Airbnb Problem

[Normal]

Here we are again, same problem same result. The developer needs to crack down on this.

https://www.**************.com/2023/07/30/villagers-speak-out-about-growing-problem-of-airbnbs/

People can’t be using their homes as a business with high customer volume. At the very least, sales disclosures should mention if this is a going problem in a neighborhood. Why should neighborhoods foot the pain for a greedy landlord’s abuses of The Villages system?

[oldtimes]

Here we are again, same problem same result. The developer needs to crack down on this.

https://www.**************.com/2023/07/30/villagers-speak-out-about-growing-problem-of-airbnbs/

People can’t be using their homes as a business with high customer volume. At the very least, sales disclosures should mention if this is a going problem in a neighborhood. Why should neighborhoods foot the pain for a greedy landlord’s abuses of The Villages system?

I have looked into this exhaustively and there is pretty much nothing we can do as long as the developer chooses to ignore it. Until something horrible happens that negatively affects sales it will continue. At some point if it becomes uncomfortable enough we will probably move into a community that does enforce the restrictions.

[MsPCGenius]

A passing thought....

Will investors be able to purchase in Middleton (family section), rent the home -- presumably long term -- to a family who can then send their children to The Villages Charter schools?

Wonder if deed restrictions will be placed on those homes...

[Debfrommaine]

A passing thought....

Will investors be able to purchase in Middleton (family section), rent the home -- presumably long term -- to a family who can then send their children to The Villages Charter schools?

Wonder if deed restrictions will be placed on those homes.... Only my opinion but a parent needs to be employed by a business that is associated with TV.

[margaretmattson]

I have looked into this exhaustively and there is pretty much nothing we can do as long as the developer chooses to ignore it. Until something horrible happens that negatively affects sales it will continue. At some point if it becomes uncomfortable enough we will probably move into a community that does enforce the restrictions.
The developer is only concerned with getting his homes sold. I know of one investor who owns 5 homes here. Kinda obvious they are not going to live in all of them, don't you think?

[BrianL99]

I have looked into this exhaustively and there is pretty much nothing we can do as long as the developer chooses to ignore it. Until something horrible happens that negatively affects sales it will continue. At some point if it becomes uncomfortable enough we will probably move into a community that does enforce the restrictions.

I don't know what you mean that you "looking into it exhaustively", but I disagree.

All owners are 3rd party beneficiaries of the Deed Restrictions. The Developer has the right, but not the obligation to enforce the Restrictions. Any 3rd party beneficiary should have the right to bring suit to enforce them (or at least in some circumstances, as the Deed Restrictions vary throughout TV).

If I'm not mistaken there's a fairly new FL law that prohibits counties/towns from adopting regulations that prohibit STR's, but I doubt that has any bearing on TV, as the owner's of the units, had prior knowledge that "Business Use" is prohibited in TV. Under Florida Law, short term rentals a defined as a "Business".

Personally, I'd love to see a few 100 TV residents get together and file a lawsuit.

[margaretmattson]

I don't know what you mean that you "looking into it exhaustively", but I disagree.

All owners are 3rd party beneficiaries of the Deed Restrictions. The Developer has the right, but not the obligation to enforce the Restrictions. Any 3rd party beneficiary should have the right to bring suit to enforce them (or at least in some circumstances, as the Deed Restrictions vary throughout TV).

If I'm not mistaken there's a fairly new FL law that prohibits counties/towns from adopting regulations that prohibit STR's, but I doubt that has any bearing on TV, as the owner's of the units, had prior knowledge that "Business Use" is prohibited in TV. Under Florida Law, short term rentals a defined as a "Business".

Personally, I'd love to see a few 100 TV residents get together and file a lawsuit. How does the developer get away with selling to investors? He is breaking his own deed restrictions. One I am sure he had lawyers draw up for him. Guess he forgot to read them. Too interested in selling homes. The more homes sold means prices can stay elevated.

[Bill14564]

How does the developer get away with selling to investors? He is breaking his own deed restrictions. One I am sure he had lawyers draw up for him. Guess he forgot to read them. Too interested in selling homes. The more homes sold means prices can stay elevated.

In what way is he breaking his own deed restrictions? (Please post the wording from the restrictions)

[Normal]

In what way is he breaking his own deed restrictions? (Please post the wording from the restrictions)

“Properties within the Subdivision are intended for residential use and no commercial, professional or similar activity requiring either maintaining an inventory, equipment or customer/client visits may be conducted in or on a homesite.”

Of course airBnB specifically and repetitively uses the term customer for renters of units throughout its support website. The term commercial involves the exchange of funds and in many instances landlords even have contracts written supporting the commercial transaction. Of course renting also requires additional cleaning maintenance which does occur on the homesite.

The violation as a commercial entity is blatant.

[margaretmattson]

In what way is he breaking his own deed restrictions? (Please post the wording from the restrictions) Just responding to the post that states rentals are a business and conducting a business from your home in the Villages is prohibited in the deed restrictions. I believe the poster I responded to quoted the deed restriction. If the developer is knowingly selling his home to investors, he is breaking his own deed restrictions. Selling to a full time investor is selling him a full time business, not a home.

[villagetinker]

OK, so someone needs to call a lawyer and get an opinion if there is a case, against whom (I would guess the individual owners, or the developer for NOT enforcing the restriction) and the value of the case. I am sure that the owners of the AirBnB as well as probably AirBNB will reply with their own counter suit.

In any case I can feel the pain of the neighbors in this situation.

[golfing eagles]

OK, so someone needs to call a lawyer and get an opinion if there is a case, against whom (I would guess the individual owners, or the developer for NOT enforcing the restriction) and the value of the case. I am sure that the owners of the AirBnB as well as probably AirBNB will reply with their own counter suit.

In any case I can feel the pain of the neighbors in this situation.

Sounds like a job for the POA—-they love opposing the developers

[oldtimes]

Sounds like a job for the POA—-they love opposing the developers

I already tried that and they said nothing they can do

[BrianL99]

OK, so someone needs to call a lawyer and get an opinion if there is a case, against whom (I would guess the individual owners, or the developer for NOT enforcing the restriction) and the value of the case. I am sure that the owners of the AirBnB as well as probably AirBNB will reply with their own counter suit.

In any case I can feel the pain of the neighbors in this situation.

I think that's part of the problem ... the case probably has little or no "value".

I suppose there's some possibility of "damages", but I doubt any qualified lawyer would take it on that basis ... too many accidents and other tort cases in FL, to feast on.

Which makes it a "pay as you get billed" action. The Defendants would likely be a sampling of STR owners and the Developer. Given the Developer's resources and track record, he could (& would) throw millions at the case.

I suppose it would be possible to file an action against a small sampling of STR owners and keep the Developer out of it. Whether he would stay out of it, is another story.

If someone was to do the organizing and put together a group of people who felt strongly enough to invest some money into exploring litigation, I'd certainly participate. I'm just not good at the "organizing" part. It would essentially be a "crowd sourcing" endeavor in the beginning ... maybe even a GoFundMe type arrangement.

[Bill14564]

“Properties within the Subdivision are intended for residential use and no commercial, professional or similar activity requiring either maintaining an inventory, equipment or customer/client visits may be conducted in or on a homesite.”

Of course airBnB specifically and repetitively uses the term customer for renters of units throughout its support website. The term commercial involves the exchange of funds and in many instances landlords even have contracts written supporting the commercial transaction. Of course renting also requires additional cleaning maintenance which does occur on the homesite.

The violation as a commercial entity is blatant.

All the words of the sentence are important. Commercial activities are not prohibited unless those activities require maintaining an inventory or customer/client visits

It is highly unlikely that the couch, chair, or dining room table will be considered to be inventory for the purposes of the deed restrictions. It is also unlikely that the renter would be considered a customer/client for those purposes either.

You want to use your interpretation to make it a violation to have a short term rental but it will also affect long term renters. A renter is a renter if he is there one night, one week, or one month. Since it is not a violation to have a renter for one month then it is clearly not a violation to have a renter. If a renter is not a violation then a renter that stays for only one week would not be a violation either.

You can argue it if you would like but you will still be wrong. But who am I to say? Make your case in court and let the lawyers hammer out whether a person sleeping in a home is a customer/client in the sense of the word as used in the restrictions and then only when they stay for a number of days that you find acceptable.

Just responding to the post that states rentals are a business and conducting a business from your home in the Villages is prohibited in the deed restrictions. I believe the poster I responded to quoted the deed restriction. If the developer is knowingly selling his home to investors, he is breaking his own deed restrictions. Selling to a full time investor is selling him a full time business, not a home.

Be careful taking anything you read on here as correct. Just because a post claims something is a violation or a famous person has passed doesn't make it so.

WHY would the developer selling to an investor be a violation of the deed restrictions? Just because another poster said so? Who is this other poster? What are his qualifications for making such a claim? What is he basing his claim on? Posters on this site make all kinds of claims. You should know this, you've been reading these forums for some time now.

I gave my opinion of the rental situation above. But why assume an investor purchased a home to rent it out? With the way homes in the Villages appreciate, particularly in the last few years, what's to say the investor didn't purchase the homes to hold for 18 months and then sell at a profit? There would be no question of commercial activity because there would be no activity at all. How would that be a violation of the deed restrictions?

[margaretmattson]

All the words of the sentence are important. Commercial activities are not prohibited unless those activities require maintaining an inventory or customer/client visits

It is highly unlikely that the couch, chair, or dining room table will be considered to be inventory for the purposes of the deed restrictions. It is also unlikely that the renter would be considered a customer/client for those purposes either.

You can argue it if you would like but you will still be wrong. You want to use your interpretation to make it a violation to have a short term rental but it will also affect long term renters. A renter is a renter if he is there one night, one week, or one month. Since it is not a violation to have a renter for one month then it is clearly not a violation to have a renter. If a renter is not a violation then a renter that stays for only one week would not be a violation either.



Be careful taking anything you read on here as correct. Just because a post claims something is a violation or a famous person has passed doesn't make it so.

WHY would the developer selling to an investor be a violation of the deed restrictions? Just because another poster said so? Who is this other poster? What are his qualifications for making such a claim? What is he basing his claim on? Posters on this site make all kinds of claims. You should know this, you've been reading these forums for some time now.

I gave my opinion of the rental situation above. But why assume an investor purchased a home to rent it out? With the way homes in the Villages appreciate, particularly in the last few years, what's to say the investor didn't purchase the homes to hold for 18 months and then sell at a profit? There would be no question of commercial activity because there would be no activity at all. How would that be a violation of the deed restrictions? No idea I am not a lawyer. Seems we need a definition of no professional or similar activity. Not certain how you started talking about furniture. Deed restrictions says no inventory or customer/clients. We also would need definition of customer/client.

[Bill14564]

No idea I am not a lawyer. Seems we need a definition of no professional or similar activity.

It appears you edited your post while I was looking up the wording in my deed restrictions. The wording in my restrictions matches that of post #9.

Again, all the words in the sentence are important. The entire phrase is "professional or similar activity requiring either maintaining an inventory, equipment or customer/client visits."

EDIT: It appears you edited yours again while I was writing the above. Not interested in playing whack-a-mole tonight.

[margaretmattson]

It appears you edited your post while I was looking up the wording in my deed restrictions. The wording in my restrictions matches that of post #9.

Again, all the words in the sentence are important. The entire phrase is "professional or similar activity requiring either maintaining an inventory, equipment or customer/client visits." Sorry, I mistakenly hit the submit button before I could review. What you posted is the correct wording.

It says No professional OR SIMILAR ACTIVITY requiring EITHER inventory, equipment, or CUSTOMER visits. The word either excludes what you have said about furniture and inventory. No need to prove inventory. Just the definition of professional activities OR SIMILAR ACTIVITIES and if renters can be considered CUSTOMERS/CLIENTS

[MrChip72]

I think it's fairly obvious that if you read the deed restrictions without any preconceived bias, that the purpose of that specific restriction is to prevent people selling regularly stocked inventory items out of their garage, or running a personal services businesses like a nail/hair salon out of their home.

[margaretmattson]

I think it's fairly obvious that if you read the deed restrictions without any preconceived bias, that the purpose of that specific restriction is to prevent people selling regularly stocked inventory items out of their garage, or running a personal services businesses like a nail/hair salon out of their home.
Not necessarily so. I found a Florida law that requires all vacation rentals which are rented out more than three times a year must have a Florida license.

Also, I found information that a bill was voted on in the Florida Government in 2021 regarding HOA ability to ban vacation rentals. The bill was passed by a large margin. I just can't seem to find more information..

Anyone who is truly bothered by this please read Florida laws on Air BNBs and vacation rentals. I think together, we may find something. The developer, at the very least, would have to follow Florida Law.

[villagetinker]

Not necessarily so. I found a Florida law that requires all vacation rentals which are rented out more than three times a year must have a Florida license.

Also, I found information that a bill was voted on in the Florida Government in 2021 regarding HOA ability to ban vacation rentals. The bill was passed by a large margin. I just can't seem to find more information..

Contact your local FL state representative's office, I am sure they will be able to help.

[MrChip72]

Also, I found information that a bill was voted on in the Florida Government in 2021 regarding HOA ability to ban vacation rentals. The bill was passed by a large margin. I just can't seem to find more information..

1) The Villages is not an HOA
2) The developer clearly doesn't want to prevent people from renting out their homes or they wouldn't be selling 4-5 homes to single individuals
3) The CDD structure of The Villages limits what rules that the Florida Government can impose

Maybe convincing each of the counties to ban short term rentals (under 30 days) might be a better approach.

[margaretmattson]

Would it be wrong for me to ask an owner for his Florida license for the ability to rent his home? Then report him/her if they do not have one?

I read the rules for each county on vacation rentals. Sumter county has no regulations. Lake County you must have a license in addition to Florida license. Marion County you have to register your rental and pay yearly taxes. No city rules that I could find.

There is no doubt that renting a home is by DEFINITION A PROFESSIONAL BUSINESS. A license is required, Sales Tax must be collected and sent to the Department of Revenue, and a Florida Tangible Tax Return must be filed. 100% a business! However, Florida or no county has banned them including those that are rented out for only one, two, or several days. The law is written specifically to include short-term rentals.

Right now, It seems all we can do is report offenders who have no license to operate a rental property. If we report them, perhaps the offender will get shut down and fined. They will also get fined for not filing a Florida Tangible Tax Return. (yes, businesses get taxed in Florida)

There may be specific rules for posting your license on the premises. I didn't get that far.

If you still believe it is a violation of our deed restrictions, I believe we have a civil case. Florida clearly defines a rental property as a BUSINESS and taxes them accordingly. We do not need a lawyer to prove it. However, the judge may rule the deed restriction is not enforceable because it violates Florida Law. You can try! The people with the white cross law ornament lost even though stopping religious practice is against federal law.

Sorry guys, I am not a lawyer. But, I have owned businesses in Florida. Rental properties are UNDER LAW a business in Florida. If you are required to have a license, collect sales tax, and file a Tangible Tax Return, you have yourself a business.

[margaretmattson]

If anyone seriously wants to stop the AirBNB business I would suggest starting with the site VillagersHome4Rent. Ask them if they require each renter to have a license and if sales tax is collected.

You aren't necessarily looking to shut them down. You are merely gaining evidence that businesses have been conducted in many homes throughout the Villages for many years.

Then I would just make a call to a company like Morgan and Morgan and explain the situation. Deed Restriction is not being enforced and hasn't been for many years. Explain the site Villagers4Rent and how many homes are listed for rent. I believe, right now, it is over 1000. Morgan and Morgan will take your information and decide if they wish to handle the case. If they take the case, you are not required to pay anything unless they win.

If they say they are not interested, you still have a case. You go to the County Clerk office and fill out documents for a Civil Case. The courts handle it from there.

While filling out the documents, you may want to get a petition signed to show the court how many people believe they have been wronged. If there are court costs just collect say $1 from each person to cover that expense. Either way, lawyer or not, there will be no fees.

If you find Villagers4 Rent is not in complete compliance with Florida and County Laws report them. Let the state and counties handle fining them or whatever.

Not a lawyer, just my idea. I would do this myself but I am not fully committed. I believe the Villages would be a better community if there were no AirBNB's. But, I also like the idea of being able to rent my home if I ever needed. Also, I question whether or not this will affect home prices. If prices fall, we lose equity. Too big a gamble for me.

[BrianL99]

1) at the Florida Government can impose

Maybe convincing each of the counties to ban short term rentals (under 30 days) might be a better approach.

Not possible. Florida law prohibits that, as mentioned in a number of prior posts.

Florida legislators' plans to regulate short-term rentals hits snag | Orlando Area News | Orlando | Orlando Weekly (https://www.orlandoweekly.com/news/florida-legislators-plans-to-regulate-short-term-rentals-hits-snag-28969898)

[TillyBear]

I think it's fairly obvious that if you read the deed restrictions without any preconceived bias, that the purpose of that specific restriction is to prevent people selling regularly stocked inventory items out of their garage, or running a personal services businesses like a nail/hair salon out of their home.

Yes i would agree with you .

[margaretmattson]

Not possible. Florida law prohibits that, as mentioned in a number of prior posts.

Florida legislators' plans to regulate short-term rentals hits snag | Orlando Area News | Orlando | Orlando Weekly (https://www.orlandoweekly.com/news/florida-legislators-plans-to-regulate-short-term-rentals-hits-snag-28969898) I read the article, thanks! I was trying to explain how to set up a lawsuit for free. Maybe just not the right time. When Florida or the counties make a rule would be the right time.

