ascertain what’s going on.

[Normal]

So maybe not ALL US citizens must be able to read and write English. And maybe not ALL tests and directions are in English. And maybe not ALL essay answers must be written in English.

And from the link above, the exceptions to the English requirement are:
You are exempt from the English language requirement, but are still required to take the civics test if you are:

Age 50 or older at the time of filing for naturalization and have lived as a permanent resident (Green Card holder) in the United States for 20 years (commonly referred to as the “50/20” exception).
OR
Age 55 or older at the time of filing for naturalization and have lived as a permanent resident in the United States for 15 years (commonly referred to as the “55/15” exception).

Again, please research the claims you are making.

True, low IQs, those over 55 and the physically handicapped are waived from knowing English. “All” is a generalized term. The exception window is very limited, thank you.

Obviously the OP seems to imply these are able bodied, cognizant immigrants who work in the original post. There is no indication of several handicapped, special needs immigrants living together that as contracted workers?

[Plmailman]

The home next me was sold in January. It is a ****. Sometimes one night rentals. This is not what I signed up for when I moved in.

[retiredguy123]

It makes me wonder. Why doesn't The Villages fix this problem with a few rental rules.

[Pairadocs]

Would it be less of a problem if the renters spoke English?

Most deed restrictions do not prohibit rentals of any length of time. Renting is not the type of business prohibited in the restrictions.

Had the same thought about what language the renters speak, (assuming you were thinking along the lines of cultural prejudice ?) what would it matter what language people speak who come here to rent in a retirement community. But then as I considered it further: perhaps the person asking was not really coming from some kind of "racist" position (it seems that is the only conclusion we "jump to" these days), so I thought about it much further:

I've met many people from many countries, over the years, who own or rent property here in the V's and every single one of them spoke excellent English. They met and talked with all the neighbors, and seemed happy to do so and share interesting aspects of their country. Next thought was, the renters specified are working here on short term projects, not "snowbirds or vacationers here for the golf, which to me would indicate they are (probably not ?) 55 or older. Which made me think, doesn't at least one occupant of the residence have to be over 55 (if I understand correctly, this is a requirement to gain certain state and federal advantages to being a 55 "community", but I could be wrong on that), so on the surface this would appear to be younger workers (crews that often stay in motels and not private homes ?), and finally, although it's not certain, I've noticed that those individuals who are legal U.S. citizens (among them, restaurant owners, motel owners, and an account I met from Ukraine, and many others I've talked with) seem to learn to speak English in a reasonable period of time. None of these circumstances mentioned, seem, in isolation, to indicate anything "wrong", but together things like working daily, speaking do English, probably not meeting age requirement, short term renting, and didn't state, but how MANY living in one home ? I consider myself open minded, but this really does not seem to belong in a restricted community for seniors ? When the camel gets it's nose under the tent... we all know how that one ends.

[BrianL99]

...
Most deed restrictions do not prohibit rentals of any length of time. Renting is not the type of business prohibited in the restrictions.


Simple English comprehension.

What do you base your disagreement on? Do you have deed restriction wording that specifically prohibits rentals? Have you read the Florida law concerning short-term rentals? Do you know of a case where a rental in the Villages was found to be a violation of the deed restrictions?

That's okay; it doesn't matter whether it is a minority or majority opinion. What matters are the words in the deed restrictions, the words in Florida law, and the way both are enforced.

Thank you. This is the first time someone has pointed out that the Villa restrictions are different than the other restrictions.

In that case, and even in the case of the non-Villas, anyone concerned about rentals should read the "Enforcement" section of the restrictions. The Developer is not obligated to enforce the deed restrictions. On the other hand, we have the right (and duty) to take the owner to court to force them to obey the restrictions.

Thank you. This is the first time someone has pointed out that the Villa restrictions are different than the other restrictions.

In that case, and even in the case of the non-Villas, anyone concerned about rentals should read the "Enforcement" section of the restrictions. The Developer is not obligated to enforce the deed restrictions. On the other hand, we have the right (and duty) to take the owner to court to force them to obey the restrictions.


Please take a moment to research the claims you are making:


It's great to see a Poster take his own advice, do some research and change his tune.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

True, low IQs, those over 55 and the physically handicapped are waived from knowing English. “All” is a generalized term. The exception window is very limited, thank you.

Obviously the OP seems to imply these are able bodied, cognizant immigrants who work in the original post. There is no indication of several handicapped, special needs immigrants living together that as contracted workers?

Or, they might be Puerto Ricans. Which would make them US Citizens and not in need of a green card or work visa to be here at all. Did the OP check their IDs, or did he just assume they must of COURSE be undocumented immigrants because they had brown skin and didn't speak English?

Also - if it's a 3-bedroom home, then you can absolutely have 6 people staying in it short term. I don't recall reading anywhere in this entire thread how many bedrooms are in the home in question.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

It makes me wonder. Why doesn't The Villages fix this problem with a few rental rules.

That would require a change in deed restrictions. People buy properties here intentionally as rental investments. A deed restriction would need to grandfather them in, otherwise they'd be looking at a LOT of lawsuits. They were ALLOWED to do this, because there was no restriction forbidding it, when they purchased the properties.

They could make no-rental restrictions on future development but - then they'd also have to eliminate their own Lifestyle visits because those are short-term rentals for up to 7 days each, in those new development areas.

[Pairadocs]

The Villages does not have an HOA.

Most deeds would appear to prohibit daily renting, as it's a "business" per Florida Law.

Residents don't seem willing to step up to the plate and invest enough money to fight the daily rentals.

Perhaps the POA (property owner's association) members might be interested, we've been here many years now and they have taken up many causes. We never thought we'd see such a spread of this "in and out", one to three night kind of motel/hotel renting in our neighborhood of larger designer homes, but little by little our block of only 10 homes, are dealing with 4 of them constant in and out renting activity. Surprised the owners are not concerned about how this type of rental is much harder on a property than say, a 6 month lease to "snowbird" type seniors ! ?

[Bill14564]

It's great to see a Poster take his own advice, do some research and change his tune.

Where? What did I miss?

My position is exactly the same: Most deed restrictions do not prohibit rentals. Today I learned many Villa restrictions do. (and no, I am not going to count to determine if "most" is correct).

Someone provided the villa restriction language but I noticed that it wasn't you. You also don't seem to have looked at Florida law or provided a case where a rental in the Villages was found to be in violation of the restrictions.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Perhaps the POA (property owner's association) members might be interested, we've been here many years now and they have taken up many causes. We never thought we'd see such a spread of this "in and out", one to three night kind of motel/hotel renting in our neighborhood of larger designer homes, but little by little our block of only 10 homes, are dealing with 4 of them constant in and out renting activity. Surprised the owners are not concerned about how this type of rental is much harder on a property than say, a 6 month lease to "snowbird" type seniors ! ?

If they're -renting- the properties, then they need to pay tourism tax. You need to get in touch with the county the property is in, to make sure the tourism tax is being paid. If it's not being paid, then the landlord will have a moment with the authorities about it.

[Pairadocs]

That's okay; it doesn't matter whether it is a minority or majority opinion. What matters are the words in the deed restrictions, the words in Florida law, and the way both are enforced.

Right.... and the way they are not enforced and/or are "unevenly" enforced, I think most of us here had some reasonable expectation as to what a 55 plus community actually means. What ever the actual laws/rules are, most of us (?) can see things are changing rapidly and certainly the plan and process for enforcement should all be very well developed before any rules, laws, or deed restrictions are drafted. Seems to me we are very reactionary here. Is it legal to rent in this manner (no lease or long term agreement) and NOT have to charge local sales taxes like hotels and motels ? I honestly don't know, but would seem the owners would be responsible to charge and turn over, such taxes ?

