Increases coming to CDD?

[skippy05]

Developer ready to hand off enforcement of rules against children and businesses. CDDs will need more money for legal fees to accomplish.....per The Village News.

[Keefelane66]

It’s a poor decision for the CDD’s to accept. The Developer should clean up its mess and enforce the covenants in the real estate contract!

[Bill14564]

It’s a poor decision for the CDD’s to accept. The Developer should clean up its mess and enforce the covenants in the real estate contract!

And everyone should pay their taxes and everyone should obey the speed limit and …. When faced with a non-perfect world, what do you do, continue to whine about the developer or make changes?

[Bill14564]

*If* CDD5 passes this then the questions remain:
- Will there be an enforcement mechanism?
- Will there be sufficient additional complaints to justify additional cost?
-Will any other CDD follow suit?

Too many questions to become concerned now.

[retiredguy123]

I support enforcement even if it costs money.

[villagetinker]

Maybe all of the CDDs could band together and share the legal expense as well as the actual legal firms that would be involved, I believe this would be less expensive than going individually. I also believe the best approach would be a warning letter about the infraction including that the offender could (would?) be liable for the CDD legal costs if they did not cease immediately.
I am sure there will be many other considerations for enforcement, but that can be a future discussion.

[Stu from NYC]

How will this affect the two old biddies as they fight for truth, justice and the American way?:BigApplause:

[tophcfa]

I’m for whatever it takes if the CDD’s are willing to enforce two specific deed restrictions, properties shall be used as single family residential units and businesses cannot be run out of residential homes. That would take care of the problem of people renting out rooms to non family members while concurrently living in the home.

[BrianL99]

Developer ready to hand off enforcement of rules against children and businesses. CDDs will need more money for legal fees to accomplish.....per The Village News.

Where does the Developer derive the right to drop enforcement, onto the CDD's?

I assume the Developer has the right to assign his enforcement rights to whomever he wishes, but it seems the Assignee would have to affirmatively accept them?

I haven't read all that many TV deeds, so that's a question, not an assertion.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

I’m for whatever it takes if the CDD’s are willing to enforce two specific deed restrictions, properties shall be used as single family residential units and businesses cannot be run out of residential homes. That would take care of the problem of people renting out rooms to non family members while concurrently living in the home.

There are some homeowners who have live-in aides. They're not family, they're contractors/employees. You'd need to offer exceptions. And that means you'd have to be up in someone's health business, which is against HIPAA law.

Also how would you know that someone is renting a room to someone, and isn't in a non-marriage relationship with them? Best friends who aren't life partners, or the lady down the street who lost her husband and downsized and sold her house, and is now renting a room at a neighbor's house...

Also what of friends who share a property, but aren't related, and share expenses and sleep in their own bedrooms.

The only thing you could really enforce, is if you catch the property being offered for rent on a website, or newspaper, or a sign on the window.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Where does the Developer derive the right to drop enforcement, onto the CDD's?

I assume the Developer has the right to assign his enforcement rights to whomever he wishes, but it seems the Assignee would have to affirmatively accept them?

I haven't read all that many TV deeds, so that's a question, not an assertion.

The covenant says that the Developer MAY enforce internal restrictions. It doesn't say that they WILL enforce them. It wasn't all that big a deal until the last decade or two, when the older generation of owners passed on, and children inherited the properties. Once that happened, they would move in - or rent - or sell - without concerning themselves with who the buyers were.

There was also a wave of new construction when people could buy the land for little to zero money, with the contract to build on it. They got the home cheap, and flipped it as an investment. That was before the Developers realized how much money people were making off these new homes and built a "no flipping for the first year" rule into the new contracts.

Now, it -seems- as though everyone and their brother is either in the process of buying and flipping, or bought because someone else bought and flipped. I know it's just a perception and hardly the reality, but that's what makes the news.

[Bill14564]

Where does the Developer derive the right to drop enforcement, onto the CDD's?

I assume the Developer has the right to assign his enforcement rights to whomever he wishes, but it seems the Assignee would have to affirmatively accept them?

I haven't read all that many TV deeds, so that's a question, not an assertion.

Just a possibility:

The enforcement clause of the deed restrictions allows the developer to delegate (or some appropriate word) its right to enforce deed restrictions. All it would then take is an official agreement between the developer and the CDD laying out the specifics. The existing agreement could be modified or a separate agreement written to cover some or all of the internal restrictions.

[Bill14564]

…
The only thing you could really enforce, is if you catch the property being offered for rent on a website, or newspaper, or a sign on the window.

As much as some would like it to be, hosting a guest for a night/week/month is not a violation of the deed restrictions in most areas (there is always an exception). It is not running a business out of the home, particularly not a business requiring inventory or customer visits, and it does not violate the single-family clause. It simply doesn’t.


EDIT: I cannot find any "single-family clause" in my deed restrictions. It isn't being violated anyway, but it doesn't seem to exist.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

As much as some would like it to be, renting a room is not a violation of the deed restrictions in most areas (there is always an exception). It is not running a business out of the home, particularly not a business requiring inventory or customer visits, and it does not violate the single-family clause. It simply doesn’t.

The post I responded to was positing that there should be some way to prevent people from renting rooms WHILE LIVING THERE AT THE SAME TIME. That constitutes "something other than single family residence."

[Bill14564]

The post I responded to was positing that there should be some way to prevent people from renting rooms WHILE LIVING THERE AT THE SAME TIME. That constitutes "something other than single family residence."

Hosting my friends from MD for a time does not constitute something other than single family residence. Hosting anyone does not change the nature of the residence. When the address is used on a piece of govt issued identification THEN it might become a problem.