The article does address that all rental properties have to be licensed and collect sales tax as well as tangible taxes, that is not contested. The law they are trying to create is to make certain the taxes actually hit the state coffers.

I would still tend to believe one could report any investor who does not have a license to the department of revenue. The investors are required to pay these taxes and to have a license. Not doing so is illegal. Reporting them would make it uncomfortable for them by adding a cost and fine to their expenses.

[margaretmattson]

I think it's fairly obvious that if you read the deed restrictions without any preconceived bias, that the purpose of that specific restriction is to prevent people selling regularly stocked inventory items out of their garage, or running a personal services businesses like a nail/hair salon out of their home.
Not obvious at all. Florida law requires you need a license and to collect /pay sales tax. If you must collect sales tax from someone they are a customer/client. If you need a license to rent the home , you are a business.

But! The deed restriction, right now, is against Florida Law. Looks like lawmakers are trying to make lawsuits like this easier to do. If they succeed, we have a case. A judge is the only who can decide. And, we can get it to court for free.

[Marathon Man]

I think there is way too much emotion put into this. What a shame that so much of someone's life is dedicated to hating something that they see, and then perceiving a larger problem than it actually is. Perhaps some would be better off looking for a community that does not allow rentals, or under 55yo residents, or excessive flower changing. Just my opinion. But this I know, you only have control over yourself and your own actions.

[Normal]

1) The Villages is not an HOA
2) The developer clearly doesn't want to prevent people from renting out their homes or they wouldn't be selling 4-5 homes to single individuals
3) The CDD structure of The Villages limits what rules that the Florida Government can impose

Maybe convincing each of the counties to ban short term rentals (under 30 days) might be a better approach.

Like it or not, each village falls under the guidelines of an HOA. Fees are collected for maintenance, rules are written to follow and nonresidents are restricted. Any judge or lawyer in a courtroom would laugh away a defense that said otherwise.

One could argue that a resident does have more skin in the game than a fly by night renter though, both monetarily and in physical upgrades to the neighborhood.

[retiredguy123]

Not obvious at all. Florida law requires you need a license and to collect /pay sales tax. If you must collect sales tax from someone they are a customer/client. If you need a license to rent the home , you are a business.

But! The deed restriction, right now, is against Florida Law. Looks like lawmakers are trying to make lawsuits like this easier to do. If they succeed, we have a case. A judge is the only who can decide. And, we can get it to court for free.
I would just point out that the IRS doesn't consider rental property as a business, it is an investment. You report business income on Schedule C, but you report rental income on Schedule E. Two different types of income.

[Normal]

I would just point out that the IRS doesn't consider rental property as a business, it is an investment. You report business income on Schedule C, but you report rental income on Schedule E. Two different types of income.

Interesting, but not accurate in the legal world for a defense. Ask yourself:

Was a contract written and signed?
Why does the Airbnb site call your renters “customers”?

Money or services were exchanged, but the income just falls under another taxable bracket?

[Bill14564]

Like it or not, each village falls under the guidelines of an HOA. Fees are collected for maintenance, rules are written to follow and nonresidents are restricted. Any judge or lawyer in a courtroom would laugh away a defense that said otherwise.

One could argue that a resident does have more skin in the game than a fly by night renter though, both monetarily and in physical upgrades to the neighborhood.

One could argue all they want but the Villages does NOT have an HOA. The Villages works under a CDD which is defined by Florida law. I have not looked but I suspect an HOA is defined by Florida law as well. The two are not the same and the Villages is a CDD.

Even for those who couldn't care less about airbnbs, the fact that the Villages is not an HOA is important. HOAs have certain rights and responsibilities while CDDs have other rights and responsibilities. The differences are important in how they can affect what you are allowed to do as a homeowner.

[NoMo50]

A passing thought....

Will investors be able to purchase in Middleton (family section), rent the home -- presumably long term -- to a family who can then send their children to The Villages Charter schools?

Wonder if deed restrictions will be placed on those homes...

Merely residing in a home in Middleton does not qualify for sending your kids to the charter schools.

[JGibson]

TV has become to big to be a true retirement community. It's more becoming a resort and time share.

Even if they made a half hearted effort to implement some STR rules it would be almost impossible to track folks coming and going from month to month.

Mark my words TV is going to be a zoo this winter.

It's time to look for alternatives that truly are gated communities that have common sense STR rules that are enforceable.

[BrianL99]

Interesting, but not accurate in the legal world for a defense. Ask yourself:

Was a contract written and signed?
Why does the Airbnb site call your renters “customers”?

Money or services were exchanged, but the income just falls under another taxable bracket?

Just for the heck of it, if you live near a home in TV that's used as a Short Term Rental, why not check to find out if it's Licensed by the State of Florida, as required?

Here's the LINK to check: Licensing Portal - License Search (https://www.myfloridalicense.com/wl11.asp?mode=2&search=LicTyp&SID=&brd=&typ=)

Here's a Screen Shot of the form you complete online.

[dhdallas]

Have any of these snobby selfish people even had an incident with someone at a short term rental? I think not! There are several very close to me (one is next door) and the renters are never a problem and always nice and friendly. The owners pay the amenity fees year round so no one is getting to use your precious facilities for free. It is always the permanent residents who are the troublemakers. Day after day, Villagers are in the news for assault, drunk driving and recently manslaughter. I see that another sex offender just registered an address here. And you are worried about some short term rentals causing problems...ridiculous!

[margaretmattson]

I would just point out that the IRS doesn't consider rental property as a business, it is an investment. You report business income on Schedule C, but you report rental income on Schedule E. Two different types of income. Schedule E is not labeled as investment. It is labeled as Rental Income. Again, when the time is right, it is for a judge to decide. If rentals were not a business, Florida lawmakers would not being working on a bill to correct the problem. In Florida, a vacation rental is 100% a business. Read the Florida Law.

The rentals ARE violating our deed restrictions. The problem is the clause as written may or may not be enforceable. The clause goes against Florida Law. This is the issue a judge would decide. Is the clause in the deed restriction legal?

CDD, HOA, doesn't matter. Everyone agreed they would follow the deed restrictions when they bought a home. Again, up for a judge to decide. The deed restriction makes it clear that you sue those not in compliance. A person(s) could do this for free. There is no shame in making certain all property owners adhere to the deed restrictions.

[Bill14564]

Schedule E is not labeled as investment. It is labeled as Rental Income. Again, when the time is right, it is for a judge to decide. If rentals were not a business, Florida lawmakers would not being working on a bill to correct the problem. In Florida, a vacation rental is 100% a business. Read the Florida Law.

The rentals ARE violating our deed restrictions. The problem is the clause as written may or may not be enforceable. The clause goes against Florida Law. This is the issue a judge would decide. Is the clause in the deed restriction legal?

CDD, HOA, doesn't matter. Everyone agreed they would follow the deed restrictions when they bought a home. Again, up for a judge to decide. The deed restriction makes it clear that you sue those not in compliance. A person(s) could do this for free. There is no shame in making certain all property owners adhere to the deed restrictions.

That is your opinion... it is not shared by all. Provide some facts or some arguments why you believe that. Others have provided their arguments against your opinion in this and several other threads. Relying on proof by emphatic assertion is ridiculous.

[margaretmattson]

That is your opinion... it is not shared. Provide some facts or some arguments why you believe that. Others have provided their arguments against your opinion in this and several other threads. Relying on proof by emphatic assertion is ridiculous. Already supplied the facts. Not ridiculous! Read the Florida Law yourself. Again, why would lawmakers at this time be working on a bill to correct the problem? Place your personal feelings aside. It is what it is.

[asianthree]

TV has become to big to be a true retirement community. It's more becoming a resort and time share.

Even if they made a half hearted effort to implement some STR rules it would be almost impossible to track folks coming and going from month to month.

Mark my words TV is going to be a zoo this winter.

It's time to look for alternatives that truly are gated communities that have common sense STR rules that are enforceable.

Since you have recently joint in 2022, you may have a short track record for TV.

We Have been here since 2007, “Mark my words TV and all of Florida is and always has been a Zoo in the winter”.

This winter will not be any different than winters in the past in TV. We find the father north you go and the far south is much quieter, than the middle.

[Bill14564]

Already supplied the facts. Not ridiculous! Read the Florida Law yourself. Again, why would lawmakers at this time be working on a bill to correct the problem? Place your personal feelings aside. It is what it is.

Which Florida law? The one that prohibits local governments from passing laws or the one that allows HOAs to restrict rentals? The former might apply if a local government was involved but it is not. The latter might apply if an HOA was involved but it is not. And neither applies unless rentals are being restricted which they are not.

What bill are the lawmakers working on at this time? Florida legislators are not in session at this time so they aren't working on a bill. If County or City legislators are not likely working on a bill since that would be restricted by the Florida statute.

I have no personal feelings on this other than a strong dislike of people claiming "it's a law" when it isn't and a distaste for the use of proof by emphatic assertion.

[margaretmattson]

Which Florida law? The one that prohibits local governments from passing laws or the one that allows HOAs to restrict rentals? The former might apply if a local government was involved but it is not. The latter might apply if an HOA was involved but it is not. And neither applies unless rentals are being restricted which they are not.

What bill are the lawmakers working on at this time? Florida legislators are not in session at this time so they aren't working on a bill. If County or City legislators are not likely working on a bill since that would be restricted by the Florida statute.

I have no personal feelings on this other than a strong dislike of people claiming "it's a law" when it isn't and a distaste for the use of proof by emphatic assertion. Not going to criticize you for having an opinion. But, it is for a judge to decide. Florida lawmakers are already in the process of stopping AIRbnbs. That is a fact. Nothing anyone's opinion is going to change.

[Bill14564]

Not going to criticize you for having an opinion. But, it is for a judge to decide. Florida lawmakers are already in the process of stopping AIRbnbs. That is a fact. Nothing anyone's opinion is going to change.

Florida lawmakers are the ones who passed the law preventing local governments from stopping airbnbs. The latest law they passed (I believe in the recent session) has been criticized by local governments and concerned citizens as not doing much to help them solve their short term rental problem.

Florida lawmakers are not in session now so they are doing precious little of anything.

If it is indeed a fact then please provide a link or two to support your assertion.

[margaretmattson]

Florida lawmakers are the ones who passed the law preventing local governments from stopping airbnbs. The latest law they passed (I believe in the recent session) has been criticized by local governments and concerned citizens as not doing much to help them solve their short term rental problem.

Florida lawmakers are not in session now so they are doing precious little of anything.

If it is indeed a fact then please provide a link or two to support your assertion. A link has already been provided on this thread.

[Bill14564]

Florida lawmakers are the ones who passed the law preventing local governments from stopping airbnbs. The latest law they passed (I believe in the recent session) has been criticized by local governments and concerned citizens as not doing much to help them solve their short term rental problem.

Florida lawmakers are not in session now so they are doing precious little of anything.

If it is indeed a fact then please provide a link or two to support your assertion.

A link has already been provided on this thread.

A story from 2021 about a bill that had the regulatory sections removed? That is hardly "already in the process of stopping AIRbnbs" and *that* is truly a fact.

I wonder if that wasn't passed as the current statute that actually *prohibits* regulating rentals. (EDIT: No, it is not. The "no local regulation" statute appears to be a 2011 addition)

[Normal]

The Villages aren’t the only community suffering from this. Laws are in place to heavily restrict **** and AirbNB. “If a Florida court were to apply a frequency-based test, restrictions prohibiting nonresidential use would prove to be an effective tool to regulate or prohibit Airbnb and ****. There is a risk, however, that rental property owners who do not use Airbnb or other similar businesses could become collateral damage under that interpretation.”

It will only be a matter of time till short term rentals are in the past. Frequency is the key. Keep squeaking those wheels.

Florida’s First District Court of Appeal in Bennett v. Walton County, 174 So. 3d 386 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015), presented a means to potentially and significantly legally impair the Airbnb and **** business model. It takes time, but they will pass.

[ThirdOfFive]

Is it possible that this "problem" is more apparent than real?

First, considering what I've heard and read (NOT experienced directly) the primary customer base of Airb&bs seem to be a) Disney customers; and b) college kids. Neither of those two groups, it would seem, would be using Airb&bs as anything more than a base of operations: I mean, do people really think that parents with young kids or groups of college kids down for spring break are actually going to RECREATE with and among a bunch of crochety geriatrics? I doubt it. They'll be sleeping here, but off during the day doing whatever it is they're here to do.

Second, if they ARE a nuisance--doesn't the mechanisms to report and control that already exist? Florida has noise ordinances (one passed just last year, as I recall, makes it illegal for anyone to be generating a noise that can be clearly heard over a certain distance away) and a few calls to local law should clear that up. Improper parking, disturbances, littering, whatever: seems as if the issues peeving people, if reported often enough to the appropriate authorities (Community Standards? Law?) could be enough to get the offending landlord's attention and initiate appropriate remedial action--especially if fines and/or other sanctions are imposed against said landlord.

The more I think about this, the more I think that there are people here who just want to gripe.

[margaretmattson]

Is it possible that this "problem" is more apparent than real?

First, considering what I've heard and read (NOT experienced directly) the primary customer base of Airb&bs seem to be a) Disney customers; and b) college kids. Neither of those two groups, it would seem, would be using Airb&bs as anything more than a base of operations: I mean, do people really think that parents with young kids or groups of college kids down for spring break are actually going to RECREATE with and among a bunch of crochety geriatrics? I doubt it. They'll be sleeping here, but off during the day doing whatever it is they're here to do.

Second, if they ARE a nuisance--doesn't the mechanisms to report and control that already exist? Florida has noise ordinances (one passed just last year, as I recall, makes it illegal for anyone to be generating a noise that can be clearly heard over a certain distance away) and a few calls to local law should clear that up. Improper parking, disturbances, littering, whatever: seems as if the issues peeving people, if reported often enough to the appropriate authorities (Community Standards? Law?) could be enough to get the offending landlord's attention and initiate appropriate remedial action--especially if fines and/or other sanctions are imposed against said landlord.

The more I think about this, the more I think that there are people here who just want to gripe. I'm not certain everyone is just griping. Some are collecting the facts and doing their research. I have stated I am not fully committed either way. Perhaps that is what others are debating as well.

[golfing eagles]

TV has become to big to be a true retirement community. It's more becoming a resort and time share.

Even if they made a half hearted effort to implement some STR rules it would be almost impossible to track folks coming and going from month to month.

Mark my words TV is going to be a zoo this winter.

It's time to look for alternatives that truly are gated communities that have common sense STR rules that are enforceable.

Actually, quite easy-----don't issue guest IDs to any renter staying less than a month. They can sit in their rented Airbnb and watch TV.

[asianthree]

Actually, quite easy-----don't issue guest IDs to any renter staying less than a month. They can sit in their rented Airbnb and watch TV.

That would work well until our parents/grands/siblings wanted to visit for a week, at our other homes. Although we could just get passes at our residence

[Velvet]

That would work well until our parents/grands/siblings wanted to visit for a week, at our other homes. Although we could just get passes at our residence

Doc said “renter” not visitor. Any effort to clean up TV would be appreciated.

[margaretmattson]

Doc said “renter” not visitor. Any effort to clean up TV would be appreciated. I think You would have to establish what the meaning of a guest pass is. Family and friends are obviously guests. Are paying customers guests? I have been to hotels who use the term guest. Not certain what the legal meaning of guest is.

[RPDaly]

////

[golfing eagles]

Or put a limit on how many guest passes a property owner can pull each month.

Yes---a limit of ONE (if it is a rental property). Family/friend guests are different. The yardstick is whether or not money has exchanged hands. And the people who live next to one of these revolving door STRs know exactly where they are.

[margaretmattson]

Or put a limit on how many guest passes a property owner can pull each month. Better Solution. The number allowed is not addressed in our Deed Restrictions? Odd! They set a limit on how long a minor can stay. Guess I am going to have to carefully read the entire deed restrictions. I am guilty of not doing so.

[BrianL99]

Not going to criticize you for having an opinion. But, it is for a judge to decide. Florida lawmakers are already in the process of stopping AIRbnbs. That is a fact. Nothing anyone's opinion is going to change.


That is absolute nonsense. The truth is exactly the opposite, as it is in most of the USA.

Most every "vacation area" in the USA is facing the same problem and time and time again, the Courts have ruled in favor of STR's (they are NOT "AirBnbs", they are Short Term Rentals).

They're a financial boondoggle for government. STR's raise property values and generate revenue ... which is why state governments all over the USA are supporting them ... just like Florida has.

Why do you think the State of Florida passed a law that PREVENTED local governments from banning STR's?

Trying to establish credibility by blatant and vociferous assertion, is part of what makes the Internet the wasteland it is. People without a clue, with little or no experience in a subject, can't wait to assert their uneducated and naive opinion and present it as fact.

[Normal]

That is absolute nonsense. STR's raise property values.

Sure….wink wink

Anyone would love to move into a neighborhood full of them. Meanwhile those STRs milk off the very system that full time residents pay for.
NOT

[margaretmattson]

That is absolute nonsense. The truth is exactly the opposite, as it is in most of the USA.

Most every "vacation area" in the USA is facing the same problem and time and time again, the Courts have ruled in favor of STR's (they are NOT "AirBnbs", they are Short Term Rentals).

They're a financial boondoggle for government. STR's raise property values and generate revenue ... which is why state governments all over the USA are supporting them ... just like Florida has.

Why do you think the State of Florida passed a law that PREVENTED local governments from banning STR's?