[Bill14564]

If they're -renting- the properties, then they need to pay tourism tax. You need to get in touch with the county the property is in, to make sure the tourism tax is being paid. If it's not being paid, then the landlord will have a moment with the authorities about it.

Right.... and the way they are not enforced and/or are "unevenly" enforced, I think most of us here had some reasonable expectation as to what a 55 plus community actually means. What ever the actual laws/rules are, most of us (?) can see things are changing rapidly and certainly the plan and process for enforcement should all be very well developed before any rules, laws, or deed restrictions are drafted. Seems to me we are very reactionary here. Is it legal to rent in this manner (no lease or long term agreement) and NOT have to charge local sales taxes like hotels and motels ? I honestly don't know, but would seem the owners would be responsible to charge and turn over, such taxes ?

My belief is that most of the properties being rented are through a service like AirBnB, ****, The Villages Hometown Properties, or something like that. I would have thought that these services would help the homeowner/landlord to stay legal. It's certainly possible that I am wrong and rentals aren't through a service or that the service doesn't help the homeowners in this way.

[Pairadocs]

Bit of a hypocrite aren't we?

Not sure why you would consider it "hypocrisy" ? In these troubled times, and yes, even in The (perfect) senior community, it is wise to let the police settle such issues rather than approach a neighbor you already know is not exactly an ideal senior citizen for "America's Friendliest home town" ? By now haven't most people realized the Villages security personnel are mostly our own neighbors, working part time to fill some retirement hours or pay for an upgrade improvement to their home, and have no authority (or desire to risk their lives) to get involved in anything more serious than calling someone to tell them they need to shut their garage door. No, not hypocrisy at all, but very good advice. In a community like ours, a few minutes to find the owner of the car blocking your drive, can mean the difference in life and death in a medical emergency, or, even if not that serious, it is a police matter... do not take a chance on handling such things yourself !

[Vermilion Villager]

Hello,
Recently moved into the villages fantastic experience so far.
Question is it common practice for villas to be rented for a week or less to day workers? One currently rented to 6 non English speaking day workers.
What is the HOA policy for renting?
Thanks
OH NO!!!! Lock your children up!!!!

[Pairadocs]

These fall under the internal deed restrictions that the Developer is to enforce , after 10 years living here that department is just a paycheck for one of the family members to enforce . I have never seen heard or gossiped about any enforcement from that department. Multiple pets , too many people in a home, adult and small children living here the list goes on. Can anyone cite an example of any enforcement .

The only ones I recall over the last 18 years were a couple huge "raids" in the middle of the night by local and state officers on "meth lab" houses... and NOT in the villages on what they call the "historic side", which seems to be targeted as the cause of all things undesirable, and once the police shut down, also in what the real estate agents advertise as a "desirable village", where a "chop shop" for stolen golf carts was operating and sending parts all over the country. One block over there was a guy, very good at wood working, who was making small pieces of custom wood cabinets, shelves, etc. The neighbors on that block got a petition up and he was shut down....not sure by who, doubt our Sumter Co. sheriff's deputies take care of deed restriction violations ??? Do they ? ? I'd think not. Only other ones I know of, are neighbors who were forced to remove the small crosses given out at their churches. Again, doubt police were involved, probably no human involved, just fine them daily perhaps until the die or the home is sold, and they try to collect all the fines ? All told, we just have a TERRIBLE and ineffective process for all of these types of things.

[Pairadocs]

Have any of them done anything wrong? Have they raped or murdered anyone? Broken into cars? Or is the fact that English isn't their first language the charge against them?

Honestly I don't think the things you mentioned have If that is the standard for enforcement of deed restrictions, law, and enforcement, than it is as far afield as "solving" a retail theft problem by deciding NOT to enforce the law against theft, and thereby "solve" the problem of high rates of theft. ! Rape ? Murder ? Broken into cars ? Not even loosely related to what was being discussed (enforcement of deed restrictions) . Don't think language spoken has anything to do with it either of these. The fact that someone has not killed or raped (is that what we really should use as the standard for deed restriction enforcement ?) is so illogical it defies the ability of the human brain to do an analysis and draw a logical/probably conclusion.

[Pairadocs]

Please take a moment to research the claims you are making:

From the USCIS Exceptions and Accommodations page (https://www.uscis.gov/citizenship/exceptions-and-accommodations):
You will be permitted to take the civics test in your native language.

Thank you. This is a very helpful community bulletin board most of the time, but sometimes.... really frightening to think people would read certain things and think, well, if it's posted on TOTV's it has to be true...LOL !

[JMintzer]

It makes me wonder. Why doesn't The Villages fix this problem with a few rental rules.

Easy to fix for future sales. Retroactively? I don't know...

[JMintzer]

Or, they might be Puerto Ricans. Which would make them US Citizens and not in need of a green card or work visa to be here at all. Did the OP check their IDs, or did he just assume they must of COURSE be undocumented immigrants because they had brown skin and didn't speak English?

Also - if it's a 3-bedroom home, then you can absolutely have 6 people staying in it short term. I don't recall reading anywhere in this entire thread how many bedrooms are in the home in question.

Did you just ASSume that he assumed "they must of COURSE be undocumented immigrants"? And where did he say they had "brown skin"?

Are you ASSuming they did? Why would you ASSume such a thing?

[Bill14564]

Easy to fix for future sales. Retroactively? I don't know...

Florida law 509.032(7)(b) appears to prohibit any post-2011 local laws attempting to affect rentals.

[Bill14564]

Did you just ASSume that he assumed "they must of COURSE be undocumented immigrants"? And where did he say they had "brown skin"?

Are you ASSuming they did? Why would you ASSume such a thing?

You are right again. By "non English speaking day workers" he surely meant Swedish bikini models.

[JMintzer]

Florida law appears to prohibit any post-2011 local laws attempting to affect rentals.

Thanks for the info. Most likely to protect against any discrimination against renters?

Ahhh, the unintended consequences of good intentions...

[JMintzer]

You are right again. By "non English speaking day workers" he surely meant Swedish bikini models.

I HATE it when they move next door! They won't leave me alone! :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Florida law 509.032(7)(b) appears to prohibit any post-2011 local laws attempting to affect rentals.

The Developer is not making laws. They're making rules. It's not against the law to rent property in the Villages. And your Florida law, above, will support that. But the law doesn't prohibit owners of private property from allowing or forbidding rentals on their own property. The law can't force me to rent my property out, and the law can't prevent me from renting it if I want to. The rules of this community, however, can. It doesn't prohibit it in my part of the Villages, but it might in others. And it can be prohibited in new construction, if the Developer wanted to prohibit it.

[Bill14564]

The Developer is not making laws. They're making rules. It's not against the law to rent property in the Villages. And your Florida law, above, will support that. But the law doesn't prohibit owners of private property from allowing or forbidding rentals on their own property. The law can't force me to rent my property out, and the law can't prevent me from renting it if I want to. The rules of this community, however, can. It doesn't prohibit it in my part of the Villages, but it might in others. And it can be prohibited in new construction, if the Developer wanted to prohibit it.

Don't know how the statute might apply to deed restrictions on homes that are not yet built. It certainly seems to apply to any attempt to affect rentals.

On the other hand, this discussion is moot if no one attempts to enforce a restriction. If the Developer cannot or will not and if no homeowner attempts to then effectively there are no restrictions against rentals.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Don't know how the statute might apply to deed restrictions on homes that are not yet built. It certainly seems to apply to any attempt to affect rentals.

On the other hand, this discussion is moot if no one attempts to enforce a restriction. If the Developer cannot or will not and if no homeowner attempts to then effectively there are no restrictions against rentals.