EDIT: As I also noted above, there does not seem to be a deed restriction requiring a single-family residence anyway. Hosting still does not create a multi-family residence, but I did not see a restriction against it anyway.

[Triker]

Developer ready to hand off enforcement of rules against children and businesses. CDDs will need more money for legal fees to accomplish.....per The Village News.

You actually believe what’s in the village_ news? :1rotfl::1rotfl:

[Shipping up to Boston]

Hosting my friends from MD for a time does not constitute something other than single family residence. Hosting anyone does not change the nature of the residence. When the address is used on a piece of govt issued identification THEN it might become a problem.

I know this was discussed at length on a different thread. So my question is if using a residence for AirBnb, which is supposed to be taxed (regardless of AirBnb’ hollow claims of innocent 3rd party).....doesn’t that constitute a business? Is this a way for TV to have a mechanism to work in concert with the Bill recently passed at the state level re; STR?

New to all of this so appreciate any education

[tophcfa]

There are some homeowners who have live-in aides. They're not family, they're contractors/employees. You'd need to offer exceptions. And that means you'd have to be up in someone's health business, which is against HIPAA law.

Also how would you know that someone is renting a room to someone, and isn't in a non-marriage relationship with them? Best friends who aren't life partners, or the lady down the street who lost her husband and downsized and sold her house, and is now renting a room at a neighbor's house...

Also what of friends who share a property, but aren't related, and share expenses and sleep in their own bedrooms.

The only thing you could really enforce, is if you catch the property being offered for rent on a website, or newspaper, or a sign on the window.

Well, let’s address those situations. A live in caretaker is not a tenant paying rent. The homeowner is paying them for an essential service, totally different situation.

A non marriage relationship sharing a home is very different than a revolving door short term rental situation to complete strangers. It’s a long term living situation that should not disrupt the neighborhood.

Unrelated friends sharing a property is again not a revolving door short term rental situation. And as you described the situation, they could both be deeded owners of said property.

Another poster questioned having unrelated guests, again not a revolving door short term rental situation. Any reasonable person wouldn’t consider occasional non rent paying house guests as not being in harmony with single family residential use. I have had several guests, both family and friends, visit our home for a few days, all rent free. I take great care to insure their activities don’t disrupt my neighbors.

The issue here is not allowing revolving door short term rentals that create a situation that is not in harmony with a 55+ single family residential retirement community. Anyone advertising with the likes of AirBnB as offering one or more rooms for rent, while concurrently living in their home, is the situation that needs to be addressed. Those are the situations that will generate complaints that trigger the deed compliance system, not those you described.

[Bill14564]

I know this was discussed at length on a different thread. So my question is if using a residence for AirBnb, which is supposed to be taxed (regardless of AirBnb’ hollow claims of innocent 3rd party).....doesn’t that constitute a business? Is this a way for TV to have a mechanism to work in concert with the Bill recently passed at the state level re; STR?

New to all of this so appreciate any education

If the home is being used as an AirBnB then tax is due. If it has not been collected in the past then perhaps the new bill will change that.

Renting the home is certainly a business activity. However, renting a home does not mean business is being conducted in the home. The activities being conducted in the home are eating, sleeping, cooking, and cleaning. These are the exact same activities that are conducted in my home and 70,000+ other homes in the Villages.

Further, even if the owner sat in the kitchen and accepted payment such that business activity was occurring in the home, it would still not be a violation of the deed restrictions. The deed restrictions prohibit business activity that involves maintaining inventory or customer visits. The sofa and kitchen table in the airBnB is no more inventory than the sofa and kitchen table in my home. The people sitting on the sofa and eating at the kitchen table are not customers visiting a business, they are guests performing the normal activities conducted in a home: eating, sleeping, cooking, and cleaning.

What some seem to want is for local government to pass a law prohibiting an owner from renting his home or a law mandating a minimum duration of a stay. (Un)fortunately, Florida law does not allow a local government to pass such a law.

[banjobob]

If the home is being used as an AirBnB then tax is due. If it has not been collected in the past then perhaps the new bill will change that.

Renting the home is certainly a business activity. However, renting a home does not mean business is being conducted in the home. The activities being conducted in the home are eating, sleeping, cooking, and cleaning. These are the exact same activities that are conducted in my home and 70,000+ other homes in the Villages.

Further, even if the owner sat in the kitchen and accepted payment such that business activity was occurring in the home, it would still not be a violation of the deed restrictions. The deed restrictions prohibit business activity that involves maintaining inventory or customer visits. The sofa and kitchen table in the airBnB is no more inventory than the sofa and kitchen table in my home. The people sitting on the sofa and eating at the kitchen table are not customers visiting a business, they are guests performing the normal activities conducted in a home: eating, sleeping, cooking, and cleaning.

What some seem to want is for local government to pass a law prohibiting an owner from renting his home or a law mandating a minimum duration of a stay. (Un)fortunately, Florida law does not allow a local government to pass such a law.
The issue of taxes is a mute one the bigger complaint is retirees in their forever home being subjected to strangers weekly or even daily occupying a residence. How are the tenants being vetted ,are they given even a cursory background check? Or just the money !!

[GizmoWhiskers]

I’m for whatever it takes if the CDD’s are willing to enforce two specific deed restrictions, properties shall be used as single family residential units and businesses cannot be run out of residential homes. That would take care of the problem of people renting out rooms to non family members while concurrently living in the home.

Agree with enforcement of deed restrictions as long as they are applied equally and uniformly. There is way too much selective enforcement in T V.

The Developer granting permission to certain homeowners for certain things prior to transfer of villages to T V which are against ARC deed restrictions should result in suits against the Developer. No special violations of ARC rules in exchange for back door $$ to the developer to build them in. Ie: rv garages put in as "cabanas", additional out buildings being built that look like used furniture store fronts or backyards of rocks approved by the Developer not ARC as seen up north.