Trying to establish credibility by blatant and vociferous assertion, is part of what makes the Internet the wasteland it is. People without a clue, with little or no experience in a subject, can't wait to assert their uneducated and naive opinion and present it as fact. Didnt I say it is up to the judge/court/lawmakers to decide? If a judge/lawmakers say they are legal then we abide by that. If they make a new law banning them, then we follow that. Not understanding your point, whatsoever. Anyone can file a civil lawsuit if they feel they are being wronged. Doesn't mean they are going to win and I never asserted it.

Oh, and I cant give my opinion because I don't have a clue? What makes your opinion so valid? The reason government doesn't ban STR's is because they raise property value and generate revenue? Is that a hard-core fact? No! You/we have no idea what is behind a lawmaker's decision to write a bill on STRs. Again, just let the government handle it. In the end, we will have to abide by their decision. There are lawmakers who support STRs and there are lawmakers who are trying to get them banned. FACT!

[BrianL99]

There are lawmakers who support STRs and there are lawmakers who are trying to get them banned. FACT!



There are tall people and short people. FACT!

Some folks have experience and an understanding of certain issues, some just blow smoke and change like the wind. FACT!

[margaretmattson]

There are tall people and short people. FACT!

Some folks have experience and an understanding of certain issues, some just blow smoke and change like the wind. FACT! You must be talking about YOUR lack of knowledge/experience/smoke blowing. Within a few minutes I can list many reasons why lawmakers may want to make a bill on STR's.
1. They don't want to police them
2. Sanitation issues
3. Want to protect homeowner's rights
4. Curtail online sales
5. make certain the sales tax collected on the rentals actually are sent to Florida
6. Public nuisance
I can go on and on.

See? None of them have a thing to do with your supposed " thorough understanding" of this issue. You/We are only guessing the motives behind lawmakers decisions.

And please, don't post about my opinions stating I have no experience and I change like the wind. Must be nice to have a "through understanding " on someone you never met. Wish I had those magical powers that "some folks have!"

Clearwater FL has a ban on STR's in residential zones of the City. Could that possibly mean that some lawmakers want to and have banned STR's? Asking, because you have "experienced" everything! I couldn't have possibly lived in Clearwater, now could I? I'm just a dummy who doesn't know anything. You better google and check! Wouldn't want you to believe us know-nothings.
You may also want to check the new ordinance in Indian Rocks Beach. But, then again, DON'T TRUST SOMEONE WHO IS NOT AS SMART AS YOU!

Once you google the truth, would that be FACT? Just asking because sometimes a moron like me needs to have her vocabulary checked.

I stated twice on this thread that I am not fully committed either way. I see both sides! ( because I have lived it) You, however, want to force me to accept your smoke blowing as truth. This is a forum, not a court of law. Let's just agree to disagree.

[GizmoWhiskers]

I don't know what you mean that you "looking into it exhaustively", but I disagree.

All owners are 3rd party beneficiaries of the Deed Restrictions. The Developer has the right, but not the obligation to enforce the Restrictions. Any 3rd party beneficiary should have the right to bring suit to enforce them (or at least in some circumstances, as the Deed Restrictions vary throughout TV).

If I'm not mistaken there's a fairly new FL law that prohibits counties/towns from adopting regulations that prohibit STR's, but I doubt that has any bearing on TV, as the owner's of the units, had prior knowledge that "Business Use" is prohibited in TV. Under Florida Law, short term rentals a defined as a "Business".

Personally, I'd love to see a few 100 TV residents get together and file a lawsuit.

Exactly. This is not a Developer problem on its face. It is a Community Standards problem once the neighborhood transfers over to T V. (However, grey area because deed restrictions are written using "developer" in the language. So as with most legal battles include everyone until they are eliminated. I digress).

Villas have different Deed Restrictions than the homes relative to businesses being run out of single family residences.

Damages... it all comes down to how a homeowner or homeowners are being damaged by Developer/Community Standards NOT enforcing deed restrictions.

Reporting, how many neighbors are reporting the abnb's being run out of homes? Ie: villas - short term rentals (6 months or less) without a business license as required by Florida law.

A business license means a business is being run out of a villa which by DEED businesses are NOT allowed in Villas.

Simple google of "villa deeds restrictions the villages fl" click on county then villa neighborhood.

VCDD Deed Compliance - Sumter County (https://districtgov.org/departments/community-standards/deedrestrict-SumterCounty.aspx)

Ie Rhett Villas: USE RESTRICTION Section 2: "No business of ANY KIND shall be conducted on any residence..."
Section 3 states no "noxious" (harmful or unpleasant) activities shall be carried on or in the homes - full circle to damages.

Silently the abuses continue.

[Ele201]

What I see happening is that The Villages is slowly evolving into a vacation destination. I have rented Airbnb’s to TV, and I have friends who do the same. In fact, a friend of mine just returned home after renting for a month in TV. She and her husband enjoyed the free live entertainment at the town squares. But they are also considering buying a villa, both have recently retired. In the meantime, they’re enjoying what TV has to offer. And apparently, they aren’t the only ones.

[fsusix]

How does one get young families to move out after 30 days? I called community standards and they said if they are renting there is a loop hole and they can’t do anything about it. Also they have a large trailer that has been there - I reported and other neighbors too- yet it is still there. Any advice?:shrug::shrug:

[GizmoWhiskers]

How does one get young families to move out after 30 days? I called community standards and they said if they are renting there is a loop hole and they can’t do anything about it. Also they have a large trailer that has been there - I reported and other neighbors too- yet it is still there. Any advice?:shrug::shrug:

T V is NOT upholding restrictions. 30 days is limit for children to reside in a home. Good question... residents imho need to pull together, from there... need representation legally and politically. Here in lies the problem...

I did read an article about a board member in District 5 working against abnb's. link:

https://www.**************.com/2023/05/20/official-ready-to-investigate-airbnb-phenomenon-plaguing-the-villages/

[TEXJK]

The villages will be nothing but a Holiday Inn Express in a few years nothing here is enforced a free for all of day rentals and kids on golf carts get used to it

[crash]

A passing thought....

Will investors be able to purchase in Middleton (family section), rent the home -- presumably long term -- to a family who can then send their children to The Villages Charter schools?

Wonder if deed restrictions will be placed on those homes...

You don’t have to live in The Villages to go to the charter school just work here. They have a pecking order of what jobs you have as to if your kids get in with working directly for the developer the highest. Working in any business that leases from the developer entitles you.

[BrianL99]

How does one get young families to move out after 30 days? I called community standards and they said if they are renting there is a loop hole and they can’t do anything about it. Also they have a large trailer that has been there - I reported and other neighbors too- yet it is still there. Any advice?:shrug::shrug:


How about a little AI from ChatGPT?

[skippy05]

No matter the law, the rule, the contract banning STR is near impossible to enforce. Best focus your thoughts and energy on things you are able to control.

[margaretmattson]

How does one get young families to move out after 30 days? I called community standards and they said if they are renting there is a loop hole and they can’t do anything about it. Also they have a large trailer that has been there - I reported and other neighbors too- yet it is still there. Any advice?:shrug::shrug:There is an 80/20 standard. 80% of homes must be occupied by someone over 55. Someone needs to find a way to see if this is truly happening. One entire street in my CYV neighborhood is rented out. If the actual number of homes in TV are not OCCUPIED by someone 55+ or older, we can get the Developer for false advertising. Any unoccupied rental can be counted as not part of the 80% criteria as well as those that are occupied with no one over 55 plus. Can we demand to see the actual number?

If we can get the Developer for false advertising. Rentals would seize. Unless the Developer wants to buy back all 55+ owners homes. Would we be able to break the numbers up by district? Find one district with less than 80% who are 55+ and we got what we need.

[margaretmattson]

No matter the law, the rule, the contract banning STR is near impossible to enforce. Best focus your thoughts and energy on things you are able to control. Not true at all! Some cities in Fl already have banned/restricted STRs. Check Clearwater and Indian Rocks Beach if you do not believe it.

[margaretmattson]

The villages will be nothing but a Holiday Inn Express in a few years nothing here is enforced a free for all of day rentals and kids on golf carts get used to it Kids may be on the championship golf courses because of Middleton. You don't have to be a resident to golf on those. Plus, they will probably get the discounted fees.

[golfing eagles]

Kids may be on the championship golf courses because of Middleton. You don't have to be a resident to golf on those. Plus, they will probably get the discounted fees.

But they have to 14 years old, or have a letter from a Villages PGA pro certifying they are able to follow the rules and etiquette of golf.

[Bill14564]

How does one get young families to move out after 30 days? I called community standards and they said if they are renting there is a loop hole and they can’t do anything about it. Also they have a large trailer that has been there - I reported and other neighbors too- yet it is still there. Any advice?:shrug::shrug:

Young family:
- If all are over 19 years of age then the argument might be that they are renting and not permanently residing and the restrictions do not prohibit that
- If all are over 19 years of age then the Developer could invoke the "hardship" provision to avoid enforcing the restrictions
- If some are younger than 19 then there does not seem to be any exception in the restrictions
- The Developer has the right but not the duty to enforce these restrictions and in this case the Developer may be choosing to not enforce them

Trailer:
- Send an email to Community Standards asking about the progress on this complaint and Cc at least one of your CDD Commissioners to get them involved
- Go to the next meeting of your CDD and stand up at the microphone and ask about the complaint to get it on the official record

In both cases you, the homeowner, has the right to take your neighbor to court to enforce the restrictions. Talk to a lawyer to see whether you actually have a case and what the chances are that a ruling would be in your favor.

[Bill14564]

There is an 80/20 standard. 80% of homes must be occupied by someone over 55. Someone needs to find a way to see if this is truly happening. One entire street in my CYV neighborhood is rented out. If the actual number of homes in TV are not OCCUPIED by someone 55+ or older, we can get the Developer for false advertising. Any unoccupied rental can be counted as not part of the 80% criteria as well as those that are occupied with no one over 55 plus. Can we demand to see the actual number?

If we can get the Developer for false advertising. Rentals would seize. Unless the Developer wants to buy back all 55+ owners homes.

The highlighted statement is completely wrong.
(i) at least 80 percent of the occupied units are occupied by at least one person who is 55 years of age or older
Unoccupied homes would not be part of the 80/20 count.

It is unclear what "occupied" means in regards to a rental. Does it mean occupied on the day someone knocked on the door to take the count? Does it mean occupied for at least a week? If the count is performed by looking at the age on the Resident IDs that have been issued for a home then it would depend on when the list of IDs was created.

[Gunny2403]

Actually more homes available for sale keep the valuations of existing residences down. The only beneficiary of more new homes is the Developer. Existing home values have leveled off or decreased in recent months.

[Gunny2403]

There has to be a bored Attorney here that would like to be relevant again.

[Glowfromminnesota]

When the Super Bowl was 20 minutes from our home in Minnesota, we tried to make our house a rental for one week. The city immediately contacted us said “no” you cannot rent your house out without a license or you will be fined. Of course, we took it off. Perhaps these rentals should be taxed differently?

[ElDiabloJoe]

Quite informative to read this thread. Just from the responses from various users, it becomes more and more clear which participants are neighbors (people who actually live in their home) and which are investors.

[margaretmattson]

The highlighted statement is completely wrong.
(i) at least 80 percent of the occupied units are occupied by at least one person who is 55 years of age or older
Unoccupied homes would not be part of the 80/20 count.

It is unclear what "occupied" means in regards to a rental. Does it mean occupied on the day someone knocked on the door to take the count? Does it mean occupied for at least a week? If the count is performed by looking at the age on the Resident IDs that have been issued for a home then it would depend on when the list of IDs was created. This is what I was leading to. Not everything has to be a guessfest. If we believe we are being wronged, just file a civil suit. Worst that can happen judge disagrees completely. If we win great! But judge may also set standards that must be followed. Won't know unless you try!

[margaretmattson]

When the Super Bowl was 20 minutes from our home in Minnesota, we tried to make our house a rental for one week. The city immediately contacted us said “no” you cannot rent your house out without a license or you will be fined. Of course, we took it off. Perhaps these rentals should be taxed differently? A license is required in Florida. A license is also required in lake county. Sales tax has to be collected and you need a tax id for that. Tangible tax returns must be filed. Any renter not doing this will be fined.

[BobGraves]

Just wondering, what is the quantifiable harm/damages residents are experiencing? Without being able to quantify damages it would be almost impossible to get an attorney to take the case.

[jojoturf]

Sumter County needs to follow neighboring Volusia County & set monthly minimum rental terms! 3-months should be the minimum, in my opinion, in the Villages. Volusia had a big problem with weekend home & condo rentals a few years back. Homes on AirBNB were invaded by college kids for weekend stays. That stopped quickly when minimums were established.

[margaretmattson]

Just wondering, what is the quantifiable harm/damages residents are experiencing? Without being able to quantify damages it would be almost impossible to get an attorney to take the case. Civil cases do not require damages. Just proof of being wronged. There is no need for an attorney one just files documents . If you want an attorney involved, most have no fees unless they win. An attorney will seek damages.

[cjrjck]

You call it an Airbnb problem but I assume your concerns are not directed simply to that web site but to the practice of short term renting in TV no matter where a property is listed. For instance, this very web site that hosts this forum has a real estate section that currently has several listings advertising rentals by the week. Maybe you could direct your concerns here first to gauge the reception and success you receive and then direct your efforts accordingly? Heck, if you are not successful in changing this we site's policies, you may want to try a different tactic.

[margaretmattson]

Quite informative to read this thread. Just from the responses from various users, it becomes more and more clear which participants are neighbors (people who actually live in their home) and which are investors. No, no, you can't! followed by no real support. I believe some are investors, as well.

[sallyg]

Once you buy, you are on your own. Don't look to the Villages to enforce any "rules". It's unfortunate since there are numerous instances of clear violations.

[ThirdOfFive]

When the Super Bowl was 20 minutes from our home in Minnesota, we tried to make our house a rental for one week. The city immediately contacted us said “no” you cannot rent your house out without a license or you will be fined. Of course, we took it off. Perhaps these rentals should be taxed differently?
Interesting!

We attend the "Great Minnesota Get-Together" every year (state fair, for you non-norski types). Anyone who has ever gone there and NOT taken public transportation to and from knows that parking is a) expensive, b) impossible, or c) both. Lots of people in neighborhoods adjacent to the fair grounds turn their front yards into parking lots for this event, charging attendees accordingly (more if you're close, less if you want a long hike). I find it hard to believe that these homeowners get a license for a "business" activity that is about two weeks out of any year.

The Super Bowl, of course, is different. Big event. Big spenders. Big businesses reaping the profits of (sometimes) hugely overpriced services. Can't have the little guy infringing on that. After all, what are politicians for? Parking? Hey. No problem. Especially as there are few alternatives to those front-yard parking lots.

The common denominator is money. Who gets it, and who is protecting the source. Homes continue to sell at a brisk pace here and If Airb&bs were negatively impacting that, I can't help but think that this "problem" would never have arisen in the first place.

[LaneyBeckler]

Having short-term rentals available is a great alternative when relatives come to visit. Many of us have smaller homes with limited space, and there aren't that many hotels in the southern part of The Villages. How is the right to rent out one's house to polite visitors infringing on your rights? Sounds like unnecessary griping to me.

[airstreamingypsy]

I think there is way too much emotion put into this. What a shame that so much of someone's life is dedicated to hating something that they see, and then perceiving a larger problem than it actually is. Perhaps some would be better off looking for a community that does not allow rentals, or under 55yo residents, or excessive flower changing. Just my opinion. But this I know, you only have control over yourself and your own actions.

Exactly...... thank you for saying it.

[Dantes]

We are thinking of moving for the same reason
Another reason first let me make my self clear I love children. That said when Middleton opens and the family units just wait until you have teens drag racing on the cart paths they won’t be visiting children they will be full time. If I was 16 I would have have running the trails so move of all of us old people and make room for the new Villagers

[golfing eagles]

Having short-term rentals available is a great alternative when relatives come to visit. Many of us have smaller homes with limited space, and there aren't that many hotels in the southern part of The Villages. How is the right to rent out one's house to polite visitors infringing on your rights? Sounds like unnecessary griping to me.

I don't know what the average STR renter is like since I live nowhere near one. But it seems that the posts by those who live nearby dispute the "polite visitor" narrative. Inconsiderate renters who block parking, litter, have loud parties until 3 AM, disrespect their property and so on does not fit into my concept of "polite visitors".

[margaretmattson]

Having short-term rentals available is a great alternative when relatives come to visit. Many of us have smaller homes with limited space, and there aren't that many hotels in the southern part of The Villages. How is the right to rent out one's house to polite visitors infringing on your rights? Sounds like unnecessary griping to me.
When everyone bought a home in the Villages they agreed to follow the deed restrictions. Shaming a person, asking about their infringement of rights, or calling them hate-mongers is inappropriate. If you do not wish to abide by the deed restrictions, you should not have purchased a home here. If your neighbor paints his house purple and black with an orange garage door how would that infringe on your rights? How would you feel if your entire road was filled with rental property? And, we all sent our guests over to your neighborhood?

[GATORBILL66]

Here we are again, same problem same result. The developer needs to crack down on this.

https://www.**************.com/2023/07/30/villagers-speak-out-about-growing-problem-of-airbnbs/

People can’t be using their homes as a business with high customer volume. At the very least, sales disclosures should mention if this is a going problem in a neighborhood. Why should neighborhoods foot the pain for a greedy landlord’s abuses of The Villages system?

How do we contact the developer to express our concerns! We all need to speak up if we love our city!