The statute doesn't apply to deed restrictions at all. It applies only to local governments making laws about rentals. The Developer isn't a government and the deed restrictions are made on the Developer's private property. And no - it doesn't matter, since the Developer doesn't make much effort to enforce their own rules.

[Bill14564]

The statute doesn't apply to deed restrictions at all. It applies only to local governments making laws about rentals. The Developer isn't a government and the deed restrictions are made on the Developer's private property. And no - it doesn't matter, since the Developer doesn't make much effort to enforce their own rules.

That is really something for a court to decide, which isn't likely to happen anytime soon.

[dougawhite]

Simple English comprehension.

What do you base your disagreement on? Do you have deed restriction wording that specifically prohibits rentals? Have you read the Florida law concerning short-term rentals? Do you know of a case where a rental in the Villages was found to be a violation of the deed restrictions?

Deed restricts running a business ftom your home where customers have to drive to your home. So, by definition, if your renters drive to your home, it is a business in violation.

[Bill14564]

Deed restricts running a business ftom your home where customers have to drive to your home. So, by definition, if your renters drive to your home, it is a business in violation.

I suspect renters are not customers in the sense that the deed restrictions use the term. But again, that is up to a court to decide. If you have any examples where the Villages restrictions have been upheld in that way, please share.

[BrianL99]

That would require a change in deed restrictions. People buy properties here intentionally as rental investments. A deed restriction would need to grandfather them in, otherwise they'd be looking at a LOT of lawsuits. They were ALLOWED to do this, because there was no restriction forbidding it, when they purchased the properties.

They could make no-rental restrictions on future development but - then they'd also have to eliminate their own Lifestyle visits because those are short-term rentals for up to 7 days each, in those new development areas.


My belief is that most of the properties being rented are through a service like AirBnB, ****, The Villages Hometown Properties, or something like that. I would have thought that these services would help the homeowner/landlord to stay legal. It's certainly possible that I am wrong and rentals aren't through a service or that the service doesn't help the homeowners in this way.

Florida law 509.032(7)(b) appears to prohibit any post-2011 local laws attempting to affect rentals.

The Developer is not making laws. They're making rules. It's not against the law to rent property in the Villages. And your Florida law, above, will support that. But the law doesn't prohibit owners of private property from allowing or forbidding rentals on their own property. The law can't force me to rent my property out, and the law can't prevent me from renting it if I want to. The rules of this community, however, can. It doesn't prohibit it in my part of the Villages, but it might in others. And it can be prohibited in new construction, if the Developer wanted to prohibit it.

Don't know how the statute might apply to deed restrictions on homes that are not yet built. It certainly seems to apply to any attempt to affect rentals.

On the other hand, this discussion is moot if no one attempts to enforce a restriction. If the Developer cannot or will not and if no homeowner attempts to then effectively there are no restrictions against rentals.

No offense intended gentlemen, but Mr. Bill & OrangeBlossomBaby, you have little or no understanding of real estate law, zoning and restrictive covenants.

Real Estate ownership in most countries is based on a "Bundle of Rights". Those rights can be transferred, sold or withheld, almost at will. The Developer can sell some lots with "restrictions", yet not restrict others. (Bundle of rights - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundle_of_rights))

The "Law" can effect real estate in general and can limit or control almost anything and can tell you, your home can't be rented or painted purple.

The "Law" in Florida regarding prohibiting regulation of STR's, applies to communities and counties, not individual land owners. Land owners selling property, can "retain" the right to restrict the use of properties they sell. They are only selling the part of the "bundle" they want to sell.

About the only right a Seller can't retain, is a "right" which offends public sensibilities (i.e., prohibiting a certain race or religion from buying or living on the property).

The Developer can reserved the right not to enforce some restrictions (within reason), but that generally doesn't prevent a 3rd Party Beneficiary from seeking to enforced those restrictions (either within the framework of the restrictive scheme or perhaps under the theory of Detrimental Reliance).

Before you go much further down the road of what's legal, what the developer can do or not do and how Florida law effects individual landowners, you should acquaint yourself with the how property rights work.

Restrictive Covenants – Everything You Need to Know (https://assetsamerica.com/restrictive-covenants/)

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions | Attorneys' Title Guaranty Fund, Inc. (https://www.atgf.com/tools-publications/pubs/covenants-conditions-and-restrictions)

Can a Restrictive Covenant Be Removed From a Property? | HowStuffWorks (https://home.howstuffworks.com/real-estate/buying-home/is-there-way-out-of-restrictive-covenant.htm)

Restrictive Covenants: Definition, How They Work, and Examples (https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/restrictive-covenant.asp)

Land Use 101 is dismissed for the day.

[Papa_lecki]

I would be surprised if the covenants are EVER enforced.

First, for short term rentals - it will negatively impact market value. Many buyers rely on the STR income to either afford the house as a snow bird or buy as an investment. Less demand = lower price. Not only for developer, but for us, in the resale market.

Second, MANY people run a business out of their home. Just look at the market events at the square. The guy selling golf cart screens, the embroidery people, the sign people - probably all keep inventory at their house, do their books out of the house.

I am glad I don’t like near a STR, I think the stability of owner occupants is important, but I just don’t think it will be addressed.

[GizmoWhiskers]

Can you cite the wording that says the Developer is to enforce the deed restrictions? (HINT: I haven't found it in any of the restrictions I have read)
Right. After each "village" is completed and the 1 year "warrenty" is up on the property/village, T V takes control of the "Village" and ARC plus the CCD has the approval and deed restriction compliance control.

[Bill14564]

No offense intended gentlemen, but Mr. Bill & OrangeBlossomBaby, you have little or no understanding of real estate law, zoning and restrictive covenants.

Real Estate ownership in most countries is based on a "Bundle of Rights". Those rights can be transferred, sold or withheld, almost at will. The Developer can sell some lots with "restrictions", yet not restrict others. (Bundle of rights - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundle_of_rights))

The "Law" can effect real estate in general and can limit or control almost anything and can tell you, your home can't be rented or painted purple.

The "Law" in Florida regarding prohibiting regulation of STR's, applies to communities and counties, not individual land owners. Land owners selling property, can "retain" the right to restrict the use of properties they sell. They are only selling the part of the "bundle" they want to sell.

About the only right a Seller can't retain, is a "right" which offends public sensibilities (i.e., prohibiting a certain race or religion from buying or living on the property).

The Developer can reserved the right not to enforce some restrictions (within reason), but that generally doesn't prevent a 3rd Party Beneficiary from seeking to enforced those restrictions (either within the framework of the restrictive scheme or perhaps under the theory of Detrimental Reliance).

Before you go much further down the road of what's legal, what the developer can do or not do and how Florida law effects individual landowners, you should acquaint yourself with the how property rights work.

Restrictive Covenants – Everything You Need to Know (https://assetsamerica.com/restrictive-covenants/)

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions | Attorneys' Title Guaranty Fund, Inc. (https://www.atgf.com/tools-publications/pubs/covenants-conditions-and-restrictions)

Can a Restrictive Covenant Be Removed From a Property? | HowStuffWorks (https://home.howstuffworks.com/real-estate/buying-home/is-there-way-out-of-restrictive-covenant.htm)

Restrictive Covenants: Definition, How They Work, and Examples (https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/restrictive-covenant.asp)

Land Use 101 is dismissed for the day.

So where does that leave us....

Most deed restrictions do not mention rentals at all. When businesses are mentioned in the deed restrictions, most specify maintaining an inventory or customer visits, neither of which likely apply to rentals.

The Florida law 509.032 mentions law, ordinance, or regulation but does not mention deed restriction. This likely means it would not invalidate a Villages deed restriction (but that would be up to a court to decide).

No one has yet cited a case ruling against renting in the Villages.

Thank you for doing some research and providing links but I'm still feeling pretty good about my understanding of things.

