Are the districts being conned again?

[sam&rog]

The developer is promoting turning over inside deed restrictions to the districts under the guise of stopping under age kids living here.

Sounds good until you realize that enforcement of short term rentals would also be included.

Airbnb website lists 1000 plus rentals under The Villages Fl.

Imagine the costs to address this with lawyer fees and court costs paid by us. Because the developer sees what is happening and wants to pawn another problem onto the districts.
Time to say no thank you.

[Shipping up to Boston]

The developer is promoting turning over inside deed restrictions to the districts under the guise of stopping under age kids living here.

Sounds good until you realize that enforcement of short term rentals would also be included.

Airbnb website lists 1000 plus rentals under The Villages Fl.

Imagine the costs to address this with lawyer fees and court costs paid by us. Because the developer sees what is happening and wants to pawn another problem onto the districts.
Time to say no thank you.

All due respect, this one was covered extensively in a recent thread.

[JoMar]

The developer is promoting turning over inside deed restrictions to the districts under the guise of stopping under age kids living here.

Sounds good until you realize that enforcement of short term rentals would also be included.

Airbnb website lists 1000 plus rentals under The Villages Fl.

Imagine the costs to address this with lawyer fees and court costs paid by us. Because the developer sees what is happening and wants to pawn another problem onto the districts.
Time to say no thank you.

In my view, doesn't matter. The Developer didn't enforce them and I doubt the District will either.

[rustyp]

In my view, doesn't matter. The Developer didn't enforce them and I doubt the District will either.

A good argument for leaving it with the developer. Nothing from nothing equals nothing.

[Shipping up to Boston]

A good argument for leaving it with the developer. Nothing from nothing equals nothing.

I like that
I usually say ' nothing changes if nothing changes '

[margaretmattson]

In my view, doesn't matter. The Developer didn't enforce them and I doubt the District will either.The new Florida bill mandates enforcement. Owners will have to register their homes with the local government. Two occupants per room and someone must be available 24 hours to handle complaints. The developer has the most rentals in the community. I guess we will have to wait and see how this plays out. I would vote NO until I knew all the facts. Enforcement is handled by the local governments? Or who?

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

The new Florida bill mandates enforcement. Owners will have to register their homes with the local government. Two occupants per room is allowed and someone must be available 24 hours to handle complaints. The developer has the most rentals in the community. I guess we will have to wait and see how this plays out. I would vote NO until I knew all the facts. Enforcement is handled by the local governments? Or who?

The developer also owns its own property management company, and actually does a good job handling those properties.

The properties that are "problem" rentals are owned by individuals who think they don't need a property manager at all, but don't live nearby to handle anything if something goes wrong.

[dewilson58]

:icon_bored:

[JoMar]

The new Florida bill mandates enforcement. Owners will have to register their homes with the local government. Two occupants per room and someone must be available 24 hours to handle complaints. The developer has the most rentals in the community. I guess we will have to wait and see how this plays out. I would vote NO until I knew all the facts. Enforcement is handled by the local governments? Or who?

Not only about rentals, internal also goes to having kids live with you, kids staing more than 30 days a year, noise complaints. Also, not sure the state bill has any teeth in it or how they will enforce.

[Stu from NYC]

The developer is not going to lose any money by doing this

[Shipping up to Boston]

The developer is not going to lose any money by doing this

Correct
Most developers do just that ....develop.
They leave maintenance and enforcement of this type of legislation to yet another layer of local or state bureaucracy....or attorneys. Either way, if and when enacted, watch your line items very closely. Somebody has to pay for its rollout

[banjobob]

The developer is promoting turning over inside deed restrictions to the districts under the guise of stopping under age kids living here.

Sounds good until you realize that enforcement of short term rentals would also be included.

Airbnb website lists 1000 plus rentals under The Villages Fl.

Imagine the costs to address this with lawyer fees and court costs paid by us. Because the developer sees what is happening and wants to pawn another problem onto the districts.
Time to say no thank you.
I have never heard of any inside deed restrictions ever being enforced by the developer, Does anyone know of any?