Relative to renting rooms: If a person resides in their home with a person renting a single room the arrangement does not require a business license from the State of Florida. This arrange per sa does not classify as a short term rental the same way as when entire dwelling is used as a short term rental which does require FL business license.

[GizmoWhiskers]

If the home is being used as an AirBnB then tax is due. If it has not been collected in the past then perhaps the new bill will change that.

Renting the home is certainly a business activity. However, renting a home does not mean business is being conducted in the home. The activities being conducted in the home are eating, sleeping, cooking, and cleaning. These are the exact same activities that are conducted in my home and 70,000+ other homes in the Villages.

Further, even if the owner sat in the kitchen and accepted payment such that business activity was occurring in the home, it would still not be a violation of the deed restrictions. The deed restrictions prohibit business activity that involves maintaining inventory or customer visits. The sofa and kitchen table in the airBnB is no more inventory than the sofa and kitchen table in my home. The people sitting on the sofa and eating at the kitchen table are not customers visiting a business, they are guests performing the normal activities conducted in a home: eating, sleeping, cooking, and cleaning.

What some seem to want is for local government to pass a law prohibiting an owner from renting his home or a law mandating a minimum duration of a stay. (Un)fortunately, Florida law does not allow a local government to pass such a law.
Sitting on a couch, eating at a table, sleeping does not define business.

If one goes on ABnB to rent a dwelling for one night and the person with whom that person contacts to book it takes the money and fails to deliver a way into the home would one be ripped off by a person conducting business with a customer who is attempting to stay in the short term rental that they supposedly booked... what as just a friend, family member of the owner?

The primary function of a home test fails miserably on that logic. Not to mention short term rentals require business licenses in FL with only a small exclusion. Research will easily reveal that.

[Robnlaura]

What happens if you’re a Mormon with multiple wives ??

[Ellwoodrick]

Food for thought.....

What do you do when your Deed Restrictions expire? Not all live in new Neighborhoods.
Zoning Laws however don't expire but must be amended for change.

(Taken from a Google Search)


"What is the 30 year deed restriction in Florida?"

"Certain states, including Florida, have adopted the 1956 Marketable Record Title Act, which says that deed restrictions expire within 30 years of inception. That means after 30 years, a homeowners' association is technically unable to enforce the rules and can no longer collect monthly dues from community homeowners."

[BlueStarAirlines]

There are some homeowners who have live-in aides. They're not family, they're contractors/employees. You'd need to offer exceptions. And that means you'd have to be up in someone's health business, which is against HIPAA law.


People wave around HIPAA like they understand it, but most do not. This would not be a HIPAA violation because the Developer is not a covered entity.

https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/special/emergency/final_hipaa_guide_law_enforcement.pdf

[BrianL99]

Food for thought.....

...

"What is the 30 year deed restriction in Florida?"

"Certain states, including Florida, have adopted the 1956 Marketable Record Title Act, which says that deed restrictions expire within 30 years of inception. That means after 30 years, a homeowners' association is technically unable to enforce the rules and can no longer collect monthly dues from community homeowners."

I would do some more research and instead of just reading & citing 2 sentences taken out of context, you include the analysis in its whole.

[BrianL99]

I know this was discussed at length on a different thread. So my question is if using a residence for AirBnb, which is supposed to be taxed (regardless of AirBnb’ hollow claims of innocent 3rd party).....doesn’t that constitute a business? Is this a way for TV to have a mechanism to work in concert with the Bill recently passed at the state level re; STR?

New to all of this so appreciate any education

No.

Florida Law prohibits communities from regulating the length of stay for rentals and prohibits them from out-lawing STR's.

Regardless of the fact that STR's require a "Business License" from the State of Florida, court decisions and legislative actions in FL (& most all of the USA) over the last 20-25 years, have consistently and almost unequivocally held that STR's are an allowed use in a Residential Zoning District, unless otherwise specifically defined or prohibited.

The nearly universal flaw in Zoning Regulations throughout the USA, is that the basic premises & definitions adopted pursuant to Euclid vs Ambler Realty Co. (1926), didn't foresee the advent of the internet and platforms that allowed residential homes to be rented on a short term basis and therefore, never defined "Short Term Rentals" as a specific use. Technology, out-paced zoning amendments.

For a myriad of reasons, I don't think you'll ever see an effort by the Developer or the CDD's, to eliminate STR's in TV. I've said a zillion times on here (as have others), the only practical way to exercise some modicum of control over STR's in The Villages, would be a revamping of the Guest/Resident ID system (controlling access to the amenities).

Just my opinion, your mileage may vary.

[MaryMS]

VillageTinker always has good suggestions.

[Villagesgal]

I often let friends and family use my home for free when I travel. I travel at least a month at a time 4 times a year. That violates nothing as I receive no compensation. That doesn't violate anything. It is my home, I should be able to let friends and family enjoy it. It's no ones business but my own. My neighbors have never complained, on the contrary, they enjoy visiting with my friends and family. What is being suggested might not he all that easy to enforce is all I'm saying. What next, trolls knocking on doors to see who is living there???

[Shipping up to Boston]

I often let friends and family use my home for free when I travel. I travel at least a month at a time 4 times a year. That violates nothing as I receive no compensation. That doesn't violate anything. It is my home, I should be able to let friends and family enjoy it. It's no ones business but my own. My neighbors have never complained, on the contrary, they enjoy visiting with my friends and family. What is being suggested might not he all that easy to enforce is all I'm saying. What next, trolls knocking on doors to see who is living there???