[ThirdOfFive]

I don't know what the average STR renter is like since I live nowhere near one. But it seems that the posts by those who live nearby dispute the "polite visitor" narrative. Inconsiderate renters who block parking, litter, have loud parties until 3 AM, disrespect their property and so on does not fit into my concept of "polite visitors".
Probably true enough. But there are a couple of people near us who do that and sometimes more...and THEY'VE been homeowners here for years. Conversely the renters nearby do an admirable job at keeping up their properties and acting considerately toward their neighbors. Recently a house three doors down was purchased by a couple from Wisconsin who will be renting it out (don't know if it is airb&b or not), and they made sure the neighbors knew to call them if things get out of hand.

Lots of "problems" that news sources and discussion groups around here beat to death, really don't seem to be.

[Happydaz]

I don't know what the average STR renter is like since I live nowhere near one. But it seems that the posts by those who live nearby dispute the "polite visitor" narrative. Inconsiderate renters who block parking, litter, have loud parties until 3 AM, disrespect their property and so on does not fit into my concept of "polite visitors".

I think it all comes down to whether you are a homeowner living in your primary residence or a landlord renting out their investment houses. If you are a homeowner you want peace and quiet, if you are a landlord you want the highest return on your investment. Short term rentals can return much more money to a landlord than a monthly rental. For example, since most monthly renters come in the winter, the monthly rents for a Villages home in the off season can be $1500 a month. Compare that to $150 per night for short term stays. I think these short term rentals are very popular with landlord investors due to their higher returns. Why stay in a hotel when you can rent a whole house for five days? I wonder why the motel and hotel companies don’t seem to be concerned about this intrusion into their business model.

[BrianL99]

There is an 80/20 standard. 80% of homes must be occupied by someone over 55. Someone needs to find a way to see if this is truly happening. One entire street in my CYV neighborhood is rented out. If the actual number of homes in TV are not OCCUPIED by someone 55+ or older, we can get the Developer for false advertising. Any unoccupied rental can be counted as not part of the 80% criteria as well as those that are occupied with no one over 55 plus. Can we demand to see the actual number?

If we can get the Developer for false advertising. Rentals would seize. Unless the Developer wants to buy back all 55+ owners homes. Would we be able to break the numbers up by district? Find one district with less than 80% who are 55+ and we got what we need.

The highlighted statement is completely wrong.
(i) at least 80 percent of the occupied units are occupied by at least one person who is 55 years of age or older
Unoccupied homes would not be part of the 80/20 count.

It is unclear what "occupied" means in regards to a rental. Does it mean occupied on the day someone knocked on the door to take the count? Does it mean occupied for at least a week? If the count is performed by looking at the age on the Resident IDs that have been issued for a home then it would depend on when the list of IDs was created.

I suppose I should get used to it on this site, but it still amazes me, how many folks just keep posting "FACTS!" they make up in their head.

Here are the "FACTS!" direct from HUD, on how the "count" works. (I believe there has been some minor interpretation changes made through the years.)

https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/DOC_7769.PDF

[Boomer]

Reality check:

:duck:

There is quite a bit of that old, “I’d love to hold your coat while you go fight,” routine showing up in this thread.

Who wants to spend their retirement fighting a losing battle?

Legislation? HAH! Does anybody actually think enough legislators would look out for the little guy? Of course there are some in legislative positions (at all levels) who are not— and never will be — for sale. But the rest? Many are rented and far too many are owned.

Those who make their full-time home in TV and have been here for years could be beginning to see turnover on their streets as longtime neighbors decide it’s time to go back home or death catches up. Therefore, even the most well established neighborhoods in TV are not immune to the potential for STRs. This could include even the more expensive homes, with all that extra room and pools, too. Could an investor see those homes as all the better to get high rents from big groups of temporary “neighbors”?

And the new neighborhoods? It is the luck of the draw as to whether the new neighborhoods ever get the chance to become real neighborhoods, as brand new homes are bought up by investors who have no intention of settling in and being a part of a community.

TV is one of a kind. That is part of its draw but at the same time, it is a lot like an experiment that has not come to its conclusion yet — and probably will not — any time soon.

Buyers who want to make a home here should add this STR issue to the list of pros and cons that every homebuyer, everywhere, should always make. (But many don’t.)

We bought pre-owned in 2013.

But we did not buy with stars in our eyes.

I have always seen owning in TV as like owning a dividend-paying stock in a corporation…..

The dividend on TV stock has always been “The Lifestyle” — that has been touted as the major selling point since the beginning of TV……..

Like owning any dividend-paying stock, the stockholder must be aware that the dividend can be cut to paying less or cut out all together.

When a stock dividend is cut or looks like it is going to be, the stockholder then decides whether it’s time to hold or sell.

As far as a solution to the issue of STRs goes, I think that ship has sailed. That horse has bolted from the barn.

Those who are upset by this issue can only choose what works for them as individuals. It’s that, “Hold or Fold” thing. Owners might not like either choice, but, to me, it looks like those two choices are realistically it.

But, of course, there will be some who want to go into battle, but there are more who just want others to go into battle so they can sit back and watch.

Save yourself — whatever that means to you and your enjoyment of your personal life in TV or elsewhere. But be clear that the developer just wants to make as much money as possible and the most money to be made is in selling more and more houses. Your wishes do not count. And guess who is holding all the cards.

Boomer

[skippy05]

Key word: enforce. You can not enforce from any practical means. Think through how you might go about it. Every solution cost real money to see it all the way through for every individual finding. Are you offering to finance every pursuit? It would be expensive to try and never ending in bound cases.

[Normal]

I suppose I should get used to it on this site, but it still amazes me, how many folks just keep posting "FACTS!" they make up in their head.

Here are the "FACTS!" direct from HUD, on how the "count" works. (I believe there has been some minor interpretation changes made through the years.)

https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/DOC_7769.PDF

Great info! Obviously The Villages is at least 25% “occupied”, so they must comply. Does anyone know if they have published records of the “surveys” they are mandated to take every 2 years? I don’t think I have filled-out, answered or been called for any survey.

[Littledavyt]

The more homes sold means prices can stay elevated.

Really? I would think FEWER homes sold would elevate prices, as demand would quickly overwhelm supply. What is your rationale for thinking the opposite?

[Karmanng]

a passing thought....

Will investors be able to purchase in middleton (family section), rent the home -- presumably long term -- to a family who can then send their children to the villages charter schools?

wonder if deed restrictions will be placed on those homes...

yes

[asianthree]

We are thinking of moving for the same reason
Another reason first let me make my self clear I love children. That said when Middleton opens and the family units just wait until you have teens drag racing on the cart paths they won’t be visiting children they will be full time. If I was 16 I would have have running the trails so move of all of us old people and make room for the new Villagers
You do realize there have always been family village areas? Middleton isn’t a new concept, it just an addition to the perks for those who work on TV property.

So when you went to the village that are family homes, how many teens were drag racing on the cart paths. Or have you never visited any of the family units.

But my bigger question is how far are you currently from Middleton, and will you ever drive from your current home weekly to watch what you in vision drag racing on the trails.

What we have observed in over 13 years, the older the residents become, the less traveled they are. Played up at OB couple weeks ago, all 3 were in late eighties. They were complaining about the new family area, just like you. I asked when was the last time you were in LSL… 2 have never been there, and one went once said it was way too far.

So I ask again why would someone who rarely leaves their area, worry about an area they may or may not ever visit. We can’t wait for the new HS to open and drive down (too far in a cart) to see the new campus, that almost looks like a small private college with great perks. We are excited for the new students.

[Bill14564]

Right! Last time you called me a know nothing about this issue was that I said lawmakers are trying to ban STRs. You said you were the only one who had "complete understanding" of the issue. Then, how did you not know of the ban in Clearwater, FL. And of the brand new ordinance in Indian Rocks Beach? You called that nonsense! Actually, truth!

Now you are claiming my idea of checking the 80% rule is stupid. I lived in Clearwater for years and they used a similar tactic to ban STRs in residential zones. But, then, again, you know everything!

When you googled Clearwater and Indian Rocks Beach did you notice that:
1. The Clearwater ban was allowed to stand because it existed before 2011. It is possible that Florida Statute 509.032 contains the 2011 exemption in order to allow the Clearwater ban.
2. The new regulations in Indian Rocks Beach, which took effect yesterday, do not ban airBnBs or restrict the duration of rentals.


I may be wrong but I am beginning to believe you are an investor. Anyone who really wanted to ban STR's would at the very least get ALL his facts straight before name-calling. BTW: your housing title doesn't impress me. Just makes me wonder how you could know so little and claim just the opposite. Weren't you the same guy who in another post claimed you worked all your life in car sales? Wow! You must have had many careers! I'm especially impressed by the governor who hired a car salesman to run his housing department.

Getting ALL the facts straight is good advice that you should try following yourself.

[margaretmattson]

When you googled Clearwater and Indian Rocks Beach did you notice that:
1. The Clearwater ban was allowed to stand because it existed before 2011. It is possible that Florida Statute 509.032 contains the 2011 exemption in order to allow the Clearwater ban.
2. The new regulations in Indian Rocks Beach, which took effect yesterday, do not ban airBnBs or restrict the duration of rentals.



Getting ALL the facts straight is good advice that you should try following yourself. It is too hard to post every minute detail on this forum. But, thanks for doing that. One poster called me out and stated there were no bans of any kind in Florida. I was merely responding to that.

Did the Villages not have the 80% rule before the STR's came? I believe it is very similar to Clearwater. Not asking any of you to agree with me. Just stop the unnecessary name-calling! And, not certain I am right, just throwing out an idea. GEEZ!

[Escape Artist]

If anyone seriously wants to stop the AirBNB business I would suggest starting with the site VillagersHome4Rent. Ask them if they require each renter to have a license and if sales tax is collected.

You aren't necessarily looking to shut them down. You are merely gaining evidence that businesses have been conducted in many homes throughout the Villages for many years.

Then I would just make a call to a company like Morgan and Morgan and jexplain the situation. Deed Restriction is not being enforced and hasn't been for many years. Explain the site Villagers4Rent and how many homes are listed for rent. I believe, right now, it is over 1000. Morgan and Morgan will take your information and decide if they wish to handle the case. If they take the case, you are not required to pay anything unless they win.

If they say they are not interested, you still have a case. You go to the County Clerk office and fill out documents for a Civil Case. The courts handle it from there.

While filling out the documents, you may want to get a petition signed to show the court how many people believe they have been wronged. If there are court costs just collect say $1 from each person to cover that expense. Either way, lawyer or not, there will be no fees.

If you find Villagers4 Rent is not in complete compliance with Florida and County Laws report them. Let the state and counties handle fining them or whatever.

Not a lawyer, just my idea. I would do this myself but I am not fully committed. I believe the Villages would be a better community if there were no AirBNB's. But, I also like the idea of being able to rent my home if I ever needed. Also, I question whether or not this will affect home prices. If prices fall, we lose equity. Too big a gamble for me.

I rented several times through VillagesHomes4Rent while looking for a house in TV and was always charged tax per the county the home was in. I think I may have been charged a state tax, too, some kind of rental surcharge. Maybe that was bogus and I got fleeced?

[retiredguy123]

I think the only way for this issue to be resolved is for The Villages to establish a time limit for rentals, such as a minimum of 30 days, and to consistently enforce the rule. Deed restrictions won't do it, especially the deed restrictions that currently exist. The posters who claim that renting a house is a business and that tenants are customers have a very weak argument at best. Many people consider rental property to be an investment, not a business.

When I tried to get a vehicle removed from a visitor parking space in a courtyard villa area, the deed compliance office told me that the vehicle owner was not violating any deed restriction because he did not own a house in the section. Nevermind that he was also not visiting anyone. He was just storing a vehicle on our property and was not even renting a house. They also told me that renters were not subject to the deed restrictions for the house they are renting.

[margaretmattson]

I rented several times through VillagesHomes4Rent while looking for a house in TV and was always charged tax per the county the home was in. I think I may have been charged a state tax, too, some kind of rental surcharge. Maybe that was bogus and I got fleeced? No, they are correct in collecting the sales tax. The question is did they send it to Florida Dept of Revenue. I would guess probably so. Their business would be shut down if they didn't.

[margaretmattson]

I think the only way for this issue to be resolved is for The Villages to establish a time limit for rentals, such as a minimum of 30 days, and to consistently enforce the rule. Deed restrictions won't do it, especially the deed restrictions that currently exist. The posters who claim that renting a house is a business and that tenants are customers have a very weak argument at best. Many people consider rental property to be an investment, not a business.

When I tried to get a vehicle removed from a visitor parking space in a courtyard villa area, the deed compliance office told me that the vehicle owner was not violating any deed restriction because he did not own a house in the section. Nevermind that he was also not visiting anyone. He was just storing a vehicle on our property and was not even renting a house. They also told me that renters were not subject to the deed restrictions for the house they are renting.. This is one hell of a crazy place!

[Vermilion Villager]

I know of a rental in the next neighborhood billed as "a Disney hotel without the Disney prices". The neighbors use it as a destination to let their dogs poop! If they have garbage they dump it it that yard. I'm told now the place is getting bad reviews because it looks so dirty. Sometimes you fight fire with fire......:1rotfl:

[Whitley]

I think the only way for this issue to be resolved is for The Villages to establish a time limit for rentals, such as a minimum of 30 days, and to consistently enforce the rule. Deed restrictions won't do it, especially the deed restrictions that currently exist. The posters who claim that renting a house is a business and that tenants are customers have a very weak argument at best. Many people consider rental property to be an investment, not a business.

When I tried to get a vehicle removed from a visitor parking space in a courtyard villa area, the deed compliance office told me that the vehicle owner was not violating any deed restriction because he did not own a house in the section. Nevermind that he was also not visiting anyone. He was just storing a vehicle on our property and was not even renting a house. They also told me that renters were not subject to the deed restrictions for the house they are renting.

Too late to establish a minimum time/rental length for existing owners. If a vote to change is held, and an existing owner votes no to setting a minimum length, they are not required to follow the change. If they vote yes, or sell the unit, then the minimum stay is in play. Does anyone else disagree with this?

[ron32162]

If a parent works for the villages or in one of the approved businesses within The Village, Yes. Just buying or renting a home here in a family area does no just give access to the Charter schools

[retiredguy123]

Too late to establish a minimum time/rental length for existing owners. If a vote to change is held, and an existing owner votes no to setting a minimum length, they are not required to follow the change. If they vote yes, or sell the unit, then the minimum stay is in play. Does anyone else disagree with this?
I admit that I don't know how the process works for The Villages to establish a new rule. But, are you saying that any Villages homeowner can veto any proposed rule? I don't remember voting to shut down 2 of the 3 movie theaters, or to change the operating hours for the rec centers, or to change the type of roof you can install on your house, or to increase the green fees, or the cost to use the exercise rooms, or to expand the non-smoking areas.

[Vermilion Villager]

Too late to establish a minimum time/rental length for existing owners. If a vote to change is held, and an existing owner votes no to setting a minimum length, they are not required to follow the change. If they vote yes, or sell the unit, then the minimum stay is in play. Does anyone else disagree with this?
I disagree.
What you're implying is that existing owners...who vote NO would be grandfathered in. You are also implying that "the villages" is an HOA. You are not alone in this assumption. Fact is the villages is simply a planned housing development with covenants just like a lot of other neighborhoods in America. It is governed by an elected governing board of a city or county. Here they call them CDD's. Any covenant enforced by a government body should be considered just like any other zoning ordinance. You cannot have a cow on your property in the villages because zoning ordinance to do not allow it. If there is a rental covenant that comes under the jurisdiction of the CDD it is just like any other zoning ordinance. I have not read the actual covenant on rental or commercial property. I assume it exists because people are talking about it. If the commissioners of the CDD will not enforce zoning then they held accountable at the ballot box. The power is in your hands.

[margaretmattson]

I admit that I don't know how the process works for The Villages to establish a new rule. But, are you saying that any Villages homeowner can veto any proposed rule? I don't remember voting to shut down 2 of the 3 movie theaters, or to change the operating hours for the rec centers, or to change the type of roof you can install on your house, or to increase the green fees, or the cost to use the exercise rooms, or to expand the non-smoking areas.. Not exactly. The deed restrictions say one can sue in a court of law. A judge will rule in your favor. Against you. Or arbitrate a new rule(s) if needed.

[Whitley]

I admit that I don't know how the process works for The Villages to establish a new rule. But, are you saying that any Villages homeowner can veto any proposed rule? I don't remember voting to shut down 2 of the 3 movie theaters, or to change the operating hours for the rec centers, or to change the type of roof you can install on your house, or to increase the green fees, or the cost to use the exercise rooms, or to expand the non-smoking areas.

FS718 condos, FS720 HOA's

First, I am not certain that The Villages is a HOA (I kind of think it is not). Homeowners do not get to vote on the budget or reserves each year.

If it were, it would follow a similar statute as is in 718.110(13)The Florida Condominium Act, in Section 718.110(13), Florida Statutes, limits the ability of a condominium association to amend its documents to impose new rental restrictions. The statute states that “an amendment prohibiting unit owners from renting their units or altering the duration of the rental term or specifying or limiting the number of times unit owners are entitled to rent their units during a specified period applies only to unit owners who consent to the amendment and unit owners who acquire title to their units after the effective date of that amendment.”
OR HOA Florida Statutes 720
of the Florida Statutes will also clarify that a rental prohibition or regulation that does not apply to a current title holder (because that owner did not consent to the amendment) also will not apply to a subsequent title holder following certain “ownership changes”.