[wawriwwawriw]

There is no HOA BUT here is a Property Owners Association. Not that it makes a difference it is not their responsibility. This matter probably fall under the CDD, using his Distric representative to see if there is any violation.

[golfing eagles]

So where does that leave us....

Most deed restrictions do not mention rentals at all. When businesses are mentioned in the deed restrictions, most specify maintaining an inventory or customer visits, neither of which likely apply to rentals.

The Florida law 509.032 mentions law, ordinance, or regulation but does not mention deed restriction. This likely means it would not invalidate a Villages deed restriction (but that would be up to a court to decide).

No one has yet cited a case ruling against renting in the Villages.

Thank you for doing some research and providing links but I'm still feeling pretty good about my understanding of things.

I'm confused about the whole issue, but then again I have no specific real estate or restrictive covenant knowledge, so this may be a stupid question: Isn't TV primarily zoned for single family residences, so how does 6 unrelated individuals fall into that category? Does zoning only apply to the owner and not to whomever they rent to? Isn't there some sort of remedy for this?

Which leads to the question of what's next. Section 8 housing???? Halfway houses? Homeless shelters??? Bronx style high rise tenements? Are we primarily a 55+ retirement community or a 1 week vacation destination and flop house for illegal aliens?

[retiredguy123]

I'm confused about the whole issue, but then again I have no specific real estate or restrictive covenant knowledge, so this may be a stupid question: Isn't TV primarily zoned for single family residences, so how does 6 unrelated individuals fall into that category? Does zoning only apply to the owner and not to whomever they rent to? Isn't there some sort of remedy for this?

Which leads to the question of what's next. Section 8 housing???? Halfway houses? Homeless shelters??? Bronx style high rise tenements? Are we primarily a 55+ retirement community or a 1 week vacation destination and flop house for illegal aliens?
When I lived in Virginia, 20 or more immigrant construction workers would stay in a rented house. When questioned about the law regarding single family members, they would say that they were all "cousins".

[Bill14564]

I'm confused about the whole issue, but then again I have no specific real estate or restrictive covenant knowledge, so this may be a stupid question: Isn't TV primarily zoned for single family residences, so how does 6 unrelated individuals fall into that category? Does zoning only apply to the owner and not to whomever they rent to? Isn't there some sort of remedy for this?

Which leads to the question of what's next. Section 8 housing???? Halfway houses? Homeless shelters??? Bronx style high rise tenements? Are we primarily a 55+ retirement community or a 1 week vacation destination and flop house for illegal aliens?

Singe-family zoning likely means no apartment buildings and maybe no duplexes though the existence of the lofts at Brownwood would argue against that. I did not find any mention of single-family in my restrictions. I may have missed it and most restrictions differ in some way so maybe that is a requirement in others.

I have to believe that I am allowed to have friends visit so single-family cannot prohibit overnight guests who are not related. At some point an extended stay becomes a residency but my guess is that anything less than 30 days (maybe even 90 days) would not be an issue.

My restrictions have a long paragraph on at least one resident being 55 years of age. Within that paragraph there are exceptions for ages 19-55 residing in a home without one resident over 55 as long as the number of these homes does not exceed 20% of all homes. 20% of all homes is a very large number and a renter is likely not considered a resident.

All the above and the section 8 or flop house question depend on enforcement. The Developer should be able to enforce the rules at the time of sale (keeping 55+ owners in 80% or more of all homes) and they certainly have the right to enforce the deed restrictions after the sale. However, either the restrictions do not prohibit rentals or no one, including the Developer, is sufficiently interested to attempt to enforce a rental prohibition.

Note: IANAL (as has been point out), these are just my thoughts after reading the restrictions and observing what is happening

[bogmonster]

Do what most Yankees would do, put a sign out demanding $15/hr minimum wage and then walk over and offer them $1/hr to mow your yard, trim the bushes and clean your house.

[Normal]

I'm confused about the whole issue, but then again I have no specific real estate or restrictive covenant knowledge, so this may be a stupid question: Isn't TV primarily zoned for single family residences, so how does 6 unrelated individuals fall into that category? Does zoning only apply to the owner and not to whomever they rent to? Isn't there some sort of remedy for this?

Which leads to the question of what's next. Section 8 housing???? Halfway houses? Homeless shelters??? Bronx style high rise tenements? Are we primarily a 55+ retirement community or a 1 week vacation destination and flop house for illegal aliens?

Rentals aren’t necessarily permissible in The Villages, but are done. If I were in the OP’s position, I’d gladly dish out 10 to 20K (Would probably be a lot less in cost) get something moving through the courts. Just nuke the situation before it gets out of hand. You would save that just in property value. There are 6 paying customers living next door violate the spirit and intent of purchasing a retirement community home. I’m sure there are more than a few investigative reporters who would love to cover this too.

[asianthree]

Hello,
Recently moved into the villages fantastic experience so far.
Question is it common practice for villas to be rented for a week or less to day workers? One currently rented to 6 non English speaking day workers.
What is the HOA policy for renting?
Thanks

The developer rents out villas for lifestyle visits. 2-10 days depends on the time of year. In 2010, Our first home in TV had a rental on the corner, one of the four spoke minimal English. They rented for 3 months, working construction in TV.

Always friendly bringing great food to driveway parties. I am totally against ABnB short term rentals, I definitely am not against renters that English is not first language. Our children & grands can speak, read and write, French, German, Russian, Spanish, Vietnamese.

My granddaughter will switch to Cantonese with her fiancé when she visits TV, especially at the pools.

Her quote “sometimes older generations don’t feel comfortable when she visits”. Her ethnicity is hard to determine, she is Vietnamese, native American, Swedish, Celtic.

[RedChariot]

I'm confused about the whole issue, but then again I have no specific real estate or restrictive covenant knowledge, so this may be a stupid question: Isn't TV primarily zoned for single family residences, so how does 6 unrelated individuals fall into that category? Does zoning only apply to the owner and not to whomever they rent to? Isn't there some sort of remedy for this?

Which leads to the question of what's next. Section 8 housing???? Halfway houses? Homeless shelters??? Bronx style high rise tenements? Are we primarily a 55+ retirement community or a 1 week vacation destination and flop house for illegal aliens?

Well said. You state our fears exactly after seeing over 11 years the changes here. Don't think it can't happen here. It can!! Your final sentence I want to scream it out loud. Please listen folks!

[JGibson]

Does anyone know how far a barbecue grill has to be from your exterior wall?

The next-door CYV which turned into a monthly rental has the barbeque grill right up against my wall in a CYV.

I’m gonna tell the owner when I can locate her to move it to her side of the wall.
The smoke and grease are getting all over my wall.

I said on page 2 I will be the biggest PITA if her tenants turn this into some timeshare/college dormitory kind of thing.

Especially after she said she doesn't care about neighbors who don't like the rentals.

Her first tenant I had to chase away from my window because he was smoking and coughing his brains out at 5 am with the smoke coming into my window.

As someone with COPD, I don't need this.

This CYV design of curved driveways and having to go into the neighbor's backyard to clean my exterior wall is starting to become a headache.

I’m glad I didn't invest a lot into the inside of the house because it seems like the renters are gonna win and I may have to move.

[BrianL99]

Singe-family zoning likely means no apartment buildings and maybe no duplexes though the existence of the lofts at Brownwood would argue against that. I did not find any mention of single-family in my restrictions. I may have missed it and most restrictions differ in some way so maybe that is a requirement in others.


My restrictions have a long paragraph on at least one resident being 55 years of age. Within that paragraph there are exceptions for ages 19-55 residing in a home without one resident over 55 as long as the number of these homes does not exceed 20% of all homes. 20% of all homes is a very large number and a renter is likely not considered a resident.