Yours is an acceptable use. The difference is you and your guests RESPECT your neighbors.

[rustyp]

Food for thought.....

What do you do when your Deed Restrictions expire? Not all live in new Neighborhoods.
Zoning Laws however don't expire but must be amended for change.

(Taken from a Google Search)


"What is the 30 year deed restriction in Florida?"

"Certain states, including Florida, have adopted the 1956 Marketable Record Title Act, which says that deed restrictions expire within 30 years of inception. That means after 30 years, a homeowners' association is technically unable to enforce the rules and can no longer collect monthly dues from community homeowners."

The Villages was organized into a CDD type government in 1992 - 32 years ago. Does this mean I don't have to submit to the ARC anymore ?

[Stu from NYC]

What happens if you’re a Mormon with multiple wives ??

Let me ask my next door neighbor if he has ever had a problem.

[Justputt]

Agree with enforcement of deed restrictions as long as they are applied equally and uniformly. There is way too much selective enforcement in T V.

The Developer granting permission to certain homeowners for certain things prior to transfer of villages to T V which are against ARC deed restrictions should result in suits against the Developer. No special violations of ARC rules in exchange for back door $$ to the developer to build them in. Ie: rv garages put in as "cabanas", additional out buildings being built that look like used furniture store fronts or backyards of rocks approved by the Developer not ARC as seen up north.

Relative to renting rooms: If a person resides in their home with a person renting a single room the arrangement does not require a business license from the State of Florida. This arrange per sa does not classify as a short term rental the same way as when entire dwelling is used as a short term rental which does require FL business license.

I suspect all the homes in the Villages are zoned single family, so if you are renting room(s) to other than immediate family that would be an issue. Regardless of deed restrictions, zoning is zoning.

[BrianL99]

I suspect all the homes in the Villages are zoned single family, so if you are renting room(s) to other than immediate family that would be an issue. Regardless of deed restrictions, zoning is zoning.

That is not accurate. The majority of homes in TV are in a "Residential" zoning district and most have been the subject of a Site Plan Permit of one sort or another.

There's hardly a jurisdiction in the entire United States, that would consider the renting out of a "room" to a boarder, would be considered a violation of zoning in a Single Family Zoning District. That's tantamount to saying, if you charged your 22 year old child for "room & board", it would make his occupancy illegal. Not likely.

[pauld315]

As much as some would like it to be, hosting a guest for a night/week/month is not a violation of the deed restrictions in most areas (there is always an exception). It is not running a business out of the home, particularly not a business requiring inventory or customer visits, and it does not violate the single-family clause. It simply doesn’t.


EDIT: I cannot find any "single-family clause" in my deed restrictions. It isn't being violated anyway, but it doesn't seem to exist.

That is for a court to decide but I think you are wrong. If you are renting a room out in your house, you need a business license, therefore, it is a business.

[Bill14564]

That is for a court to decide but I think you are wrong. If you are renting a room out in your house, you need a business license, therefore, it is a business.

Even if it was a business, since it is not a business in the home storing inventory or involving customer visits then it is not a deed violation.

[BrianL99]

If you are renting a room out in your house, you need a business license, therefore, it is a business.


Categorically incorrect.

[Two Bills]

Where does the Developer derive the right to drop enforcement, onto the CDD's?

I assume the Developer has the right to assign his enforcement rights to whomever he wishes, but it seems the Assignee would have to affirmatively accept them?

I haven't read all that many TV deeds, so that's a question, not an assertion.

Pretty sure I read the CDD concerned approached the Developer to take over the enforcement.
Not the Developer dumping it on the CDD.

[JGibson]

If the home is being used as an AirBnB then tax is due. If it has not been collected in the past then perhaps the new bill will change that.

Renting the home is certainly a business activity. However, renting a home does not mean business is being conducted in the home. The activities being conducted in the home are eating, sleeping, cooking, and cleaning. These are the exact same activities that are conducted in my home and 70,000+ other homes in the Villages.

Further, even if the owner sat in the kitchen and accepted payment such that business activity was occurring in the home, it would still not be a violation of the deed restrictions. The deed restrictions prohibit business activity that involves maintaining inventory or customer visits. The sofa and kitchen table in the airBnB is no more inventory than the sofa and kitchen table in my home. The people sitting on the sofa and eating at the kitchen table are not customers visiting a business, they are guests performing the normal activities conducted in a home: eating, sleeping, cooking, and cleaning.

What some seem to want is for local government to pass a law prohibiting an owner from renting his home or a law mandating a minimum duration of a stay. (Un)fortunately, Florida law does not allow a local government to pass such a law.

That Florida law has a date of enforcement on it and some homes in the Northern section don't fall under that Florida law.

2/3 of my CYV block is STR and has totally lost any neighborhood feel. It's more like a resort or time share than a community.

It's chasing year round residents out and more STR in which the whole block will eventually be 100% STR.

How is it condominiums in Florida are able to implement restrictions on STR but not TV?

[Topspinmo]

Developer ready to hand off enforcement of rules against children and businesses. CDDs will need more money for legal fees to accomplish.....per The Village News.
So when do you think CDDs will not need more money? IMO 5 or so years us lower income population in villages will have to on move and higher income will be plucked like chicken sandwich at Chick-fil-A :22yikes:

[Topspinmo]

Pretty sure I read the CDD concerned approached the Developer to take over the enforcement.
Not the Developer dumping it on the CDD.
When you don’t do nothing you don’t have to dump you look for way out.:eclipsee_gold_cup:

[Topspinmo]

Categorically incorrect.

Agree falls under slumlords:thumbup:

[Topspinmo]

That is not accurate. The majority of homes in TV are in a "Residential" zoning district and most have been the subject of a Site Plan Permit of one sort or another.