If someone invests in a home with the intent to rent out the home weekly, and there is nothing in the Declaration, Articles of Incorp., or Bylaws requiring rentals to be at least 30 days, then if at a later time the association enacts a rule concerning rentals, the existing owner is not required to follow it.

[margaretmattson]

I disagree.
What you're implying is that existing owners...who vote NO would be grandfathered in. You are also implying that "the villages" is an HOA. You are not alone in this assumption. Fact is the villages is simply a planned housing development with covenants just like a lot of other neighborhoods in America. It is governed by an elected governing board of a city or county. Here they call them CDD's. Any covenant enforced by a government body should be considered just like any other zoning ordinance. You cannot have a cow on your property in the villages because zoning ordinance to do not allow it. If there is a rental covenant that comes under the jurisdiction of the CDD it is just like any other zoning ordinance. I have not read the actual covenant on rental or commercial property. I assume it exists because people are talking about it. If the commissioners of the CDD will not enforce zoning then they are are are held accountable at the ballot box. The power is in your hands. Exactly! It is about zoning ordinances. Posters have squawked at me for stating the same thing. Our ordinance is a 55+ community. If it falls out of that ordinance because of rentals, the rentals could be banned. This is a similar situation that happened in Clearwater. STRs we're banned because of zoning.

[Boomer]

Too late to establish a minimum time/rental length for existing owners. If a vote to change is held, and an existing owner votes no to setting a minimum length, they are not required to follow the change. If they vote yes, or sell the unit, then the minimum stay is in play. Does anyone else disagree with this?


Whitley, that’s an additional can of worms — opened?

We used to own a home in an HOA neighborhood with lovely views from small lots. Parking was at a premium but usually worked out. People parked in their own driveways and most in their double garages. (There were no rentals allowed though.) But if entertaining guests, street parking was sometimes needed. We all usually managed to work that out, too. And nobody ever parked in a place that would impede traffic. It was a low speed, private street. We all vaguely knew each other and everybody was polite — in that way of the Midwest.

BUT! There will always be at least ONE control freak in every HOA. Sure enough the one we had decided street parking should be totally eliminated…..

I think her thing was actually the fact that a couple of neighbors still had teenagers at home and those kids drove cars that ended up parked on the street. Those cars were not the nicest of cars, just functional, first cars for regular kids……

I always suspected had those cars been Mercedes or Porsches, Gladys Kravitz would not have been concerned.

A couple of years after we moved there, Gladys managed to get her wishes for no street parking brought up by the HOA board.

When it was learned from the HOA minutes that Gladys’ request was under consideration by the board, a new sheriff in town emerged and sent an email notice to all neighbors that to change the HOA rules to eliminate street parking could devalue our. . . er, I mean the property of others.

Gladys was stopped in her tracks before she could gain any momentum for her cause. (The new sheriff was quietly applauded.)

Now, I know my little story might look like apples and oranges because we already had HOA rules to restrict renting and nobody ever actually caused a real problem with parking. But it is analogous to what can happen if rules are not there in the first place.

I think that is pretty much what Whitley said. I just happen to be in a typing mood today. :)

Boomer

[Djean1981]

Nightly rentals involve numerous/ frequent customers at the house and money changes hands. It's nothing but a business.

[BrianL99]

Too late to establish a minimum time/rental length for existing owners. If a vote to change is held, and an existing owner votes no to setting a minimum length, they are not required to follow the change. If they vote yes, or sell the unit, then the minimum stay is in play. Does anyone else disagree with this?

Yes, I disagree.

In some (if not all) cases, the Developer reserved the right to modify the Deed Restrictions and Covenants.

CDD's a Florida phenomena, so I'm far from an expert, but I believe the CCD's can alter/change/revisit the Deed Restrictions.

I know most of the CDD's believe they can, as evidence by the discussion in some Districts of re-visiting the prohibition against "hard landscapes" in some neighborhoods (the "rock" controversy is somewhat different, in that it also has implications to the District's Environmental/Drainage permit).

[kendi]

A passing thought....

Will investors be able to purchase in Middleton (family section), rent the home -- presumably long term -- to a family who can then send their children to The Villages Charter schools?

Wonder if deed restrictions will be placed on those homes...

Anyone can buy in Middleton. But only those who contract with or work in TV can send their kids there. So the answer is only if the family renting works in TV.

[retiredguy123]

Too late to establish a minimum time/rental length for existing owners. If a vote to change is held, and an existing owner votes no to setting a minimum length, they are not required to follow the change. If they vote yes, or sell the unit, then the minimum stay is in play. Does anyone else disagree with this?
Note that the deed restrictions are continually being revised using the district adopted rules method. Some of these deed restrictions were revised as late as June 2023. So, when you buy a house, the deed restrictions are not cast-in-stone. See the website cited below.

VCDD Community Standards (https://www.districtgov.org/departments/Community-Standards/DistrictAdoptedRules.aspx)

[BrianL99]

I disagree.
What you're implying is that existing owners...who vote NO would be grandfathered in. You are also implying that "the villages" is an HOA. You are not alone in this assumption. Fact is the villages is simply a planned housing development with covenants just like a lot of other neighborhoods in America. It is governed by an elected governing board of a city or county. Here they call them CDD's. Any covenant enforced by a government body should be considered just like any other zoning ordinance. You cannot have a cow on your property in the villages because zoning ordinance to do not allow it. If there is a rental covenant that comes under the jurisdiction of the CDD it is just like any other zoning ordinance. I have not read the actual covenant on rental or commercial property. I assume it exists because people are talking about it. If the commissioners of the CDD will not enforce zoning then they held accountable at the ballot box. The power is in your hands.

I disagree with your take on the subject, as I think you're misunderstanding the source of the Deed Restrictions and not aware that "zoning" and "deed restrictions" are two separate and distinct regulatory schemes.

Zoning is LOCAL (city, town or county) Regulations, empowered (or endowed) by the State and limited by the state. The local towns that make up The Villages, previously had the power to ban STR's, but didn't. Now they can't.

CDD's have no Zoning power whatsoever.

Deed Restrictions can be just about anything a Seller wants them to be, provided they're not discriminatory towards a protected class. A CDD isn't involved in Deed Restriction enforcement, unless they're a party (declarant or beneficiary) to the restriction or covenant.

I could be missing something and I haven't read all the various Covenants & Restrictions (most every neighborhood's, vary), but I think the only parties who can enforce restrictions, are the Developer or a beneficiary.

[margaretmattson]

I suppose I should get used to it on this site, but it still amazes me, how many folks just keep posting "FACTS!" they make up in their head.

Here are the "FACTS!" direct from HUD, on how the "count" works. (I believe there has been some minor interpretation changes made through the years.)

https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/DOC_7769.PDF
I read the HUD information. It states that a community is defined by how it is advertised. The developer advertises it as a 55+ community. Don't get your point on posting the information. But, thanks though.

[retiredguy123]

I disagree with your take on the subject, as I think you're misunderstanding the source of the Deed Restrictions and not aware that "zoning" and "deed restrictions" are two separate and distinct regulatory schemes.

Zoning is LOCAL (city, town or county) Regulations, empowered (or endowed) by the State and limited by the state. The local towns that make up The Villages, previously had the power to ban STR's, but didn't. Now they can't.

CDD's have no Zoning power whatsoever.

Deed Restrictions can be just about anything a Seller wants them to be, provided they're not discriminatory towards a protected class. A CDD isn't involved in Deed Restriction enforcement, unless they're a party (declarant or beneficiary) to the restriction or covenant.

I could be missing something and I haven't read all the various Covenants & Restrictions (most every neighborhood's, vary), but I think the only parties who can enforce restrictions, are the Developer or a beneficiary.
If CDDs are not involved in deed restriction enforcement, what is the purpose for this form?

VCDD Incident Tracking (https://districtgov.org/incident.aspx?cat=deed)

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

If CDDs are not involved in deed restriction enforcement, what is the purpose for this form?

VCDD Incident Tracking (https://districtgov.org/incident.aspx?cat=deed)

There are internal deed restrictions and external deed restrictions.

Internal deed restrictions: how many people can reside in the dwelling. What the roof may (or may not) be made of. Whether or not a wall can be knocked out to expand a room, or a non-compliant bedroom can be added by splitting the living room with a wall. Who gets to have guest passes, and who can have a residents' pass. How old the residents must be, or must not be, or have permission to be.

External deed restrictions: whether or not and when you may or may not put up a fence, signs, or lawn ornaments, or paint your house purple, dig up your driveway, expand your front porch toward the street, the length of your grass, the existence of weeds, etc.

Community Standards, through the VCDD, handle external deed restrictions.

The Developer is in charge of internal deed restrictions. The Developer has taken an intentional back seat on enforcement of internal deed restrictions. They simply don't enforce them at all. But they are the only ones authorized to do so.

[margaretmattson]

If CDDs are not involved in deed restriction enforcement, what is the purpose of this form?

VCDD Incident Tracking (https://districtgov.org/incident.aspx?cat=deed) Any homeowner can enforce our deed restrictions by filling out a complaint. Haven't you heard of the trolls in some neighborhoods? If you feel wronged, you can even file a lawsuit.

Beware of people posting lengthy legal jargon on this forum with an attempt to make themselves sound important. This is America! Everyone has a right to fair legal representation. Do your own research and make your own interpretations. File a complaint, if you want. Start a civil lawsuit, if you feel a need. Get an attorney. We all have the same rights to do so. If you feel helpless and leave all decisions/enforcement to the developer, you are a willing victim. And, nothing is going to change.

[margaretmattson]

Just found an interesting tidbit. In Florida, deed restrictions expire in 30 years and are no longer enforceable. Not certain how old they are in the older sections here, or if this helps anyone.

[BrianL99]

I read the HUD information. It states that a community is defined by how it is advertised. The developer advertises it as a 55+ community. Don't get your point on posting the information. But, thanks though.

It was in response to some incomplete and incorrect information someone else posted, about how communities are required to maintain the 80/20 ratio and how those numbers are to be counted.

& considering that all 55+ communities are regulated under the Housing for Older Person Act of 1995, I figured the actual Regulations as administered by HUD, might be more relevant than some of the nonsense I've seen posted here.

[margaretmattson]

Does anyone know where I can find the current count of homes owned in the villages. (Not including those under construction.) And how many of the homes are occupied by someone over 55+? I have been advised the current counts must be made available to anyone who asks. By current, I mean the actual count made within the past 30 days.

Do any of you have vacant homes in your neighborhood? No personal property like furniture inside of it and are not currently listed for sale? (Most likely these would be an empty investor home.)

[mntlblok]

Exactly. This is not a Developer problem on its face. It is a Community Standards problem once the neighborhood transfers over to T V. (However, grey area because deed restrictions are written using "developer" in the language. So as with most legal battles include everyone until they are eliminated. I digress).

Villas have different Deed Restrictions than the homes relative to businesses being run out of single family residences.

Damages... it all comes down to how a homeowner or homeowners are being damaged by Developer/Community Standards NOT enforcing deed restrictions.

Reporting, how many neighbors are reporting the abnb's being run out of homes? Ie: villas - short term rentals (6 months or less) without a business license as required by Florida law.

A business license means a business is being run out of a villa which by DEED businesses are NOT allowed in Villas.

Simple google of "villa deeds restrictions the villages fl" click on county then villa neighborhood.

VCDD Deed Compliance - Sumter County (https://districtgov.org/departments/community-standards/deedrestrict-SumterCounty.aspx)

Ie Rhett Villas: USE RESTRICTION Section 2: "No business of ANY KIND shall be conducted on any residence..."
Section 3 states no "noxious" (harmful or unpleasant) activities shall be carried on or in the homes - full circle to damages.

Silently the abuses continue.

Curious about the use of "le" here. Google has not been my friend. :-)

[nn0wheremann]

Here we are again, same problem same result. The developer needs to crack down on this.

https://www.**************.com/2023/07/30/villagers-speak-out-about-growing-problem-of-airbnbs/

People can’t be using their homes as a business with high customer volume. At the very least, sales disclosures should mention if this is a going problem in a neighborhood. Why should neighborhoods foot the pain for a greedy landlord’s abuses of The Villages system?
County tax records will give you the owner/landlord’s identifying information. You and your neighbors can file lawsuits. If the short term rental business brings on too much legal expenses the landlord will get out of that business.

[oldtimes]

It was in response to some incomplete and incorrect information someone else posted, about how communities are required to maintain the 80/20 ratio and how those numbers are to be counted.

& considering that all 55+ communities are regulated under the Housing for Older Person Act of 1995, I figured the actual Regulations as administered by HUD, might be more relevant than some of the nonsense I've seen posted here.

I contacted HUD and was told the the developer had not received any money or tax breaks from them so it was not their issue.

[Bill14564]

Curious about the use of "le" here. Google has not been my friend. :-)

I believe he meant to use e.g.

His position seems to be that the deed restrictions for Villas state "No business of any kind." He provides a link to all the deed restrictions for the Sumter County portion of the Villages to allow you to see for yourself.

[Papa_lecki]

What about the people who actually operate a business out of their villages home -
i.e. keep inventory or do the accounting/bookkeeping, or have customers come?

The golf cart screen guy; the embroidery people at the market days, the people who put the signs on the lamp posts, home watch, cleaning people, landscapers, handy man???

Even running a Villages Club out of your home is illegal then - it’s not for profit, but it’s a business transaction. When someone runs by your house to drop off a check for a club activity, that’s a customer.

(I dont care about these, but if we are going to follow the letter of the covenants, let’s go all in).

[BrianL99]

I contacted HUD and was told the the developer had not received any money or tax breaks from them so it was not their issue.

That's sort of true.

IF the developer got any sort of HUD financing (which he didn't), there would be on-going auditing, that he was in compliance with the program under which he received financing or assistance.

In the case of Senior Housing in general, it's another can of worms.

Prior to 1988, it ws illegal to discriminate by age. In other words, as a result of the Fair Housing Act of 1968, "Senior Housing" was illegal. Under an amendment to the act in 1988, "Senior Housing" became legalized discrimination. In order to take advantage of the new ability to discriminate, the developer had to include "facilities & services" specifically to meet the physical and social needs of all residents. This is why TV model was based on providing amenities. It wasn't an accident, it was required by law.

Then came 1995 and the Housing for Older Persons Act. This act eliminated the requirement to include amenities and service. IF you meet the requirements of the act, primarily the 80/20 standard, you were allowed to discriminate (prohibit anyone from buying if they were under 55). If I remember correctly, there was also a requirement that the development had a land area in excess of 5 Acres.

So ....

While the regulations that allow the discrimination are under HUD jurisdiction, I don't think HUD has a mechanism to enforce, other than perhaps a law suit that TV (or any other such development) is illegally discriminating against people under 55.

Obviously it's a complicated issue, but many people forget the genesis of the laws. It is generally illegal in the USA, to discriminate because of one's age. The Senior housing laws were about given an exception to the anti-discrimination concept, in favor of Seniors (a huge voting block).

Florida also has a Senior Housing regulations, but I suspect they're of a similar nature and I doubt there's any real mechanism to enforce them. (I've never developed Sr. Housing in FL, so I've never dealt with their specific regs.)

As an overview, consider that TV advertises and presents itself as a 55+ community and as a result, the majority of buyers are over 55. From the outside looking in, it appears that TV is making a good faith effort to maintain 80/20 standard.

Sorry for the long winded explanation, but it's a complicated subject and many don't understand how it all happened.

[rogerk]

I have looked into this exhaustively and there is pretty much nothing we can do as long as the developer chooses to ignore it. Until something horrible happens that negatively affects sales it will continue. At some point if it becomes uncomfortable enough we will probably move into a community that does enforce the restrictions.
This is not a developer issue. If it is a problem in your neighborhood then you should contact your CDD board or a CDD Supervisor!

[oldtimes]

This is not a developer issue. If it is a problem in your neighborhood then you should contact your CDD board or a CDD Supervisor!

I have. I contacted community standards, the CDD board, HUD all of our representatives. No one would help. They all said it was the developer's issue.

[Bill14564]

This is not a developer issue. If it is a problem in your neighborhood then you should contact your CDD board or a CDD Supervisor!

I have. I contacted community standards, the CDD board, HUD all of our representatives. No one would help. They all said it was the developer's issue.

See the ENFORCEMENT section of your deed restrictions (mine is section 5). This section in my restrictions clearly puts the responsibility on "All Owners" to "prosecute in proceedings at law" to enforce the restrictions. The Developer also has "the right but not the duty to enforce" the restrictions.

Deed restrictions vary from unit to unit so yours might be different.

[margaretmattson]

I have. I contacted community standards, the CDD board, HUD all of our representatives. No one would help. They all said it was the developer's issue. I am seeking legal advice on this issue,. Do any of you know where I can find the current number of homes owned in the villages and the current number of those occupied by someone 55+? By current, I mean within the last 30 days? Need this information to continue.

[margaretmattson]

That's sort of true.

IF the developer got any sort of HUD financing (which he didn't), there would be on-going auditing, that he was in compliance with the program under which he received financing or assistance.

In the case of Senior Housing in general, it's another can of worms.

Prior to 1988, it ws illegal to discriminate by age. In other words, as a result of the Fair Housing Act of 1968, "Senior Housing" was illegal. Under an amendment to the act in 1988, "Senior Housing" became legalized discrimination. In order to take advantage of the new ability to discriminate, the developer had to include "facilities & services" specifically to meet the physical and social needs of all residents. This is why TV model was based on providing amenities. It wasn't an accident, it was required by law.

Then came 1995 and the Housing for Older Persons Act. This act eliminated the requirement to include amenities and service. IF you meet the requirements of the act, primarily the 80/20 standard, you were allowed to discriminate (prohibit anyone from buying if they were under 55). If I remember correctly, there was also a requirement that the development had a land area in excess of 5 Acres.