All the above and the section 8 or flop house question depend on enforcement. The Developer should be able to enforce the rules at the time of sale (keeping 55+ owners in 80% or more of all homes) and they certainly have the right to enforce the deed restrictions after the sale. However, either the restrictions do not prohibit rentals or no one, including the Developer, is sufficiently interested to attempt to enforce a rental prohibition.

Note: IANAL (as has been point out), these are just my thoughts after reading the restrictions and observing what is happening

Most "anal" folks would be more sure of their facts.

Age Restricted Housing is regulated (primarily) by the Federal Government.

The standard is NOT 20% owned by someone over 55.

The standard is NOT 20% of the residents must be over 55.

The standards IS, 20% of the OCCUPANTS must be over 55.

The Villages has an obligation under HUD regulations, to insure that housing constructed as "Age Restricted" always remains in compliance. The methodology developers use to maintain compliance, varies.

"Single-family zoning" is designation, without specificity. It means only what that particular City/Town/County/State has defined it as and it can be modified on an ad hoc basis, by a plethora of exceptions (notably, affordable housing, special use housing, age restricted housing, etc.).

[BrianL99]

I'm still feeling pretty good about my understanding of things.


On the Internet Discussion Boards, facts don't matter ... only one's confidence level.

(You probably should have read the links and been educated)

[oldtimes]

This is the law:
The Fair Housing Act: Housing for Older Persons


What Are the Fair Housing Act’s "Housing for Older Persons" Exemptions?

The Fair Housing Act specifically exempts three types of housing for older persons from liability for familial status discrimination. Such exempt housing facilities or communities can lawfully refuse to sell or rent dwellings to families with minor children only if they qualify for the exemption. In order to qualify for the "housing for older persons" exemption, a facility or community must comply with all the requirements of the exemption.

The Housing for Older Persons exemptions apply to the following housing:

Provided under any state or federal program that the Secretary of HUD has determined to be specifically designed and operated to assist elderly persons (as defined in the state or federal program);
Intended for, and solely occupied by persons 62 years of age or older; or
Intended and operated for occupancy by persons 55 years of age or older.

The 55 or older exemption is the most common of the three.
How to Qualify for the “55 or Older” Exemption

In order to qualify for the "55 or older" housing exemption, a facility or community must satisfy each of the following requirements:

At least 80 percent of the units must have at least one occupant who is 55 years of age or older; and
The facility or community must publish and adhere to policies and procedures that demonstrate the intent to operate as "55 or older" housing; and
The facility or community must comply with HUD's regulatory requirements for age verification of residents.

The "housing for older persons" exemption does not protect such housing facilities or communities from liability for housing discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex, disability, or national origin.

[justjim]

I would’ve believed the post if you didn't put in the non-English speaking bit.

The Villa next to me has turned into a monthly rental. I’ve seen in 4 months 4 different sets of renters.

The Owner who lives around the corner and I quote “I know people don't like it but I don't care”

She is not going to like me as a neighbor if she turns into a timeshare.

Deed restrictions might be slightly different depending which CDD district you live in. Knowing your districts deed restrictions is important but another districts deed restrictions not so much unless you plan to purchase real estate within that district. I understand there is a “process” to make changes though your district board. I’m not aware of any district attempting to change deed restrictions on length of time you can rent out your property. We own a condo outside of TV, and there is a minimum 3 month restriction on rentals. It’s a restriction put in place to keep a neighbor from turning their place into a motel/hotel. In CDD 10, (my CDD) there are no such limits on rentals. I have no knowledge of other CDD rental restrictions but suspect they are likely the same. No problem unless a house or villa in your back yard is turned into a motel/hotel.

[Bill14564]

Most "anal" folks would be more sure of their facts.

....



On the Internet Discussion Boards, facts don't matter ... only one's confidence level.

(You probably should have read the links and been educated)

I know it is exciting to argue on social media but when you are done schooling me and the adrenaline wears off you should go back and read what I wrote. You will find that it is consistent with the deed restrictions which appear to be consistent with the HUD rules.

In case it confused you, I used the word "resident" to mean an individual occupying the home over a period of time and not just the body within the home at a specific moment.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Most "anal" folks would be more sure of their facts.

Age Restricted Housing is regulated (primarily) by the Federal Government.

The standard is NOT 20% owned by someone over 55.

The standard is NOT 20% of the residents must be over 55.

The standards IS, 20% of the OCCUPANTS must be over 55.

The Villages has an obligation under HUD regulations, to insure that housing constructed as "Age Restricted" always remains in compliance. The methodology developers use to maintain compliance, varies.

"Single-family zoning" is designation, without specificity. It means only what that particular City/Town/County/State has defined it as and it can be modified on an ad hoc basis, by a plethora of exceptions (notably, affordable housing, special use housing, age restricted housing, etc.).


No the standard is not the bold underlined area. In fact it's not even a standard. It's an actual law. The law is as follows:

Federal Register 24 CFR Part 100; section 760.24-760.37 (4a), Florida Statutes

For a community to be considered "housing for older persons" as a 55+ community, the housing must be intended and operated for occupancy by persons 55 years of age or older and meet the following requirements:

At least 80% of the occupied units are occupied by at least one person 55 years of age or older.

The facility or community publishes and adheres to policies and procedures that demonstrate its intent to in fact be a provider of housing for older persons.

The facility or community complies with rules established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for verification of occupancy.

So at least 80% must be occupied by at least one person 55 or older. The other 20% may, or may not, depending on the community's decisions. They MAY make it 100% must be at least 55 or older. They can be more restrictive if they want. But they may not be less restrictive.

However, the Villages has not enforced this in many years. They are selling new construction, as far as I can tell, according to the law. But resales sold by non-Villages MLS realtors don't really care who lives in the house they're selling. And the Developer doesn't ask the age of the resident until AFTER the house has sold and the residents apply for their Villages ID. By that point it's too late.

[tophcfa]

I'm confused about the whole issue, but then again I have no specific real estate or restrictive covenant knowledge, so this may be a stupid question: Isn't TV primarily zoned for single family residences, so how does 6 unrelated individuals fall into that category? Does zoning only apply to the owner and not to whomever they rent to? Isn't there some sort of remedy for this?

Which leads to the question of what's next. Section 8 housing???? Halfway houses? Homeless shelters??? Bronx style high rise tenements? Are we primarily a 55+ retirement community or a 1 week vacation destination and flop house for illegal aliens?

I’ll answer this the best I can, addressing deed restrictions only but not local, state, or federal law. Unfortunately, I felt a need to learn about this because a very poorly run AIRBnB was being operated in close proximity to our home (fortunately the woman running the neighborhood disrupting operation has moved away).

First, let’s talk rentals where the owner of the home is not concurrently living there. There are no restrictions, even for renting by the hour. If you live next to one of these, you are basically SOL. The only protection you have is the hope that the homeowner wants to be a good neighbor, carefully screens their tenants, and rents longer term.

Second, let’s talk rentals where the homeowner rents out space in their home while simultaneously living there. Two deed restrictions come into play in this scenario. A home shall be used as a single family residence and a business shall not be run out of the home. Both of these deed restrictions do not specifically refer to rentals, so an interpretation of the intent of the restrictions is required.

Let’s discuss each restriction:

The intent of single family use is to insure exactly that. It is entirely reasonable for homeowners to have non family member guests visit and stay in their homes. I have some golf buddies that visit for a few days once or twice a year. They are not paying to stay there and are not a revolving door of non stop customers with no other connection to the homeowners other than an income source. Most importantly, occasional visiting guests are not detrimental to the neighborhood and the quality of the neighbor’s lifestyle.