There's hardly a jurisdiction in the entire United States, that would consider the renting out of a "room" to a boarder, would be considered a violation of zoning in a Single Family Zoning District. That's tantamount to saying, if you charged your 22 year old child for "room & board", it would make his occupancy illegal. Not likely.

Once sale about anything goes and sometimes before sale :highfive:

[Robojo]

The post I responded to was positing that there should be some way to prevent people from renting rooms WHILE LIVING THERE AT THE SAME TIME. That constitutes "something other than single family residence."

So you're saying that an owner cannot take a roommate??? Thats a little too strict.

[Topspinmo]

So you're saying that an owner cannot take a roommate??? Thats a little too strict.


Just call them you live in mate, there no limit:shocked:

[Topspinmo]

And everyone should pay their taxes and everyone should obey the speed limit and …. When faced with a non-perfect world, what do you do, continue to whine about the developer or make changes?

Well, you have to Amit they give use plenty to whine about? :D

[Normal]

And everyone should pay their taxes and everyone should obey the speed limit and …. When faced with a non-perfect world, what do you do, continue to whine about the developer or make changes?

Yes, but they DO need to acknowledge enforcement fault and pay for cleanup through an attorney trust or other compensations. If problems were taken care of when they happened, the increased issues we have now wouldn’t necessarily be here and need to be addressed. They of course are at fault.

[Bill14564]

Yes, but they DO need to acknowledge enforcement fault and pay for cleanup through an attorney trust or other compensations. If problems were taken care of when they happened, the increased issues we have now wouldn’t necessarily be here and need to be addressed. They of course are at fault.

At fault for what exactly? Nothing at all to do with STR. What else?

If anyone, the neighbors are at fault. Remember, the Developer is under no obligation to enforce the restrictions. On the other hand, the homeowners are… at least according to the text in my deed restrictions.

[BrianL99]

That Florida law has a date of enforcement on it and some homes in the Northern section don't fall under that Florida law.

How is it condominiums in Florida are able to implement restrictions on STR but not TV?

I don't know what Florida law you're referring to, but there aren't any FL laws regarding STR's, that any homes in Florida are exempt from, because of when they were built. There are no "grandfathering" provisions in place that affect TV.

& Condominiums are a different animal than "fee simple" properties, such as in The Villages. The Developer could have put restrictions in the Deeds to prohibit STR's, but chose not to.

(It's questionable, if they could have prohibited Short Term Rentals, subsequent to the change in Florida Law, in 2011.)

Local ordinances in place prior to 2011 that defined and limited Short Term Rentals are "grandfathered" and can stay in place and are not subject to the Florida law that prohibits ordinances that limit STR's.

[Karmanng]

There are some homeowners who have live-in aides. They're not family, they're contractors/employees. You'd need to offer exceptions. And that means you'd have to be up in someone's health business, which is against HIPAA law.

Also how would you know that someone is renting a room to someone, and isn't in a non-marriage relationship with them? Best friends who aren't life partners, or the lady down the street who lost her husband and downsized and sold her house, and is now renting a room at a neighbor's house...

Also what of friends who share a property, but aren't related, and share expenses and sleep in their own bedrooms.

The only thing you could really enforce, is if you catch the property being offered for rent on a website, or newspaper, or a sign on the window.

CORRECT too many other scenarieos so does that mean my fiance and I cant live together in MY HOUSE before I chose to marry him? I dont think so. That is pushing privacy way too far

[BrianL99]

CORRECT too many other scenarieos so does that mean my fiance and I cant live together in MY HOUSE before I chose to marry him? I dont think so. That is pushing privacy way too far

You're 100% correct.

Unless someone has been living under a rock in the woods for the last 25+ years, they should know that society and in most cases, laws, cannot define nor should they define, what constitutes a "family".

[Shipping up to Boston]

CORRECT too many other scenarieos so does that mean my fiance and I cant live together in MY HOUSE before I chose to marry him? I dont think so. That is pushing privacy way too far

Not quite the Bible belt so I think you’re good living in sin! ;) That was a joke btw!

[mermaids]

I agree that the major rules should be enforced even if it adds to our fees. I don't think we need to go overboard. Like if a homeowner adds an extra pot of flowers to their landscaping. We shouldn't penalize them or give them any grief. But those running a business, that impacts their neighbors, should be stopped. And people also shouldn't park on someone's lawn. They risk damaging underground sprinkler systems. But they're doing it and they don't seem to care.

[rustyp]

It’s a poor decision for the CDD’s to accept. The Developer should clean up its mess and enforce the covenants in the real estate contract!

If the developer has not enforced the rule which I will make the assumption they spent zero dollars on this subject. Now the CDD's are to enforce the rule which was/is the developer's responsibility. Any enforcement will involve legal fees. The CDDs are us. The added expense most likely will come out of the amenity fees. That could mean less executive golf course maintenance, less flowers, etc. The CDDs should not accept this proposal without a bucket of money from the developer to clean up their negligence. This has all the making of the Paradise Rec Center fiasco all over again.

[golfing eagles]

CORRECT too many other scenarieos so does that mean my fiance and I cant live together in MY HOUSE before I chose to marry him? I dont think so. That is pushing privacy way too far

Only if you charge her rent and she stays for less than a month

[Bill14564]

If the developer has not enforced the rule which I will make the assumption they spent zero dollars on this subject. Now the CDD's are to enforce the rule which was/is the developer's responsibility. Any enforcement will involve legal fees. The CDDs are us. The added expense most likely will come out of the amenity fees. That could mean less executive golf course maintenance, less flowers, etc. The CDDs should not accept this proposal without a bucket of money from the developer to clean up their negligence. This has all the making of the Paradise Rec Center fiasco all over again.