So ....

While the regulations that allow the discrimination are under HUD jurisdiction, I don't think HUD has a mechanism to enforce, other than perhaps a law suit that TV (or any other such development) is illegally discriminating against people under 55.

Obviously it's a complicated issue, but many people forget the genesis of the laws. It is generally illegal in the USA, to discriminate because of one's age. The Senior housing laws were about given an exception to the anti-discrimination concept, in favor of Seniors (a huge voting block).

Florida also has a Senior Housing regulations, but I suspect they're of a similar nature and I doubt there's any real mechanism to enforce them. (I've never developed Sr. Housing in FL, so I've never dealt with their specific regs.)

As an overview, consider that TV advertises and presents itself as a 55+ community and as a result, the majority of buyers are over 55. From the outside looking in, it appears that TV is making a good faith effort to maintain 80/20 standard.

Sorry for the long winded explanation, but it's a complicated subject and many don't understand how it all happened. ??????? Nothing here makes sense. The topics you discuss are not related to each other. They are each separate issues. So, why tie them together? But, thanks for the copied/pasted history lesson!

[oldtimes]

I am seeking legal advice on this issue,. Do any of you know where I can find the current number of homes owned in the villages and the current number of those occupied by someone 55+? By current, I mean within the last 30 days? Need this information to continue.

I certainly wish you luck as I think the law favors the developer. To me the biggest issue here as that people (like myself) move here thinking they are moving into an "over 55 retirement community" when in actuality it is open to anyone who has the money.

[Bill14564]

??????? Nothing here makes sense. The topics you discuss are not related to each other. They are each separate issues. So, why tie them together? But, thanks for the copied/pasted history lesson!

What part of that do you believe was copied/pasted? It looks like original writing to me.

All of it makes sense. The purpose of HOPA is not to provide a guarantee that your neighbor is over 55. The purpose of HOPA is to provide an exemption from age discrimination laws for 55+ communities (i.e. the Villages can discriminate against families with children under 19). The 55+ community has to do certain things to qualify for that exemption and the 80/20 rule is one of those things.

[margaretmattson]

I certainly wish you luck as I think the law favors the developer. To me the biggest issue here as that people (like myself) move here thinking they are moving into an "over 55 retirement community" when in actuality it is open to anyone who has the money.. This is exactly the issue I am working on. Florida law stipulates 4 criteria a 55+ community is required to follow. One covers what you have stated.

[margaretmattson]

What part of that do you believe was copied/pasted? It looks like original writing to me.

All of it makes sense. The purpose of HOPA is not to provide a guarantee that your neighbor is over 55. The purpose of HOPA is to provide an exemption from age discrimination laws for 55+ communities (i.e. the Villages can discriminate against families with children under 19). The 55+ community has to do certain things to qualify for that exemption and the 80/20 rule is one of those things.
Discrimination is one issue. 80/20 rule is a seperate issue. Let's just agree to disagree.

[retiredguy123]

Discrimination is one issue. 80/20 rule is a seperate issue. Let's just agree to disagree.
It's not a separate issue. If you don't qualify as an over-55 community, it is a violation of Federal law to discriminate against families with children in housing. But, if you meet the requirements for an over-55 community by complying with the 80/20 rule (and other rules), you are exempt from the discrimination law.

[margaretmattson]

It's not a separate issue. If you don't qualify as an over-55 community, it is a violation of Federal law to discriminate against families with children in housing. But, if you meet the requirements for an over-55 community by complying with the 80/20 rule (and other rules), you are exempt from the discrimination law. I called a real estate attorney who is willing to work on this provided I supply him with needed information. Florida law states there are 4 criteria a 55+ community must adhere to. Why keep arguing/griping instead of finding/seeking solutions? Opinions are a dime a dozen.

[Bill14564]

I called a real estate attorney who is willing to work on this provided I supply him with needed information. Florida law states there are 4 criteria a 55+ community must adhere to. Why keep arguing/griping instead of finding/seeking solutions? Opinions by are a dime a dozen.

Because it is not an opinion, it is a fact. The HUD FAQ says as much as well as the documentation directly from the HUD rulemaking. Google will provide multiple links explaining that the 80/20 rule is part of qualifying for the discrimination exemption.

HUD has only three requirements for 55+ communities. Can you provide a link to the Florida law that adds a fourth?

If the attorney is working for free, great. But please get advice from someone you trust before spending money.

[margaretmattson]

Because it is not an opinion, it is a fact. The HUD FAQ says as much as well as the documentation directly from the HUD rulemaking. Google will provide multiple links explaining that the 80/20 rule is part of qualifying for the discrimination exemption.

HUD has only three requirements for 55+ communities. Can you provide a link to the Florida law that adds a fourth?

If the attorney is working for free, great. But please get advice from someone you trust before spending money. Thanks again for your opinion. I'd rather get it from a professional who knows and not from onliners who keep spouting information they look up and then agonily analyze it in detail like they are an expert.

[Bill14564]

Thanks again for your opinion. I'd rather get it from a professional who knows and not from onliners who keep spouting information they look up and then agonily analyze it in detail like they are an expert.

It's your money.

[margaretmattson]

It's your money. Exactly! I got it covered so don't you worry about that!

[Sorrento19]

We are all investors with the ability to rent our properties. Just read the deed restrictions. How are you and your property personally being affected? If so hire an attorney and try to sue ( with actual evidence) the property owner.
Otherwise you are wasting your time.

[margaretmattson]

We are all investors with the ability to rent our properties. Just read the deed restrictions. How are you and your property personally being affected? If so hire an attorney and try to sue ( with actual evidence) the property owner.
Otherwise, you are wasting your time. How would you like it if an entire road in your neighborhood (the road you live on) was all rentals? Every day you could enjoy the renters coming and going. Sound like fun?

You don't sue each investor, that would be preposterous. And, no, the deed restrictions do not give you an open option to rent your home. That is only wishful thinking on your part.
Post the lines in the deed restrictions for all to see, if you disagree.

It is never a waste of time to seek legal advice. It is a waste of time to gripe and do nothing about it.

[oldtimes]

We are all investors with the ability to rent our properties. Just read the deed restrictions. How are you and your property personally being affected? If so hire an attorney and try to sue ( with actual evidence) the property owner.
Otherwise you are wasting your time.

Then The Villages should not be advertised as an age restricted over 55 retirement community because the developer is not making a good faith effort to provide housing for elderly persons. They are throwing up houses as quickly as possible and selling them to anyone who has the money. The deed restrictions are just a joke, why have them at all?

[Bill14564]

Then The Villages should not be advertised as an age restricted over 55 retirement community because the developer is not making a good faith effort to provide housing for elderly persons. They are throwing up houses as quickly as possible and selling them to anyone who has the money. The deed restrictions are just a joke, why have them at all?

What evidence do you have that the age restrictions are not being followed? I am aware of zero homes that do not have an occupant over 55. Do you have demographic information for the recent buyers that you can share with us or are you just making it up as you go?

[Bill14564]

///

[margaretmattson]

Then The Villages should not be advertised as an age restricted over 55 retirement community because the developer is not making a good faith effort to provide housing for elderly persons. They are throwing up houses as quickly as possible and selling them to anyone who has the money. The deed restrictions are just a joke, why have them at all? Exactly! These are the issues I consulted a real estate attorney about. Good to see someone who sees and understands the issue instead of trying to mask it.

[margaretmattson]

elude??

If I were your attorney you would not be posting on here.

What did I write that led you to believe I was? Or, that led you to believe I was referring to you at all? You are something else! You asked I provide you the information I am collecting. I don't have to provide you ANYTHING! You are not my attorney.

[oldtimes]

What evidence do you have that the age restrictions are not being followed? I am aware of zero homes that do not have an occupant over 55. Do you have demographic information for the recent buyers that you can share with us or are you just making it up as you go?

I’m calling it as I see it. I think potential buyers should be aware that their neighbors could in fact be teenagers just renting for the night and not fellow retirees as they would expect.

[margaretmattson]

I’m calling it as I see it. I think potential buyers should be aware that their neighbors could in fact be teenagers just renting for the night and not fellow retirees as they would expect. Thank you for seeing the issue. I am in the preliminary phase of working with a real estate attorney who is willing to review these points. Some people on this thread will keep telling you there is nothing that can be done. Some, most likely are investors who want to twist and turn the facts so you believe there is nothing any one can do. Others want to shame you into doing nothing.

Trust your own gut instinct! If it smells fishy, it probably is!

[BrianL99]

What part of that do you believe was copied/pasted? It looks like original writing to me.

All of it makes sense. The purpose of HOPA is not to provide a guarantee that your neighbor is over 55. The purpose of HOPA is to provide an exemption from age discrimination laws for 55+ communities (i.e. the Villages can discriminate against families with children under 19). The 55+ community has to do certain things to qualify for that exemption and the 80/20 rule is one of those things.

Thank you, Bill. I'll pay her $100,000 if she can find the "source" that was copied & pasted from.

I wrote it. I understand the subject and have been involved in Senior Housing and Subsidized housing, on & off for 40 years. I was also an Advisor to Gov. Weld in MA, for Subsidized & Senior Housing, in his 1st Administration.

[mntlblok]

I believe he meant to use e.g.



Dang. Thought I was gonna learn something. . .

[mntlblok]

That's sort of true.

IF the developer got any sort of HUD financing (which he didn't), there would be on-going auditing, that he was in compliance with the program under which he received financing or assistance.

In the case of Senior Housing in general, it's another can of worms.

Prior to 1988, it ws illegal to discriminate by age. In other words, as a result of the Fair Housing Act of 1968, "Senior Housing" was illegal. Under an amendment to the act in 1988, "Senior Housing" became legalized discrimination. In order to take advantage of the new ability to discriminate, the developer had to include "facilities & services" specifically to meet the physical and social needs of all residents. This is why TV model was based on providing amenities. It wasn't an accident, it was required by law.

Then came 1995 and the Housing for Older Persons Act. This act eliminated the requirement to include amenities and service. IF you meet the requirements of the act, primarily the 80/20 standard, you were allowed to discriminate (prohibit anyone from buying if they were under 55). If I remember correctly, there was also a requirement that the development had a land area in excess of 5 Acres.

So ....

While the regulations that allow the discrimination are under HUD jurisdiction, I don't think HUD has a mechanism to enforce, other than perhaps a law suit that TV (or any other such development) is illegally discriminating against people under 55.

Obviously it's a complicated issue, but many people forget the genesis of the laws. It is generally illegal in the USA, to discriminate because of one's age. The Senior housing laws were about given an exception to the anti-discrimination concept, in favor of Seniors (a huge voting block).

Florida also has a Senior Housing regulations, but I suspect they're of a similar nature and I doubt there's any real mechanism to enforce them. (I've never developed Sr. Housing in FL, so I've never dealt with their specific regs.)

As an overview, consider that TV advertises and presents itself as a 55+ community and as a result, the majority of buyers are over 55. From the outside looking in, it appears that TV is making a good faith effort to maintain 80/20 standard.

Sorry for the long winded explanation, but it's a complicated subject and many don't understand how it all happened.

Fascinating! Those silly under 55's let us roll up $30 trillion of debt on their backs, too. :-)

[BrianL99]

Fascinating! Those silly under 55's let us roll up $30 trillion of debt on their backs, too. :-)

Better theirs than ours.

Although I'd prefer an alternative.

& it's edging $33,000,000,000,0000

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time (https://www.usdebtclock.org/)

[margaretmattson]

That's sort of true.

As an overview, consider that TV advertises and presents itself as a 55+ community and as a result, the majority of buyers are over 55. From the outside looking in, it appears that TV is making a good faith effort to maintain 80/20 standard.
. The Developer's good faith effort to keep the Villages a 55+ community is questionable at this time. It's best to hire an outside source to review what is happening in the here and now. There is no sense posting information that happened years and years ago. The OP is about STR's. A history lesson about the origins of a 55+ community is interesting, but not helpful. We are looking for solutions and real up-to-date information.

[Escape Artist]

Then The Villages should not be advertised as an age restricted over 55 retirement community because the developer is not making a good faith effort to provide housing for elderly persons. They are throwing up houses as quickly as possible and selling them to anyone who has the money. The deed restrictions are just a joke, why have them at all?

Yes! Thank you! I’ve been saying this exact thing in the different threads related to this topic. I was shocked when I found out a person I know purchased a home in TV even though he’s in his early 40’s. It’s a investment, perhaps a place to live someday and a way to make money in the meantime. If a few people do this, no biggie, but it’s become an epidemic in TV and that’s the problem. TV turns a blind eye to actions that are strictly profit-driven and does not adhere to its own tenets and by-laws.

[Escape Artist]

Fascinating! Those silly under 55's let us roll up $30 trillion of debt on their backs, too. :-)
Post -1995, you still could not buy a home in an age restricted senior community using a VA loan or any other government backed loan because the restriction was viewed as age discrimination. It happened to my father who bought a home in Del Webb/Sun City.

[margaretmattson]

MYes! Thank you! I’ve been saying this exact thing in the different threads related to this topic. I was shocked when I found out a person I know purchased a home in TV even though he’s in his early 40’s. It’s a investment, perhaps a place to live someday and a way to make money in the meantime. If a few people do this, no biggie, but it’s become an epidemic in TV and that’s the problem. TV turns a blind eye to actions that are strictly profit-driven and does not adhere to its own tenets and by-laws. Good to see another Villager with eyes wide open. I found a real estate attorney who questions your/ours issues and is willing to work with me provided I gather the requested information. Just in a preliminary phase right now.
Florida law states there are criterias that must be maintained at ALL TIMES to be considered a 55+ community. Not certain AT ALL TIMES is being met here.

[Pairadocs]

I have looked into this exhaustively and there is pretty much nothing we can do as long as the developer chooses to ignore it. Until something horrible happens that negatively affects sales it will continue. At some point if it becomes uncomfortable enough we will probably move into a community that does enforce the restrictions.

Not saying we are moving, but has never been a consideration until the last 12-18 mos. Always had a couple "snow bird" neighbors, looked forward to their arrival, and always kept in touch over the summer months in case any of them needed one of us in the neighborhood to do something or check something for them. But THIS, this in and out in and out, with 4, 5, and even SIX cars and 3 golf carts AND a garage that when opened is backed to the door edge. Most in neighborhood are beginning to think there is a business being run out of the 2 car garage, and the AB&B is a separate business in the home. Drives blocked constantly, trucks coming and going bringing things, furniture, golf carts, etc. all the time. Have been corresponding with relatives who retired in another state, also a golf course community. When the AB&B craze began, they had no idea how it was going to deteriorate their "senior" community, which is now a party community, and their property values have plummeted, and I do mean the bottom fell out. They are devastated, and stuck ! Made us do some serious thinking. Weill everything from the "historic" side to Brownwood gradually become more short term rentals with no restrictions ? Will this fuel sales in the newest areas ? Has us thinking enough that we have gone on two weekend trips now to look at options before things get worse. In this "designer" neighborhood, not long ago advertised as "very desirable location between SS and LSL, a home sold within 14 days ! Now there are 3 lovely large designers that have been on the market since early spring, and 2 more people are leaving permanently before fall. Very unsettling. While some people do not mind the nightly rental thing, as they state on here often, we've found many more DO object but don't know what to do except move ? It's a shame. MANY communities have been hit with this, it's a shame we can't pass some of the restrictions other communities have found work !

[Pairadocs]

Not necessarily so. I found a Florida law that requires all vacation rentals which are rented out more than three times a year must have a Florida license.

Also, I found information that a bill was voted on in the Florida Government in 2021 regarding HOA ability to ban vacation rentals. The bill was passed by a large margin. I just can't seem to find more information..

Anyone who is truly bothered by this please read Florida laws on Air BNBs and vacation rentals. I think together, we may find something. The developer, at the very least, would have to follow Florida Law.

Just asking... could that be the reason the Villages is very proud to advertise: NO HOA fees ? Since there is no HOA, could that exempt them from the Florida laws ? If so, that would explain why we know people in other communities where this whole short term thing was stopped in it's tracks when it started to be disruptive to the "intended sense of community" the development was built to create. If you read the Orlando paper and other papers, you've probably seen the effective actions various HOA's have taken to stop nightly and other short term rentals, stop the devaluation of their property, etc. Made me wonder, perhaps it's the lack of an HOA that allows this and keeps the developers "safe" ? Perhaps the legal eagles out there know ?

[Pairadocs]

omissionThen The Villages should not be advertised as an age restricted over 55 retirement community because the developer is not making a good faith effort to provide housing for elderly persons. They are throwing up houses as quickly as possible and selling them to anyone who has the money. The deed restrictions are just a joke, why have them at all?

Why have them at all ? No way to know for sure, but, perhaps it's just another piece in the jig-saw puzzle of "gates and gate attendants", passes to enter the "gates" at $50 each (don't know the present cost, but when we built, at closing you were required to purchase TWO passes, regardless of only having one auto, regardless if only one person, etc. No exceptions, no pointing out that a card was not needed to enter public roads ! ? Also part of the puzzle, country clubs where the advertising says, everyone is a member, when actually they are public restaurants where anyone can dine, and where anyone can golf as long as they pay. Not saying any of this is "bad", but many MANY people just seem to have the illusion that this is a very private, every exclusive, enclave ! ? It does not take long to find another posting from a frustrated resident who does not understand why the development is "over run" with "outsiders" (seemingly those who do not live IN one of he villages) are doing here at the squares, in the country clubs, etc. ! ?