The intent of restricting running a business from one’s home is also an attempt to insure an operation is not detrimental to the neighborhood and the quality of the neighbor’s lifestyle. Someone working from their home on line, who does not carry business inventories or have customers coming and going from their home clearly doesn’t fall within the intent of the restriction. On the other hand, someone running a revolving door rental operation, for profit, with renters (paid business customers) constantly coming and going, creating parking issues, and making excessive noise, certainly does fall within the intent of the restriction.

I get it that both of these deed restrictions are subject to reasonable interpretation of their intent. Given that, I couple years ago I calling community standards to report a poorly run AIRBnB operation in my neighborhood. They informed me that they do not enforce deed restriction violations that are considered internal to the home. I asked who did and they told me it’s the developers responsibility. I asked who I could contact and they transferred me. I asked the individual I was transferred to if he was a representative of the developer, and his response was I am the developer. I then explained the situation in our neighborhood and referenced the two deed restrictions I believed were being violated. He responded that based on my description two deed restrictions were in fact being violated. I then asked what steps were necessary to have the operation shut down. That’s when the backpedaling began. I was told how difficult it is to gather proof of violations and enforce internal deed restrictions as homeowners typically don’t respond to inquiries or aren’t truthful in their responses. It’s easy to see a little white cross on someone’s property, but difficult to prove they are running a rental operation inside the home while simultaneously living there. I mentioned that it’s easy to identify an AirBnB, simply go the the website and see the listing. As I talked with this individual it became very clear that pursuing this any further was an effort in futility as they have made a conscious effort not to enforce these deed restriction violations. As has been previously stated in this thread, the deed restrictions say that violations may be enforced, not that they shall be or are required to be enforced. One can speculate about the motives behind the developer’s decision to not enforce these violations, but they clearly acknowledged the violations and have chosen to exercise their right to not enforce them. In my opinion, selective enforcement totally discredits the whole intent of having deed restrictions at all.

So anyone living in close proximity to one of these poorly run businesses has two hopes. First, the homeowner suddenly decides being a good neighbor is more important than generating income from their home, or they have a conscience and don’t want to knowingly violate deed restrictions even though said violations are not enforced. Second, the deed restrictions are enforced, which appears won’t happen. The only way I can reasonably see the deed restriction violations possibly being enforced would be if another third party is charged with the responsibility of enforcement, or if new homebuyers, in large numbers, express hesitation of purchasing new homes to their Villages sales representatives because of the out of control short term rental situation.

Hopefully this information will shed some light on the situation : )

[ton80]

Does anyone know how far a barbecue grill has to be from your exterior wall?

The next-door CYV which turned into a monthly rental has the barbeque grill right up against my wall in a CYV.

I’m gonna tell the owner when I can locate her to move it to her side of the wall.
The smoke and grease are getting all over my wall.

I said on page 2 I will be the biggest PITA if her tenants turn this into some timeshare/college dormitory kind of thing.

Especially after she said she doesn't care about neighbors who don't like the rentals.

Her first tenant I had to chase away from my window because he was smoking and coughing his brains out at 5 am with the smoke coming into my window.

As someone with COPD, I don't need this.

This CYV design of curved driveways and having to go into the neighbor's backyard to clean my exterior wall is starting to become a headache.

I’m glad I didn't invest a lot into the inside of the house because it seems like the renters are gonna win and I may have to move.

I would suggest you request that the Fire COmpany come out and examine the situation and get their advice. General recommendations (NFPA) are 3 ft from a wall presumably fireproof and 10 ft from combustible materials. Once you get this information and there is a presumed violation, I suggest you go to CDD community standards and submit a violation. They should contact the Owner and address the issue.

Good Luck

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

I’ll answer this the best I can, addressing deed restrictions only but not local, state, or federal law. Unfortunately, I felt a need to learn about this because a very poorly run AIRBnB was being operated in close proximity to our home (fortunately the woman running the neighborhood disrupting operation has moved away).

First, let’s talk rentals where the owner of the home is not concurrently living there. There are no restrictions, even for renting by the hour. If you live next to one of these, you are basically SOL. The only protection you have is the hope that the homeowner wants to be a good neighbor, carefully screens their tenants, and rents longer term.

Second, let’s talk rentals where the homeowner rents out space in their home while simultaneously living there. Two deed restrictions come into play in this scenario. A home shall be used as a single family residence and a business shall not be run out of the home. Both of these deed restrictions do not specifically refer to rentals, so an interpretation of the intent of the restrictions is required.

Let’s discuss each restriction:

The intent of single family use is to insure exactly that. It is entirely reasonable for homeowners to have non family member guests visit and stay in their homes. I have some golf buddies that visit for a few days once or twice a year. They are not paying to stay there and are not a revolving door of non stop customers with no other connection to the homeowners other than an income source. Most importantly, occasional visiting guests are not detrimental to the neighborhood and the quality of the neighbor’s lifestyle.

The intent of restricting running a business from one’s home is also an attempt to insure an operation is not detrimental to the neighborhood and the quality of the neighbor’s lifestyle. Someone working from their home on line, who does not carry business inventories or have customers coming and going from their home clearly doesn’t fall within the intent of the restriction. On the other hand, someone running a revolving door rental operation, for profit, with renters (paid business customers) constantly coming and going, creating parking issues, and making excessive noise, certainly does fall within the intent of the restriction.

I get it that both of these deed restrictions are subject to reasonable interpretation of their intent. Given that, I couple years ago I calling community standards to report a poorly run AIRBnB operation in my neighborhood. They informed me that they do not enforce deed restriction violations that are considered internal to the home. I asked who did and they told me it’s the developers responsibility. I asked who I could contact and they transferred me. I asked the individual I was transferred to if he was a representative of the developer, and his response was I am the developer. I then explained the situation in our neighborhood and referenced the two deed restrictions I believed were being violated. He responded that based on my description two deed restrictions were in fact being violated. I then asked what steps were necessary to have the operation shut down. That’s when the backpedaling began. I was told how difficult it is to gather proof of violations and enforce internal deed restrictions as homeowners typically don’t respond to inquiries or aren’t truthful in their responses. It’s easy to see a little white cross on someone’s property, but difficult to prove they are running a rental operation inside the home while simultaneously living there. I mentioned that it’s easy to identify an AirBnB, simply go the the website and see the listing. As I talked with this individual it became very clear that pursuing this any further was an effort in futility as they have made a conscious effort not to enforce these deed restriction violations. As has been previously stated in this thread, the deed restrictions say that violations may be enforced, not that they shall be or are required to be enforced. One can speculate about the motives behind the developer’s decision to not enforce these violations, but they clearly acknowledged the violations and have chosen to exercise their right to not enforce them. In my opinion, selective enforcement totally discredits the whole intent of having deed restrictions at all.

So anyone living in close proximity to one of these poorly run businesses has two hopes. First, the homeowner suddenly decides being a good neighbor is more important than generating income from their home, or they have a conscience and don’t want to knowingly violate deed restrictions even though said violations are not enforced. Second, the deed restrictions are enforced, which appears won’t happen. The only way I can reasonably see the deed restriction violations possibly being enforced would be if another third party is charged with the responsibility of enforcement, or if new homebuyers, in large numbers, express hesitation of purchasing new homes to their Villages sales representatives because of the out of control short term rental situation.

Hopefully this information will shed some light on the situation : )

There are other ways to curtail the revolving door tenancy, as I mentioned. TAXES. Anyone renting a property MUST pay tourism taxes to the county. In addition, ZONING. If it's assessed as a single-family residential property, and it's being used as a vacation rental property, then it needs to be reassessed as such. This also affects Property Taxes, not merely tourism taxes. Once it's assessed as a vacation rental property, it falls under a different category for property taxes.

You can call the county and/or town to find out the details, but that would be the first stop, in my opinion.