Let's see:
- What rule was not enforced?
- The Developer has no responsibility to enforce any rule (check your deed restrictions)
- There *may* be additional legal fees
- Additional fees will NOT come out of amenity funds
-The CDD is *asking* for this additional authority
- What negligence?

[jimjamuser]

The covenant says that the Developer MAY enforce internal restrictions. It doesn't say that they WILL enforce them. It wasn't all that big a deal until the last decade or two, when the older generation of owners passed on, and children inherited the properties. Once that happened, they would move in - or rent - or sell - without concerning themselves with who the buyers were.

There was also a wave of new construction when people could buy the land for little to zero money, with the contract to build on it. They got the home cheap, and flipped it as an investment. That was before the Developers realized how much money people were making off these new homes and built a "no flipping for the first year" rule into the new contracts.

Now, it -seems- as though everyone and their brother is either in the process of buying and flipping, or bought because someone else bought and flipped. I know it's just a perception and hardly the reality, but that's what makes the news.
Personally, I have trouble seeing WHY anyone would want to relocate to Florida, especially for full-time living. The summers are disgustingly HOT, moldy and unhealthy, in general. And G.W. is making every succeeding summer incrementally WORSE. The warmer air is holding more RAIN. Hurricanes are predicted to intensify. The property costs are sky-HIGH. The interest rates are HIGH. The insurance costs are 3 TIMES the national average. Sixty vehicles are backed up on 441 at every red light. The local hospitals are considered MARGINAL.
.......On top of all that, you have underage and overage children walking the residential streets that look as if they would be kicked out of any street gang because none would have them. One "child" walks the streets playing a guitar while staring THREATENINGLY at the passing cars. I am sure that they need psychological help. I am just NOT sure that the streets of The Villages are the best place for them to get help. If there is this "change of responsibility" that would enforce a one month rule for visiting grandchildren, then I would be all for it. There are NEWER problem areas for The Villages developing in the last 2 years involving children (unwanted children).

[BrianL99]

Personally, I have trouble seeing WHY anyone would want to relocate to Florida, especially for full-time living. The summers are disgustingly HOT, moldy and unhealthy, in general. And G.W. is making every succeeding summer incrementally WORSE. The warmer air is holding more RAIN. Hurricanes are predicted to intensify. The property costs are sky-HIGH. The interest rates are HIGH. The insurance costs are 3 TIMES the national average. Sixty vehicles are backed up on 441 at every red light. The local hospitals are considered MARGINAL.
.......On top of all that, you have underage and overage children walking the residential streets that look as if they would be kicked out of any street gang because none would have them. One "child" walks the streets playing a guitar while staring THREATENINGLY at the passing cars. I am sure that they need psychological help. I am just NOT sure that the streets of The Villages are the best place for them to get help. If there is this "change of responsibility" that would enforce a one month rule for visiting grandchildren, then I would be all for it. There are NEWER problem areas for The Villages developing in the last 2 years involving children (unwanted children).

Has that message been vetted by the Florida Department of Travel and Tourism?

[Shipping up to Boston]

[QUOTE=jimjamuser;2313254]Personally, I have trouble seeing WHY anyone would want to relocate to Florida, especially for full-time living. The summers are disgustingly HOT, moldy and unhealthy, in general. And G.W. is making every succeeding summer incrementally WORSE. The warmer air is holding more RAIN. Hurricanes are predicted to intensify. The property costs are sky-HIGH. The interest rates are HIGH. The insurance costs are 3 TIMES the national average. Sixty vehicles are backed up on 441 at every red light. The local hospitals are considered MARGINAL.
.......On top of all that, you have underage and overage children walking the residential streets that look as if they would be kicked out of any street gang because none would have them. One "child" walks the streets playing a guitar while staring THREATENINGLY at the passing cars. I am sure that they need psychological help. I am just NOT sure that the streets of The Villages are the best place for them to get help. If there is this "change of responsibility" that would enforce a one month rule for visiting grandchildren, then I would be all for it. There are NEWER problem areas for The Villages developing in the last 2 years involving children (unwanted children).[/QUOTE

By ‘newer areas’ are you talking about the new high school area?

[Shipping up to Boston]

Has that message been vetted by the Florida Department of Travel and Tourism?

Or the Morse family!

[rustyp]

Let's see:
- What rule was not enforced?
- The Developer has no responsibility to enforce any rule (check your deed restrictions)
- There *may* be additional legal fees
- Additional fees will NOT come out of amenity funds
-The CDD is *asking* for this additional authority
- What negligence?

- People under 18 living in TV/ Running business from home
- Developer has no responsibility = selective enforcement - why not ignore my landscape violation 10 feet from the curb ?
- There will be legal fees
- The CDD and new residents are overreacting to the fear of short term rentals
- Negligence ? Look squirrel !

[BrianL99]

- People under 18 living in TV/ Running business from home
- Developer has no responsibility = selective enforcement - why not ignore my landscape violation 10 feet from the curb ?
- There will be legal fees
- The CDD and new residents are overreacting to the fear of short term rentals
- Negligence ? Look squirrel !

According the Newspaper (the name of which is not to be mentioned) article quoted in the original post, the CDD's did not "ask for this authority".

Apparently the Developer, on his own motion, met with legal counsel for CDD #4. The Supervisors were unaware of the meeting, until informed about it last week.

According to the Supervisors, such an undertaking would result in higher fees to residents, to pay for the legal costs incurred.

[Bill14564]

- People under 18 living in TV/ Running business from home
- Developer has no responsibility = selective enforcement - why not ignore my landscape violation 10 feet from the curb ?
- There will be legal fees
- The CDD and new residents are overreacting to the fear of short term rentals
- Negligence ? Look squirrel !