I don't remember what well know entrepreneur said: You SELL the SIZZLE, not the steak".

[margaretmattson]

omission

Why have them at all ? No way to know for sure, but, perhaps it's just another piece in the jig-saw puzzle of "gates and gate attendants", passes to enter the "gates" at $50 each (don't know the present cost, but when we built, at closing you were required to purchase TWO passes, regardless of only having one auto, regardless if only one person, etc. No exceptions, no pointing out that a card was not needed to enter public roads ! ? Also part of the puzzle, is country clubs where the advertising says, everyone is a member, when actually they are public restaurants where anyone can dine, and where anyone can golf as long as they pay. Not saying any of this is "bad", but many MANY people just seem to have the illusion that this is a very private, exclusive, enclave !? It does not take long to find another posting from a frustrated resident who does not understand why the development is "overrun" with "outsiders" (seemingly those who do not live IN one of the villages) are doing here at the squares, in the country clubs, etc. !?

I don't remember what well know entrepreneur said: You SELL the SIZZLE, not the steak". Don't forget the lack of medical services, overcrowded, and traffic issues. Ugh! Years ago, this place was a beautiful and quiet place to retire. Now it is a haven for wannabes who can't wait until they have reached the age of 55. Eastport is going to bring the under-age in by droves.

[Pairadocs]

That is absolute nonsense. The truth is exactly the opposite, as it is in most of the USA.

Most every "vacation area" in the USA is facing the same problem and time and time again, the Courts have ruled in favor of STR's (they are NOT "AirBnbs", they are Short Term Rentals).

They're a financial boondoggle for government. STR's raise property values and generate revenue ... which is why state governments all over the USA are supporting them ... just like Florida has.

Why do you think the State of Florida passed a law that PREVENTED local governments from banning STR's?

Trying to establish credibility by blatant and vociferous assertion, is part of what makes the Internet the wasteland it is. People without a clue, with little or no experience in a subject, can't wait to assert their uneducated and naive opinion and present it as fact.

So,just asking for the TRUTH so I am not naive as to why the sates of Florida, and all others desire more short term rental property in (once ?) stable neighborhoods and community developments ? Every time a property in the Villages is rented, for a night, or a weekend, does the STATE collect a tax from the land lord ? What about the county ? Do land lords here have to pay a tax to the county on each night's transaction, much like a motel, which actually, they are ! ? If the State and the county are making money on every night's rental, plus the land lord pays property taxes of course, so that would explain things a bit more !

[margaretmattson]

So,just asking for the TRUTH so I am not naive as to why the sates of Florida, and all others desire more short term rental property in (once ?) stable neighborhoods and community developments ? Every time a property in the Villages is rented, for a night, or a weekend, does the STATE collect a tax from the land lord ? What about the county ? Do land lords here have to pay a tax to the county on each night's transaction, much like a motel, which actually, they are ! ? If the State and the county are making money on every night's rental, plus the land lord pays property taxes of course, so that would explain things a bit more !
The state of Florida did not start STR's in residential homes. The owners of the homes did! No reason for Florida to WANT strs to continue. The state courts vote in their favor because we live in a free-enterprise country.

Some lawmakers do not want them to continue. They have stated policing them is costly. Sanitation is a problem. Safety and human trafficking is a concern. Owners do not obtain proper licenses, and more. All in all, they believe Strs cost the state money.

It is an issue that will be addressed many times by lawmakers. If STR's cannot be eliminated, new laws can be made to address the problems they create. Proposing additional taxes on STRs is also on the table. STR owners should pay for the cost these "residential motels" are bringing to the state.

If you are truly concerned, please contact our state representatives. Be proactive and try to find solutions.

[Papa_lecki]

The developer isn’t the way to solve STR.
The local government is. Look at Coronado California. They banned STR and they monitor it very closely, and levy large fines - and there are no STR on the island.
The city of Wildwood or Leesburg could ban STR.

[BrianL99]

So,just asking for the TRUTH so I am not naive as to why the sates of Florida, and all others desire more short term rental property in (once ?) stable neighborhoods and community developments ? Every time a property in the Villages is rented, for a night, or a weekend, does the STATE collect a tax from the land lord ? What about the county ? Do land lords here have to pay a tax to the county on each night's transaction, much like a motel, which actually, they are ! ? If the State and the county are making money on every night's rental, plus the land lord pays property taxes of course, so that would explain things a bit more !

Yes. Yes. Yes.

STR's are taxed similar to hotel rooms. They pay Sales Tax and Local Option Transient Rental Taxes.

https://floridarevenue.com/Forms_library/current/gt800034.pdf

One of the more obvious reasons STR's are supported by most state governments, is their overall effect on the economy. Statistics say that vacationers spend more money locally, than residents do. Which means STR's bring in more money to local businesses, which in turn provides jobs and increases tax revenue.

[Bill14564]

The developer isn’t the way to solve STR.
The local government is. Look at Coronado California. They banned STR and they monitor it very closely, and levy large fines - and there are no STR on the island.
The city of Wildwood or Leesburg could ban STR.

They lost that opportunity 12 years ago

Florida Statute 509.032(7)(b)
 A local law, ordinance, or regulation may not prohibit vacation rentals or regulate the duration or frequency of rental of vacation rentals. This paragraph does not apply to any local law, ordinance, or regulation adopted on or before June 1, 2011.

[Normal]

Don't forget the lack of medical services, overcrowded, and traffic issues. Ugh! Years ago, this place was a beautiful and quiet place to retire. Now it is a haven for wannabes who can't wait until they have reached the age of 55. Eastport is going to bring the under-age in by droves.

Not Eastport, Eastport is slated as over 55.

[Normal]

They lost that opportunity 12 years ago

Florida Statute 509.032(7)(b)
 A local law, ordinance, or regulation may not prohibit vacation rentals or regulate the duration or frequency of rental of vacation rentals. This paragraph does not apply to any local law, ordinance, or regulation adopted on or before June 1, 2011.



Orlando follows the law, BUT in 2022 really hamstrung the STR industry and the problems it presented.

It is perfectly legal to : Among the strictest in the state, the city of Orlando – home to Walt Disney World and numerous other attractions – only allows hosted STRs, meaning those in which the host resides on-site, and hosts can only rent out half of the bedrooms in the home. All properties are subject to inspection before approval.

[Bill14564]

Orlando follows the law, BUT in 2022 really hamstrung the STR industry and the problems it presented.

It is perfectly legal to : Among the strictest in the state, the city of Orlando – home to Walt Disney World and numerous other attractions – only allows hosted STRs, meaning those in which the host resides on-site, and hosts can only rent out half of the bedrooms in the home. All properties are subject to inspection before approval.

Interesting. Thanks for finding this. I wonder if it has been challenged in court yet.

[BrianL99]

They lost that opportunity 12 years ago

Florida Statute 509.032(7)(b)
 A local law, ordinance, or regulation may not prohibit vacation rentals or regulate the duration or frequency of rental of vacation rentals. This paragraph does not apply to any local law, ordinance, or regulation adopted on or before June 1, 2011.

Here's the problem that's raising its ugly head, all over the USA.

As you pointed out, Florida communities can not adopt a regulation, banning STR's. They can however, ban STR's if their existing regulations prohibited them. Herein lies the quagmire. "STR's" were seldom defined in Zoning Regulations, 20+ years ago.

The question that arises, are STR's a "Residential" use (allowed in a Residential Zoning District)?

Are they a "Business" use, only allowed in a Business Zoning District?

Or ... do they fall under a specific definition in a Zoning scheme, that makes them hotels or motels?

The answer to the questions, are being litigated in courts throughout the USA. It's not a simple question. It comes down to how a community wrote their Zoning regulations and how they defined all the particular terms. Not to get too far into the weeds, but it also depends on whether the wording of their Zoning regulations allows alternative uses, previously not contemplated when the regulations were written.

[Normal]

Here's the problem that's raising its ugly head, all over the USA.

As you pointed out, Florida communities can not adopt a regulation, banning STR's. They can however, ban STR's if their existing regulations prohibited them. Herein lies the quagmire. "STR's" were seldom defined in Zoning Regulations, 20+ years ago.

The question that arises, are STR's a "Residential" use (allowed in a Residential Zoning District)?

Are they a "Business" use, only allowed in a Business Zoning District?

Or ... do they fall under a specific definition in a Zoning scheme, that makes them hotels or motels?

The answer to the questions, are being litigated in courts throughout the USA. It's not a simple question. It comes down to how a community wrote their Zoning regulations and how they defined all the particular terms. Not to get too far into the weeds, but it also depends on whether the wording of their Zoning regulations allows alternative uses, previously not contemplated when the regulations were written.

Communities can enforce state law. Orlando was all-in for recreational dollars at some point and STRs assisted with their tax dollars. Now Orlando has other interests and STRs are not wanted.

So why not make landlords babysit their renters? They can rent all they want, but responsibility isn’t disengaged. If a renter wants to live large, they need to go elsewhere and rent a hotel room. The state law is fully followed in Orlando. Landlords can STR till their hearts are content, but they live with what they chose.

It’s utterly brilliant.

[BrianL99]

Communities can enforce state law. Orlando was all-in for recreational dollars at some point and STRs assisted with their tax dollars. Now Orlando has other interests and STRs are not wanted.

So why not make landlords babysit their renters? They can rent all they want, but responsibility isn’t disengaged. If a renter wants to live large, they need to go elsewhere and rent a hotel room. The state law is fully followed in Orlando. Landlords can STR till their hearts are content, but they live with what they chose.

It’s utterly brilliant.

The town I live in, in NH, has been grappling with the issue, along with every other resort time community. An original draft of our proposed STR bylaw, took a similar approach. A residence could only be used as an STR, if it was the owner's primary residence. In other words, "investors" couldn't buy houses to use at STR's, but if you were a snowbird and headed to FL for the winter, you could do Short Term Rentals while you were away.

The thinking in proposing this law, was to protect local residents and protect the neighborhoods, assuming folks who rented out their Primary Residents, would be more careful that investors, in who they rented to and how they maintained their home.

Much to my disappointment, the bylaw didn't get passed that way. The local Business Community mustered far more political clout than our little STR Committee.

The bylaw they enacted, adopted a raft of regulations for STR's and required a local permit. For the last 3 years (the Covid Era) STR's have been driving real estate prices through the roof. Being in the hotel business, I can firmly attest to the fact, that the saturation point will arrive at some point and the bottom will start to fall out of the STR market, which I suspect will lower property values.

In my neighborhood of 550 homes, we now have +/- 50 STR's operating. In the meantime, the value of my home has doubled in the last 3 years, but at some point, the demand for STR's has to reach the saturation point ... I think?

[Bill14564]

Here's the problem that's raising its ugly head, all over the USA.

As you pointed out, Florida communities can not adopt a regulation, banning STR's. They can however, ban STR's if their existing regulations prohibited them. Herein lies the quagmire. "STR's" were seldom defined in Zoning Regulations, 20+ years ago.

The question that arises, are STR's a "Residential" use (allowed in a Residential Zoning District)?

Are they a "Business" use, only allowed in a Business Zoning District?

Or ... do they fall under a specific definition in a Zoning scheme, that makes them hotels or motels?

The answer to the questions, are being litigated in courts throughout the USA. It's not a simple question. It comes down to how a community wrote their Zoning regulations and how they defined all the particular terms. Not to get too far into the weeds, but it also depends on whether the wording of their Zoning regulations allows alternative uses, previously not contemplated when the regulations were written.

I found an interesting summary of relevant court cases on a Florida bar site (https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/florida-community-associations-versus-airbnb-and-****-in-florida/). It is from 2017 so it doesn't mention the Orlando ordinance. The bottom line was that the success of lawsuits or laws depends on definitions and interpretations. What worked in one area might not work in another.

[margaretmattson]

They lost that opportunity 12 years ago

Florida Statute 509.032(7)(b)
 A local law, ordinance, or regulation may not prohibit vacation rentals or regulate the duration or frequency of rental of vacation rentals. This paragraph does not apply to any local law, ordinance, or regulation adopted on or before June 1, 2011. What country do you live in? Laws are always changed and rewritten in the United States I live in.

[margaretmattson]

Here's the problem that's raising its ugly head, all over the USA.

As you pointed out, Florida communities can not adopt a regulation, banning STR's. They can however, ban STR's if their existing regulations prohibited them. Herein lies the quagmire. "STR's" were seldom defined in Zoning Regulations, 20+ years ago.

The question that arises, are STR's a "Residential" use (allowed in a Residential Zoning District)?

Are they a "Business" use, only allowed in a Business Zoning District?

Or ... do they fall under a specific definition in a Zoning scheme, that makes them hotels or motels?

The answer to the questions, are being litigated in courts throughout the USA. It's not a simple question. It comes down to how a community wrote their Zoning regulations and how they defined all the particular terms. Not to get too far into the weeds, but it also depends on whether the wording of their Zoning regulations allows alternative uses, previously not contemplated when the regulations were written. Perfect! That is what this issue is about zoning.

[margaretmattson]

Yes. Yes. Yes.

STR's are taxed similar to hotel rooms. They pay Sales Tax and Local Option Transient Rental Taxes.

https://floridarevenue.com/Forms_library/current/gt800034.pdf

One of the more obvious reasons STR's are supported by most state governments, is their overall effect on the economy. Statistics say that vacationers spend more money locally, than residents do. Which means STR's bring in more money to local businesses, which in turn provides jobs and increases tax revenue. You do know it is illegal for a judge to prejudicially favor one side of case over another don't you? Your statements are laughable. Favoring the State of Florida would get the judge fired.

Aren't you the person who claimed he worked in senior housing for forty years and worked under Governor Weld? Then you should know prejudice is illegal in the court of law. But then again, on another post I believe you are the same person who stated he was a car salesman all his life.

[Bill14564]

What country do you live in? Laws are always changed and rewritten in the United States I live in.

This one has been around for 12 years. There have been at least a few failed attempts to weaken it. Could it happen? Absolutely. Will it happen? My crystal ball is not that good but the failed attempts make it look unlikely.

[Bill14564]

You do know it is illegal for a judge to prejudicially favor one side of case over another don't you? Your statements are laughable. Favoring the State of Florida would get the judge fired.

What does anything in his post have to do with a judge? The judge makes rulings based on the law and the law allows STRs.

[golfing eagles]

What does anything in his post have to do with a judge? The judge makes rulings based on the law and the law allows STRs.

Best advice at this point----don't engage.:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[Bill14564]

Best advice at this point----don't engage.:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

Yeah, but sometimes I forget.

[margaretmattson]

What does anything in his post have to do with a judge? The judge makes rulings based on the law and the law allows STRs. It was in response to a post that stated the reason courts decided Strs could continue is because they bring in money to Florida. Laughable! Not allowed to use prejudice or need in a court of law. Have to follow the law! This is why cities and states are still fighting. They have to prove their case "under the law" without an assumption they are going to lose their case because STRs bring in money to Florida. Again, laughable! Would get any judge fired if they used prejudice instead of the law.

[Normal]

Orlando tackled this problem correctly post 2011. They still allow STRs, but they say how they are run and how they are tracked by the municipality, which is totally lawful. There are virtually no STRs in the city now.

Florida Short-Term Rental Report | GovOS (https://govos.com/blog/florida-str-report-2022/)

[margaretmattson]

Orlando tackled this problem correctly post 2011. They still allow STRs, but they say how they are run and how they are tracked by the municipality, which is totally lawful. There are virtually no STRs in the city now.

Florida Short-Term Rental Report | GovOS (https://govos.com/blog/florida-str-report-2022/) GREAT POST! Laws are created, altered, and changed all the time in America. Don't know why people keep posting that nothing can be done. Maybe they are investors and want you to believe their nonsense so you do not try to get it changed in the Villages? Who knows?

[golfing eagles]

GREAT POST! Laws are created, altered, and changed all the time in America. Don't know why people keep posting that nothing can be done. Maybe they are investors and want you to believe their nonsense so you do not try to get it changed in the Villages? Who knows?

Now that's a valid point:beer3:

[BrianL99]

Your statements are laughable. Favoring the State of Florida would get the judge fired.




What is laughable, is folks who have no understanding of the basic issues involved, who don't have any experience or knowledge of potential avenues of redress, yet insist on posting repetitive, sophomoric nonsense.

FYI: Judges in Florida are ELECTED. They don't serve at the whim of some Big Boss who gets to fire them (not even the Governor), if they don't like their decisions.

[margaretmattson]

What is laughable, is folks who have no understanding of the basic issues involved, who don't have any experience or knowledge of potential avenues of redress, yet insist on posting repetitive, sophomoric nonsense.

FYI: Judges in Florida are ELECTED. They don't serve at the whim of some Big Boss who gets to fire them, if they don't like their decisions. It is laughable that you continue to post the reason the court ruled in favor of vacation rentals is because they bring a lot of money to Florida. If your statement was true, that would mean the judge made a ruling based on prejudice and need. A judge must make rulings based on the law...not favor one side because of financial gain.

Aren't you the person who said he worked in senior housing and under Gov Weld? Seems like you should know about prejudice and court rulings. But then again, aren't you the same person who stated in another thread that you were a car salesman all your life?

Fired, have them removed, call it what you want! A judge who uses prejudice in a ruling would no longer have a job.

And yes, in answer to your question, people who continue to make repetitive, sophmoric nonsense posts while claiming to be an expert is LAUGHABLE.

[Happydaz]

What is laughable, is folks who have no understanding of the basic issues involved, who don't have any experience or knowledge of potential avenues of redress, yet insist on posting repetitive, sophomoric nonsense.