A little more digging could get you more relief: if the person who owns the house, has their vehicle registered in Florida. but you know they are hardly ever here and is using this property as their excuse to have the lower taxes and insurance costs for their vehicle - a phone call to the local DMV and/or tax office could give the homeowner a nudge in the right direction.

Lastly, peaceful protest is a thing. It has been for many years. As long as you are on public property and not private property and (thanks Florida government) not in front of someone's house, you can picket. You could go to the Sumter County courthouse or other public property, and protest the Villages LLC (the responsible party with regards to internal deed restrictions) refusing to enforce the deed restrictions. You can also bring it up with the CDD, since they are the go-betweens between the residents of a district and the Villages LLC (the ones who are supposed to be enforcing the deed restrictions).

You could protest financially too - refuse to pay your amenity fees, or reduce the payment. A final way to protest, the most drastic, would be to gather all like-minded people together, who are in a financially sound position, and sell all your OWN homes for $1 to homeless people.

And then move somewhere else. That would likely cause the rest of the community to force change. Or turn The Villages into a dump. Either way, you wouldn't be there anymore so it would no longer matter to you.

[Happydaz]

No problem unless a house or villa in your back yard is turned into a motel/hotel.

Daily rentals are a fact in The Villages. This is what a motel/hotel used to be for. I see realtors in The Villages buying up Villas and even designer homes to rent out. Over the ten years we have been here it seems as though the number of rentals in the area has increased. The number of one day or multiple day rentals appears to make up the largest part of this trend. A 3 month rental to a retired couple from Nebraska is not a problem. It is the 3 day rental to three families on vacation. The reports from South of 44 seem to indicate that real estate investors may be buying a larger share of Village homes. Just look at all the out of state, large real estate developers who are building high rise (5+stories) apartment complexes and large tracts of small rental homes. The market has changed and different people are buying property here, in my observation. Someone with more information may be aware of the percentage of short term rentals today compared to prior years.

[Normal]

Just pass a comprehensive rental law like other Florida communities have. Get rid of short term rentals. It can and has been done in several cities. Wildwood would benefit from restrictions anyway. Several developments are popping up and would benefit from new laws in Sumter County.

[blueash]

Of course all US citizens must be able to read and write in English.

Of course this is wrong like so many other statements of "facts" on this website. We have certainly well over several millions of US citizens who are neither able to read nor write English. Some cannot read nor write any language.

But we have suggestions that if people speak Spanish they must not be US citizens and a way to handle the Spanish speaking renters is to call ICE and the news media. I do wonder where all this hate of immigrants comes from... nah, I know where.

When all the undocumented workers leave Florida, I don't want to see you all whining about how much food costs and how impossible it has become to get workers in essential industries like construction and farming and restaurants and roofing and yard care and .....

[Normal]

Of course this is wrong like so many other statements of "facts" on this website. We have certainly well over several millions of US citizens who are neither able to read nor write English. Some cannot read nor write any language.

But we have suggestions that if people speak Spanish they must not be US citizens and a way to handle the Spanish speaking renters is to call ICE and the news media. I do wonder where all this hate of immigrants comes from... nah, I know where.

When all the undocumented workers leave Florida, I don't want to see you all whining about how much food costs and how impossible it has become to get workers in essential industries like construction and farming and restaurants and roofing and yard care and .....

Thanks for clearing that up!

It should be phrased as All “naturalized “ US citizens (exception special needs, physically impaired or over 55) must be able to read and write in English. 😀

[BrianL99]

Just pass a comprehensive rental law like other Florida communities have. Get rid of short term rentals. It can and has been done in several cities. Wildwood would benefit from restrictions anyway. Several developments are popping up and would benefit from new laws in Sumter County.

That would work great, other than Florida has a Statute that prevents Cities and Towns from prohibiting STR's, unless it was already done 11-12 years ago.

Statutes & Constitution
:View Statutes
:

Online Sunshine (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0500-0599/0509/0509.html)

[BrianL99]

In case it confused you, I used the word "resident" to mean an individual occupying the home over a period of time and not just the body within the home at a specific moment.


I'm not confused, I've been doing it for a living for 35 years.

"Resident" and "Occupant" are 2 different animals.

& since this thread started, you've changed your position at least 3 times. Perhaps it would behoove you to use the links I provided you with, to become familiar with how land use regulations, restrictions and covenants work, as well as who can enforced them.

Just trying to be helpful, but you can only lead a horse to water ...

[Escape Artist]

Has the OP chimed in again or did they just throw it out there like chum in the water to watch the feeding frenzy ensue? I wish we had more details and clarification on this story because it does have a potential impact on all who live in TV.

There’s been many threads recently on what is allowed in terms of renting out homes to those who are not 55+ or rentals with a high turnover rate. When I rented, which I did on several occasions, the homeowner or property manager wanted occupants renting for at least a week or more typically, a month.

No one wants to live next door to a motel, that’s not why we reside in TV. It’s ironic that there are so many strict rules about guests or those who are not residents using amenities like golf courses or the pools, yet provisions have not been made for things like this which can negatively affect affect quality of life and home values.

[oldtimes]

That would work great, other than Florida has a Statute that prevents Cities and Towns from prohibiting STR's, unless it was already done 11-12 years ago.

Statutes & Constitution
:View Statutes
:

Online Sunshine (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0500-0599/0509/0509.html)

Revised in 2014 to restore power to regulate, but not power to prohibit.

[golfing eagles]

Singe-family zoning likely means no apartment buildings and maybe no duplexes though the existence of the lofts at Brownwood would argue against that. I did not find any mention of single-family in my restrictions. I may have missed it and most restrictions differ in some way so maybe that is a requirement in others.

I have to believe that I am allowed to have friends visit so single-family cannot prohibit overnight guests who are not related. At some point an extended stay becomes a residency but my guess is that anything less than 30 days (maybe even 90 days) would not be an issue.

My restrictions have a long paragraph on at least one resident being 55 years of age. Within that paragraph there are exceptions for ages 19-55 residing in a home without one resident over 55 as long as the number of these homes does not exceed 20% of all homes. 20% of all homes is a very large number and a renter is likely not considered a resident.

All the above and the section 8 or flop house question depend on enforcement. The Developer should be able to enforce the rules at the time of sale (keeping 55+ owners in 80% or more of all homes) and they certainly have the right to enforce the deed restrictions after the sale. However, either the restrictions do not prohibit rentals or no one, including the Developer, is sufficiently interested to attempt to enforce a rental prohibition.

Note: IANAL (as has been point out), these are just my thoughts after reading the restrictions and observing what is happening

Again, this is not my field of expertise, but I think that zoning is not something in deed compliance, it is determined by the county/city. And "single family" doesn't mean no guests, but once money is exchanged, I think the narrative changes.

[Normal]

Again, this is not my field of expertise, but I think that zoning is not something in deed compliance, it is determined by the county/city. And "single family" doesn't mean no guests, but once money is exchanged, I think the narrative changes.

Once money is exchanged the recipient is termed a customer by law. It is a legal business transaction. In addition, if any contract is signed with a mediating authority or is established, the contract signifies a completed business transaction. This can be done on paper or through electronic communication. Oral or verbal contracts are tougher to enforce if they aren’t witnessed. Yes, you are correct.

[tophcfa]

The reports from South of 44 seem to indicate that real estate investors may be buying a larger share of Village homes.

Ding, ding, ding, bingo! The double jeopardy question that corresponds to the above answer is: Why has the developer made a conscious decision to not enforce deed restrictions regarding rentals?

[Bill14564]

Ding, ding, ding, bingo! The double jeopardy question that corresponds to the above answer is: Why has the developer made a conscious decision to not enforce deed restrictions regarding rentals?

choose any/all that may apply:

difficult
expensive
time conuming
bad for business
not prohibited by the restrictions
unenforceable


The Developer is in the business of selling houses, not making it harder for himself by chasing away potential buyers.