1. If that is happening then it should be fixed but, os it actually happening or is it just a rumor?
2. There has been no selective enforcement described here. All complaints to the CDD are followed up. Complaints to the Developer would likely not be made public so there is no way to know if they were dealt with.
3. If your crystal ball is that good, would you share the winning lottery numbers with us?
4. The CDD may be overreacting to something but STRs do not violate deed restrictions and in any case, the CDD is asking for authority, they are not being forces to take it.
5. Again, what negligence are you referring to?

[Bill14564]

According the Newspaper (the name of which is not to be mentioned) article quoted in the original post, the CDD's did not "ask for this authority".

Apparently the Developer, on his own motion, met with legal counsel for CDD #4. The Supervisors were unaware of the meeting, until informed about it last week.

According to the Supervisors, such an undertaking would result in higher fees to residents, to pay for the legal costs incurred.

Looks like I need to do some digging. The article was not the first time I heard about this and I thought it involved a different CDD. When I find those details and source information I will post it.

[tophcfa]

Personally, I have trouble seeing WHY anyone would want to relocate to Florida, especially for full-time living. The summers are disgustingly HOT, moldy and unhealthy, in general. And G.W. is making every succeeding summer incrementally WORSE. The warmer air is holding more RAIN. Hurricanes are predicted to intensify. The property costs are sky-HIGH. The interest rates are HIGH. The insurance costs are 3 TIMES the national average. Sixty vehicles are backed up on 441 at every red light. The local hospitals are considered MARGINAL.
.......On top of all that, you have underage and overage children walking the residential streets that look as if they would be kicked out of any street gang because none would have them. One "child" walks the streets playing a guitar while staring THREATENINGLY at the passing cars. I am sure that they need psychological help. I am just NOT sure that the streets of The Villages are the best place for them to get help. If there is this "change of responsibility" that would enforce a one month rule for visiting grandchildren, then I would be all for it. There are NEWER problem areas for The Villages developing in the last 2 years involving children (unwanted children).

Yet you are presumably here and the Villages continues to sell homes as fast as they can build them. Go figure?

[rustyp]

Looks like I need to do some digging. The article was not the first time I heard about this and I thought it involved a different CDD. When I find those details and source information I will post it.

-:oops::a20:

[coleprice]

Developer ready to hand off enforcement of rules against children and businesses. CDDs will need more money for legal fees to accomplish.....per The Village News.
Basic Rule of Business: The CDD's should NOT accept the responsibility to enforce rules against children and businesses if there is additional cost to them UNLESS the developer also provides the funds estimated to execute the associated effort. To do otherwise would be irresponsible, as it would be like a Contractor accepting a Change (New Work) without an associated increase in Cost.

[Bill14564]

According the Newspaper (the name of which is not to be mentioned) article quoted in the original post, the CDD's did not "ask for this authority".

Apparently the Developer, on his own motion, met with legal counsel for CDD #4. The Supervisors were unaware of the meeting, until informed about it last week.

According to the Supervisors, such an undertaking would result in higher fees to residents, to pay for the legal costs incurred.

Looks like I need to do some digging. The article was not the first time I heard about this and I thought it involved a different CDD. When I find those details and source information I will post it.

-:oops::a20:

In the March 8 minutes of the CDD4 board meeting at the 1:10:12 mark, there is a discussion of CDD4 assisting in the enforcement of internal deed restrictions. This was a follow-up on a request CDD4 made to the Developer. CD4 does not want to take over enforcement but wants to assist, particularly with complaints about children and businesses. There is a possibility that Florida Statute 190 may need to be amended to allow this. A meeting was set up for the following week (possibly 3/17?) with the Developer's attorney for further discussions.

CDD4 initiated the request. The meeting that was reported on was the follow-up meeting. CDD4 was not surprised and the Developer did not initiate.

I still believe I heard the same topic mentioned with another CDD but I doubt I will search the minutes to find it.

[Marathon Man]

Personally, I have trouble seeing WHY anyone would want to relocate to Florida, especially for full-time living. The summers are disgustingly HOT, moldy and unhealthy, in general. And G.W. is making every succeeding summer incrementally WORSE. The warmer air is holding more RAIN. Hurricanes are predicted to intensify. The property costs are sky-HIGH. The interest rates are HIGH. The insurance costs are 3 TIMES the national average. Sixty vehicles are backed up on 441 at every red light. The local hospitals are considered MARGINAL.
.......On top of all that, you have underage and overage children walking the residential streets that look as if they would be kicked out of any street gang because none would have them. One "child" walks the streets playing a guitar while staring THREATENINGLY at the passing cars. I am sure that they need psychological help. I am just NOT sure that the streets of The Villages are the best place for them to get help. If there is this "change of responsibility" that would enforce a one month rule for visiting grandchildren, then I would be all for it. There are NEWER problem areas for The Villages developing in the last 2 years involving children (unwanted children).

Wow. Just, wow.

[nn0wheremann]

Developer ready to hand off enforcement of rules against children and businesses. CDDs will need more money for legal fees to accomplish.....per The Village News.
They could hire Guido Two Fingers and the Joyzy Guyz who would do the enforcement cheap, or place a lien on the offending property and collect when the offenders sell.

[Justputt]

Wow. Just, wow.

Indeed! I want to type LOL, but they may be serious....

[4$ALE]

Indeed! I want to type LOL, but they may be serious....

:undecided: May?????

[Veiragirl]

I’m for whatever it takes if the CDD’s are willing to enforce two specific deed restrictions, properties shall be used as single family residential units and businesses cannot be run out of residential homes. That would take care of the problem of people renting out rooms to non family members while concurrently living in the home.