FYI: Judges in Florida are ELECTED. They don't serve at the whim of some Big Boss who gets to fire them, if they don't like their decisions.

County and Circuit court judges are elected. District Court and Supreme Court judges in Florida are appointed by the Governor. If a vacancy were to occur on the county or circuit court the Governor appoints a replacement judge.

An ambitious County or Circuit Court judge who may have been initially elected might want to impress the Governor with their decisions so that when he appoints the higher level judges they might be on the preferred judicial candidates list.

[Velvet]

“The squeaky wheel gets the grease.”

[BrianL99]

County and Circuit court judges are elected. District Court and Supreme Court judges in Florida are appointed by the Governor. If a vacancy were to occur on the county or circuit court the Governor appoints a replacement judge.

An ambitious County or Circuit Court judge who may have been initially elected might want to impress the Governor with their decisions so that when he appoints the higher level judges they might be on the preferred judicial candidates list.

They are initially appointed and MUST stand for election within 2 years and need to run again, every 6 years. All judges in Florida serve at the whim of the voters.

[JGibson]

Does the Florida legislative branch have any authority to pass STR laws pertaining to retirement communities?

[Normal]

Does the Florida legislative branch have any authority to pass STR laws pertaining to retirement communities?

Certainly retirement communities being built can write their own ordinances. The Villages has already and still does do this. They even wrote rules for no businesses, rentals etc all since 2011.

[BrianL99]

Does the Florida legislative branch have any authority to pass STR laws pertaining to retirement communities?


Certainly retirement communities being built can write their own ordinances. The Villages has already and still does do this. They even wrote rules for no businesses, rentals etc all since 2011.


The Legislature can adopt Laws. They've adopted a Law that says communities/counties cannot pass regulations or ordinances that prohibit STR's.

Developers can write deed restrictions, covenants & rules. Some of which can be enforced, others that may be superseded by legislation at some point or certainly challenged as to their propriety.

I'm not sure there are any "No Rental" regulations, anywhere in TV, but different neighborhoods have different restrictions, so it's certainly possible. I know my Deed doesn't contain anything that would prevent rental use. My opinion for what it's worth, is that the "No Business" clause in my Deed, as well as the underlying Residential Zoning prohibits use an STR.

[Normal]

The Legislature can adopt Laws. They've adopted a Law that says communities/counties cannot pass regulations or ordinances that prohibit STR's.

Developers can write deed restrictions, covenants & rules. Some of which can be enforced, others that may be superseded by legislation at some point or certainly challenged as to their propriety.

I'm not sure there are any "No Rental" regulations, anywhere in TV, but different neighborhoods have different restrictions, so it's certainly possible. I know my Deed doesn't contain anything that would prevent rental use. My opinion for what it's worth, is that the "No Business" clause in my Deed, as well as the underlying Residential Zoning prohibits use an STR.

Yes, I’m sure anything that requires any contract is a business transaction. Many or most landlords use them.

[HIgolfers]

The Legislature can adopt Laws. They've adopted a Law that says communities/counties cannot pass regulations or ordinances that prohibit STR's.

Developers can write deed restrictions, covenants & rules. Some of which can be enforced, others that may be superseded by legislation at some point or certainly challenged as to their propriety.

I'm not sure there are any "No Rental" regulations, anywhere in TV, but different neighborhoods have different restrictions, so it's certainly possible. I know my Deed doesn't contain anything that would prevent rental use. My opinion for what it's worth, is that the "No Business" clause in my Deed, as well as the underlying Residential Zoning prohibits use an STR.

We were visiting open houses today in Middleton and overheard TV realtor ( or whatever proper term is, RE professional, sales agent, etc) telling a young couple who asked about short term rentals in the area that minimum rental period was one year and that buyer could only purchase one house. So a real estate invested could not buy a bunch of houses and rent them out.

[golfing eagles]

We were visiting open houses today in Middleton and overheard TV realtor ( or whatever proper term is, RE professional, sales agent, etc) telling a young couple who asked about short term rentals in the area that minimum rental period was one year and that buyer could only purchase one house. So a real estate invested could not buy a bunch of houses and rent them out.

If only THAT were true….

[Bill14564]

If only THAT were true….

Different areas, different restrictions. It could be true.

[golfing eagles]

Different areas, different restrictions. It could be true.

Yep. I overlooked that it was Middleton. Could be very different

[HIgolfers]

The Legislature can adopt Laws. They've adopted a Law that says communities/counties cannot pass regulations or ordinances that prohibit STR's.

Developers can write deed restrictions, covenants & rules. Some of which can be enforced, others that may be superseded by legislation at some point or certainly challenged as to their propriety.

I'm not sure there are any "No Rental" regulations, anywhere in TV, but different neighborhoods have different restrictions, so it's certainly possible. I know my Deed doesn't contain anything that would prevent rental use. My opinion for what it's worth, is that the "No Business" clause in my Deed, as well as the underlying Residential Zoning prohibits use an STR.

Yep. I overlooked that it was Middleton. Could be very different

And it may be that the Developer now recognizes there is a problem.

[BrianL99]

We were visiting open houses today in Middleton and overheard TV realtor ( or whatever proper term is, RE professional, sales agent, etc) telling a young couple who asked about short term rentals in the area that minimum rental period was one year and that buyer could only purchase one house. So a real estate invested could not buy a bunch of houses and rent them out.


I've been told, that some of the homes in the new Southern areas have been marketed and sold, with the caveat that the owner can't sell for a year, can't buy more than 1 home and can't use the home as an STR. I don't really have any first hand knowledge, just relating what I've heard and seen posted.

[JGibson]

And it may be that the Developer now recognizes there is a problem.

Or houses in Middleton aren't selling fast enough.

[Papa_lecki]

….the owner can't sell for a year, can't buy more than 1 home and can't use the home as an STR. I don't really have any first hand knowledge, just relating what I've heard and seen posted.

Hard to enforce buying more than one house - you can just set up a new LLC for each house - so it’s a different buyer.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Hard to enforce buying more than one house - you can just set up a new LLC for each house - so it’s a different buyer.

Don't allow LLCs to buy homes, other than necessary to transfer estates of the deceased to their families. Make a new deed restriction for new areas that they must be individual homeowners, buying the homes, and clarify that the district is intended to be a homeowners' residency district.

[JGibson]

Don't allow LLCs to buy homes, other than necessary to transfer estates of the deceased to their families. Make a new deed restriction for new areas that they must be individual homeowners, buying the homes, and clarify that the district is intended to be a homeowners' residency district.

There in the business of selling homes not putting further restrictions on selling them.

[Byte1]

Seems like Home insurance would be more costly for an ABB than for a residential home. Just saying......perhaps that person is not being totally honest with their home insurance company. Wonder what would happen if their insurance company received an anonymous call advising them of the situation.

[golfing eagles]

Seems like Home insurance would be more costly for an ABB than for a residential home. Just saying......perhaps that person is not being totally honest with their home insurance company. Wonder what would happen if their insurance company received an anonymous call advising them of the situation.

You would need to know which company is insuring the property

[asianthree]

Seems like Home insurance would be more costly for an ABB than for a residential home. Just saying......perhaps that person is not being totally honest with their home insurance company. Wonder what would happen if their insurance company received an anonymous call advising them of the situation.

Actually insurance for rental is less than homeowners, not by much, about 20-25% less

[BrianL99]

Seems like Home insurance would be more costly for an ABB than for a residential home. Just saying......perhaps that person is not being totally honest with their home insurance company. Wonder what would happen if their insurance company received an anonymous call advising them of the situation.

If you list with AirBnB or **** and most other STR rental sites, they provide supplemental Liability & Theft Insurance.

[JGibson]

There has been chatter that word is traveling fast about the Airbnb issue and may have folks second-guessing about buying in TV.

If I was buying today I would hesitate to buy.

[BrianL99]

There has been chatter that word is traveling fast about the Airbnb issue and may have folks second-guessing about buying in TV.

If I was buying today I would hesitate to buy.

I don't see how the Developer has any interest nor benefit, to address the issue in the established parts of TV.

Existing TV could become the STR Capital of Central Florida and I suspect the Developer will smarten up in the new areas of the South and attempt to control STR usage there.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

I don't see how the Developer has any interest nor benefit, to address the issue in the established parts of TV.

Existing TV could become the STR Capital of Central Florida and I suspect the Developer will smarten up in the new areas of the South and attempt to control STR usage there.

Because the existing areas still bear The Villages trademark. If they become "Trailer Trashville" or "Slumlord Heaven" it will reflect on the entire community. And that affects property values, and interest.

[BrianL99]

Because the existing areas still bear The Villages trademark. If they become "Trailer Trashville" or "Slumlord Heaven" it will reflect on the entire community. And that affects property values, and interest.

History has already proven that's not true.

The so-called "Historic Section" is already Trailer Trashville and that hasn't hurt sales in the Bridgeport area (or other areas) of TV.

[Royaloil]

. Only my opinion but a parent needs to be employed by a business that is associated with TV.

Are TV business owners allowed to have familes in TV?

[oldtimes]

Are TV business owners allowed to have familes in TV?

Honestly, as long as they are selling houses, I think it's reached the point of anything goes. You can just toss those deed restrictions right out the window. If I were buying today I'd be looking elsewhere.

[Bill14564]

Are TV business owners allowed to have familes in TV?

I don’t believe there is any legal way to prevent them from buying. And, why would the Villages want to anyway?

[Vermilion Villager]

Interesting take from the VN opinion page from an owner who appears to know what they are talking about.

I keep reading about the short-term rentals and complaints directed at the Developer and his lack of action. I would agree that this may be a deed restriction issue but more importantly is a legal issue in the State of Florida.
A simple search resulted in the following:
If you are starting an Airbnb business in Florida, you will need a license. The DBPR vacation rental license application is the first step. You have two options for applying: online or in person with a printed application. The DBPR advises using an online application.
Overall, all vacation rentals in Florida must be licensed unless the host remains on site throughout the entire stay. Florida has favorable regulations, but hosts must meet certain requirements. Awning is a nationwide property management company offering end-to-end services for Airbnb investors.
Residential Use Restrictions: Property must be devoted only to single-family residential use. Properties within the Subdivision are intended for residential use and no commercial, professional or similar activity requiring either maintaining an inventory, equipment or customer/client visit may be conducted in a Home or on a Homesite.
Conclusions:
It appears from the above that in the State of Florida, Airbnb is a regulated business under DBPR requiring a license. The complainants should be contacting the Department of Professional Regulations and not the Developer.
In addition, this is in direct violation of the Residential Use Restriction as stated in the Deed Restrictions in The Villages and his a Villages Issue. However, it also brings into question the legality of ownership and operation of rental property in general.

Andre A Langlais
Village of Summerhill

[Babubhat]

Judge has upheld Nyc ban on Airbnb. Wildwood could do the same. Start a campaign at council meetings

Airbnb lawsuit to block NYC law on short-term rentals is dismissed | Reuters (https://www.reuters.com/legal/airbnb-lawsuit-block-nyc-law-short-term-rentals-is-dismissed-2023-08-08/)

[Bill14564]

Judge has upheld Nyc ban on Airbnb. Wildwood could do the same. Start a campaign at council meetings

Airbnb lawsuit to block NYC law on short-term rentals is dismissed | Reuters (https://www.reuters.com/legal/airbnb-lawsuit-block-nyc-law-short-term-rentals-is-dismissed-2023-08-08/)

Seems to be a law requiring registration and possibly requiring "hosted" rentals like Orlando.

It seems Florida already requires registrations of short term rental properties.

The idea of a hosted rental is strange to me. I understand the meaning, that the owner must be living in the home at the time of the rental. What is odd is I wouldn't think of stopping on the road to give a stranger a ride yet with a hosted rental I'm inviting them into my home where I will be sleeping. Probably just me, but being on either side of that would make me uncomfortable.

[BrianL99]

Judge has upheld Nyc ban on Airbnb. Wildwood could do the same. Start a campaign at council meetings

Airbnb lawsuit to block NYC law on short-term rentals is dismissed | Reuters (https://www.reuters.com/legal/airbnb-lawsuit-block-nyc-law-short-term-rentals-is-dismissed-2023-08-08/)

Interesting take from the VN opinion page from an owner who appears to know what they are talking about.

I keep reading about the short-term rentals and complaints directed at the Developer and his lack of action. I would agree that this may be a deed restriction issue but more importantly is a legal issue in the State of Florida.
A simple search resulted in the following:
If you are starting an Airbnb business in Florida, you will need a license. The DBPR vacation rental license application is the first step. You have two options for applying: online or in person with a printed application. The DBPR advises using an online application.
Overall, all vacation rentals in Florida must be licensed unless the host remains on site throughout the entire stay. Florida has favorable regulations, but hosts must meet certain requirements. Awning is a nationwide property management company offering end-to-end services for Airbnb investors.
Residential Use Restrictions: Property must be devoted only to single-family residential use. Properties within the Subdivision are intended for residential use and no commercial, professional or similar activity requiring either maintaining an inventory, equipment or customer/client visit may be conducted in a Home or on a Homesite.
Conclusions:
It appears from the above that in the State of Florida, Airbnb is a regulated business under DBPR requiring a license. The complainants should be contacting the Department of Professional Regulations and not the Developer.
In addition, this is in direct violation of the Residential Use Restriction as stated in the Deed Restrictions in The Villages and his a Villages Issue. However, it also brings into question the legality of ownership and operation of rental property in general.

Andre A Langlais
Village of Summerhill


Folks should perhaps read the entire thread, prior to rehashing untrue/unproven/questionable legal opinions.

NY has nothing to do with Florida and the laws are significantly different. Wildwood CANNOT ban STR's, as the Florida Legislature has passed a law that specifically prohibits towns/counties from prohibiting STR's.

The question of whether STR's are prohibited by the Deed Restrictions, is a multi-faceted question, complicated by the fact that not all the units in The Villages have the same restrictions or underlying zoning.

Simply having a requirement that a use must be "residential", isn't sufficient to unequivocally say STR's aren't allowed.

To my knowledge, there's not a single home in TV, with a deed restriction that says: "If you need a Business License", you cannot conduct that "business" in a TV home. As a matter of fact, most of the TV restrictions complicate that even further, by specifying the type of business that's prohibited.

Further, the TV restrictions and covenants do not (to my knowledge) define the word "Residential Use".

In a court battle to determine if STR's are allowed in The Villages, a litigant faces a number of challenges. For example ...

A) That the moving party has a right to bring the action (standing).
B) That STR's are not a "residential use" or alternatively, that STR use is a "business".
C) That the specific "business" is prohibited, given the specifics of the deed restrictions.

All of which also involve the underlining Zoning in the various municipalities, in which TV is located. All the communities have underlying zoning and may or may not specifically define "residential use".

The basic, underlying problem in TV, as well as communities throughout the USA, is STR's essentially didn't exist when their zoning regulations were written. Now the zoning issue comes down to (2) issues.

1. Ascertaining if the underlying zoning is "permissive" or "prohibitory".
2. Determining the definition of "residential" and/or "business".

In a permissive Zoning scheme, regulations prohibit any use that is not specifically allowed (remember, STR's didn't exist when most zoning regulations were written). Therefore, in general, permissive zoning regulation prohibit STR usage, provided the litigant can convince a court there's a difference between residential use and STR use.

In a prohibitory zoning scheme, the opposite approach is taken. The underlying zoning allows all uses that are not expressly prohibited.. Again, one would have to differentiate between STR use and residential use. We then get back to the definition situation. Is their definition of "residential use" specific enough to preclude STR use (or, is their definition of "hotel", encompassing enough to include STR's).

In the case of STR's, people are living in the home. Isn't that "residential use"? Perhaps only for a day, but they're still living there, are they not?

The best definition of residential use I've seen, said something like: "a person or persons, living as a family unit and meaning and intending to make the residence their home for an extended period of time". Not perfect, but not bad.

Anyone who tells you that STR's are prohibited by the Deed Restrictions, are over-simplifying a very complicated question. I believe they are, but I'm not willing to gamble the $500,000 in litigation costs, it would take to get a judge to agree.

Those who say the city/town/county can just pass a law to ban them, just haven't bothered to look at the applicable laws and regulations.

All of which is colored by the fact that many states, including Florida, have passed state laws in support of STR's. They bring in tax revenue.

If all that isn't enough to convince you it's complicated, how about this?

When Uber started, they put taxis companies, almost out of business. Taxi companies fought Uber and lost most everywhere.

Most every person who rents an STR, is taking money away from a hotel. Why do you think the major hotel chains haven't got together, to ban STR's? Food for thought..

[Normal]

NY has nothing to do with Florida and the laws are significantly different. Wildwood CANNOT ban STR's, as the Florida Legislature has passed a law that specifically prohibits towns/counties from prohibiting STR's.


Most every person who rents an STR, is taking money away from a hotel. Why do you think the major hotel chains haven't got together, to ban STR's? Food for thought..

A number of communities IN FLORIDA have passed laws to chain up STRs since 2011. Communities are allowed to choose how to enforce a state law. Orlando’s post 2011 implementation is the best fix.

Accomplishing rigorous inspections
Asserting high local taxes
Requiring the landlord to be on the premises when renting
Limiting the number of guests per rental

Additional regulations we need are:
Buildings must be constructed in accordance with high volume use codes
Exits must be clearly identified and a lighted sign posted
Sprinkler systems in case of fire must be installed
Boarding laws must be posted in plain sight

These are all a great start and have generated revenue! Hotels have backed the move.