[JMintzer]

Of course this is wrong like so many other statements of "facts" on this website. We have certainly well over several millions of US citizens who are neither able to read nor write English. Some cannot read nor write any language.

But we have suggestions that if people speak Spanish they must not be US citizens and a way to handle the Spanish speaking renters is to call ICE and the news media. I do wonder where all this hate of immigrants comes from... nah, I know where.

When all the undocumented workers leave Florida, I don't want to see you all whining about how much food costs and how impossible it has become to get workers in essential industries like construction and farming and restaurants and roofing and yard care and .....

You're right. OBB should never have made those assumptions... Very hateful...

As to the point you made about workers... Maybe if we had some sort of "Temporary Worker Visa Program"... Oh, wait...

[Bogie Shooter]

I assumed all the Spanish speaking undesirables had been removed from Florida by plane, to other states.
Since Florida taxpayers $$ are now being used to fly them out of Texas……………..

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

I assumed all the Spanish speaking undesirables had been removed from Florida by plane, to other states.
Since Florida taxpayers $$ are now being used to fly them out of Texas……………..

Work in progress, apparently.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Ding, ding, ding, bingo! The double jeopardy question that corresponds to the above answer is: Why has the developer made a conscious decision to not enforce deed restrictions regarding rentals?

They don't care who lives in the homes. They care only that they get paid for making and selling them.

[BrianL99]

No the standard is not the bold underlined area. In fact it's not even a standard. It's an actual law. The law is as follows:



So at least 80% must be occupied by at least one person 55 or older. The other 20% may, or may not, depending on the community's decisions. They MAY make it 100% must be at least 55 or older. They can be more restrictive if they want. But they may not be less restrictive.

However, the Villages has not enforced this in many years. They are selling new construction, as far as I can tell, according to the law. But resales sold by non-Villages MLS realtors don't really care who lives in the house they're selling. And the Developer doesn't ask the age of the resident until AFTER the house has sold and the residents apply for their Villages ID. By that point it's too late.

Every 2 years, The Villages is required to provide HUD with statistics to show compliance with HOPA.

https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/DOC_7769.PDF (See Question 11)

[tophcfa]

The Developer is in the business of selling houses, not making it harder for himself by chasing away potential buyers.

And there in lies a significant problem, the developer should recuse themselves from the responsibility of enforcement of internal deed restrictions. Can you say CONFLICT OF INTEREST!

[Bill14564]

And there in lies a significant problem, the developer should recuse themselves from the responsibility of enforcement of internal deed restrictions. Can you say CONFLICT OF INTEREST!

But they already have. The Developer has the right, but not the duty, to enforce these restrictions. Homeowners, you and me, have the right, and the duty to enforce them (all this is in the enforcement section).

So exercise your right, do your duty - bring a suit against the owner to force him to come into compliance.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Every 2 years, The Villages is required to provide HUD with statistics to show compliance with HOPA.

https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/DOC_7769.PDF (See Question 11)

Yes, that is what they're supposed to do. They are either - not doing it, OR they are making up the statistics and submitting false data.

The Villages has no way of knowing if the homeowner is actually living in the home. If a 55+ homeowner rents to younger short-term tenants, the homeowner can have guest passes issued to each tenant throughout the year, live somewhere else entirely, and The Villages will never be the wiser.

[BrianL99]

Once money is exchanged the recipient is termed a customer by law. It is a legal business transaction. In addition, if any contract is signed with a mediating authority or is established, the contract signifies a completed business transaction. This can be done on paper or through electronic communication. Oral or verbal contracts are tougher to enforce if they aren’t witnessed. Yes, you are correct.

Where do you come with this nonsense?

A 1989 version of ChatGPT?

[Bay Kid]

I assumed all the Spanish speaking undesirables had been removed from Florida by plane, to other states.
Since Florida taxpayers $$ are now being used to fly them out of Texas……………..

Cheaper to move the illegals than have to pay for them. Shouldn't of been allowed to illegally come here to start with.

[JGibson]

I would suggest you request that the Fire COmpany come out and examine the situation and get their advice. General recommendations (NFPA) are 3 ft from a wall presumably fireproof and 10 ft from combustible materials. Once you get this information and there is a presumed violation, I suggest you go to CDD community standards and submit a violation. They should contact the Owner and address the issue.

Good Luck

Thank you for that insightful advice, I appreciate it.

What's odd is there is a slab of concrete on her side for a grill but she uses the lawn closer to my house to put the grill instead. I don't know if this is consciously because she doesn't want her wall full of smoke and grease, I can only speculate.

[JMintzer]

I assumed all the Spanish speaking undesirables had been removed from Florida by plane, to other states.
Since Florida taxpayers $$ are now being used to fly them out of Texas……………..

Again, one assumes that those illegally crossing the border are "Spanish speaking"...

"Between Nov. 23, 2022 and May 6, the National Institute of Migration (INM) office in the southern state of Chiapas, where Tapachula is located, gave out visas and permits to 81,245 migrants from 103 nations."

Migrants from over 100 countries have crossed into Mexico (https://nypost.com/2023/05/13/migrants-from-over-100-countries-have-crossed-into-mexico/)

[JMintzer]

Where do you come with this nonsense?

A 1989 version of ChatGPT?

I think it's from this movie...

https://youtu.be/G_Sy6oiJbEk

[Normal]

Where do you come with this nonsense?

A 1989 version of ChatGPT?

16 CFR SS 240.4 - Definition of customer. | Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (e-CFR) | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/16/240.4)

A customer is someone who pays for goods or services. If a contract is written up , then once it is signed by a recipient entering a binding contract, they would be termed the customer. You can also do this by electronic documentation. It’s basic US law. Furthermore, signed contracts can be used and often are by landlords to recoup damages to their rental properties. It really is indisputable. Receipts and contracts are anecdotal evidence for payments from customers. Cancelled checks, bank transfers, wire receipts and even certified check records can and have been used in court cases. Ask any judge.

[BrianL99]

16 CFR SS 240.4 - Definition of customer. | Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (e-CFR) | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/16/240.4)

A customer is someone who pays for goods or services. If a contract is written up , then once it is signed by a recipient entering a binding contract, they would be termed the customer. You can also do this by electronic documentation. It’s basic US law. Furthermore, signed contracts can be used and often are by landlords to recoup damages to their rental properties. It really is indisputable. Receipts and contracts are anecdotal evidence for payments from customers. Cancelled checks, bank transfers, wire receipts and even certified check records can and have been used in court cases. Ask any judge.


When I run out of tinfoil, I have an old football helmet I wear and I spray it with teflon. Works ok in a pinch and deflects most of the waves.

[Normal]

When I run out of tinfoil, I have an old football helmet I wear and I spray it with teflon. Works ok in a pinch and deflects most of the waves.

I’m not sure what you mean, but your responses do seem to indicate you are use to wearing one. As far as case law and torts, ask any time. I’ll try and help.

[Velvet]

The problem with them not speaking English is that you can’t communicate with them. I suppose you could find out what they speak and have your phone translate into that language. It never hurts to get to know them, and what their story is. I know it is frustrating, but I was born in a European country and my family (political refugees) and legal immigrants, felt the difficulty of not understanding the people or the culture.

[BrianL99]

I’m not sure what you mean, but your responses do seem to indicate you are use to wearing one. As far as case law and torts, ask any time. I’ll try and help.

No wonder you're so confused. We've been primarily Land Use Law and Regulatory schemes. Admittedly, not your bailiwick.

As for Torts, if I needed someone in that area, there are plenty of billboards with young, good looking blonde female lawyers. I'm going with the billboards.