I totally agree. My biggest problem is teenagers/moocher kids who play video games and dont work. They also are a problem with crime here in TV. I hope someone in TV will report this behavior (seeing these people living where they shouldn't be)

They're parents should stop enabling them. They need a swift kick in ass .

[kcrazorbackfan]

Developer ready to hand off enforcement of rules against children and businesses. CDDs will need more money for legal fees to accomplish.....per The Village News.

Every thing comes at a price; do the complainers want children and businesses in their neighborhoods or not; if they don’t, get ready to scratch a check out for more money to the CDD’s.

[jimjamuser]

Has that message been vetted by the Florida Department of Travel and Tourism?
Have you heard - they want to make ME their spokesperson.

[jimjamuser]

Yet you are presumably here and the Villages continues to sell homes as fast as they can build them. Go figure?
Yes, life tends to have its contradictions.

[Normal]

Developer ready to hand off enforcement of rules against children and businesses. CDDs will need more money for legal fees to accomplish.....per The Village News.

Can the typical Villager continue to afford increases in everything? Next thing you know, we will pay more for fire too.

[Bill14564]

Can the typical Villager continue to afford increases in everything? Next thing you know, we will pay more for fire too.

🤦🤦 🤦🤦

[JMintzer]

Yes, life tends to have its contradictions.

Guess so... Considering you're still living in TV Hellhole...

[tophcfa]

Renting the home is certainly a business activity. However, renting a home does not mean business is being conducted in the home. The activities being conducted in the home are eating, sleeping, cooking, and cleaning. These are the exact same activities that are conducted in my home and 70,000+ other homes in the Villages.

The people sitting on the sofa and eating at the kitchen table are not customers visiting a business, they are guests performing the normal activities conducted in a home: eating, sleeping, cooking, and cleaning.

Wow, what a convoluted, misguided, and contradictory post. Here’s the litmus test. Would the people referenced be allowed in the home without paying rent? If the answer is no, it’s a business. Family and friends who stay with residents for free are house guests of residents. People who pay rent to stay in someone’s home, while they concurrently live there, are customers of a business. Any reasonable person looking objectively would draw the same conclusion. Justify it any way that floats your boat, it’s a business being run out of a home.

[Bill14564]

Wow, what a convoluted, misguided, and contradictory post. Here’s the litmus test. Would the people referenced be allowed in the home without paying rent? If the answer is no, it’s a business. Family and friends who stay with residents for free are house guests of residents. People who pay rent to stay in someone’s home, while they concurrently live there, are customers of a business. Any reasonable person looking objectively would draw the same conclusion. Justify it any way that floats your boat, it’s a business being run out of a home.

I'm tired of typing the same thing over and over. I have addressed this in previous posts - go back and look.

[tophcfa]

I'm tired of typing the same thing over and over. I have addressed this in previous posts - go back and look.

Seen them all, and I’m tired of correcting you. I guess we agree to disagree.

[Bill14564]

Seen them all, and I’m tired of correcting you. I guess we agree to disagree.

Sounds good

[golfing eagles]

Wow, what a convoluted, misguided, and contradictory post. Here’s the litmus test. Would the people referenced be allowed in the home without paying rent? If the answer is no, it’s a business. Family and friends who stay with residents for free are house guests of residents. People who pay rent to stay in someone’s home, while they concurrently live there, are customers of a business. Any reasonable person looking objectively would draw the same conclusion. Justify it any way that floats your boat, it’s a business being run out of a home.

I'm tired of typing the same thing over and over. I have addressed this in previous posts - go back and look.

Seen them all, and I’m tired of correcting you. I guess we agree to disagree.

Sounds good

Which is why any entity---developer or CDD---will incur significant legal costs if they take this issue on.

[BrianL99]

Seen them all, and I’m tired of correcting you. I guess we agree to disagree.

Sometimes corrections just don't take. Remember that old "joke ink" that used to be around when we were kids? You could "erase it" and 5 minutes later, it was back again. Like a 3 Stooges skit.

[jimjamuser]

Which is why any entity---developer or CDD---will incur significant legal costs if they take this issue on.
I thought that the developer had an ARMY of lawyers.

[Topspinmo]

I thought that the developer had an ARMY of lawyers.

No, only tax cheats do…:crap2:

[Maker]

The covenant says that the Developer MAY enforce internal restrictions. It doesn't say that they WILL enforce them.

If it says the DEVELOPER and not the CDD, then this is a non issue.

If the developer decides to hire the CDD to do that, not sure if the CDD can engage in that due to how their organization exists under Florida law. Certainly not on the shoulders of resident's and their wallets.

[golfing eagles]

I thought that the developer had an ARMY of lawyers.

And they work for free????? :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[BrianL99]

Which is why any entity---developer or CDD---will incur significant legal costs if they take this issue on.


If it says the DEVELOPER and not the CDD, then this is a non issue.

If the developer decides to hire the CDD to do that, not sure if the CDD can engage in that due to how their organization exists under Florida law. Certainly not on the shoulders of resident's and their wallets.

The Developer owns those rights. They are part of the "Bundle of Rights" that are included (or not included) when you purchase land. That part of the "bundle", the Developer retained and he can most likely assign those rights to anyone he wishes. He can certainly contract out, enforcement of those rights.

Sooner or later, there's going to be lawsuit over the restrictions & covenants and I suspect who ever gets sued (Developer, CDD, whoever) is going to spend a small fortune, defending.

[oldtimes]

Which is why any entity---developer or CDD---will incur significant legal costs if they take this issue on.

That's what's wrong with the country. It has become too expensive to prosecute so companies just absorb the loss and pass it on.