[justjim]

CDD’S have never had “police powers”to enforce anything in TV that I know about. Fore!

[bsloan1960]

All due respect, this one was covered extensively in a recent thread. So it is your belief that because you are aware that this subject was addressed in the past that all other members are automatically aware as well? I stop in here every day and haven't seen it. The fact that people are adding comments to this new, revisited posting on this subject is evidence that the new posting about this matter is of interest to them.

[Bill14564]

So it is your belief that because you are aware that this subject was addressed in the past that all other members are automatically aware as well? I stop in here every day and haven't seen it. The fact that people are adding comments to this new, revisited posting on this subject is evidence that the new posting about this matter is of interest to them.

With just a little bit of searching the original thread from 3/18 (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/villages-florida-general-discussion-73/increases-coming-cdd-348625/?highlight=developer) could have been found. It was active for five days so it's surprising you missed it.

To summarize:
- CDD4 asked whether it wold be possible for them to assist with enforcing internal deed restrictions
- The developer did not initiate this discussion
- It may be necessary to amend section 190 of the Florida Statutes before this can be done
- Children living in homes and businesses being run out of homes were the two issues CDD4 was concerned about

I suspect the agreements with each numbered CDD would need to be amended for them to accept this responsibility. If this is the case then each of the CDDs would have a choice whether to take on the additional work and any additional cost.

[mkjelenbaas]

The developer is promoting turning over inside deed restrictions to the districts under the guise of stopping under age kids living here.

Sounds good until you realize that enforcement of short term rentals would also be included.

Airbnb website lists 1000 plus rentals under The Villages Fl.

Imagine the costs to address this with lawyer fees and court costs paid by us. Because the developer sees what is happening and wants to pawn another problem onto the districts.
Time to say no thank you.
Everyone should understand what is happening because if this happens our expenses will surely head north!!

[Girlcopper]

All due respect, this one was covered extensively in a recent thread.
Yes. It has been. Why do people rehash old topics? Maybe just to stir the pot?

[GATORBILL66]

Anything to get rid of short term rentals (leases under 6 months) in The Villages is a good thing!

[Topspinmo]

Everyone should understand what is happening because if this happens our expenses will surely head north!!


They’re going north anyway and there NOTHING we can do about it. And if that’s not they enough just add it to maintenance fee.

[Stu from NYC]

Yes. It has been. Why do people rehash old topics? Maybe just to stir the pot?

Or someone didnt notice earlier thread/ Three months or more or less after a thread how many of us remember it in detail?

[Bill14564]

Or someone didnt notice earlier thread/ Three months or more or less after a thread how many of us remember it in detail?

Probably not many. But what about a thread that was active just five DAYS earlier (see post #15)?

[Shipping up to Boston]

So it is your belief that because you are aware that this subject was addressed in the past that all other members are automatically aware as well? I stop in here every day and haven't seen it. The fact that people are adding comments to this new, revisited posting on this subject is evidence that the new posting about this matter is of interest to them.

Yip Yap Yip Yap.....sorry my CPA up north is on line two!

[jimjamuser]

Anything to get rid of short term rentals (leases under 6 months) in The Villages is a good thing!
I second that emotion...........or motion.

[JMintzer]

Anything to get rid of short term rentals (leases under 6 months) in The Villages is a good thing!

I second that emotion...........or motion.

So people who want to rent for two to three months, as recommended by many on this board (since a Lifestyle Visit is not enough), so that they can really get a feel for TV before buying, are out of luck?

[Topspinmo]

So people who want to rent for two to three months, as recommended by many on this board (since a Lifestyle Visit is not enough), so that they can really get a feel for TV before buying, are out of luck?

Why can’t the get feel in 6 months. IMO should be no rentals in retirement community. They developers buildings and homes used for lifestyle are not included cause they’re not private owned retirees O wait this not retirement community but extended Disneyland. :boom:

[Bill14564]

Why can’t the get feel in 6 months. IMO should be no rentals in retirement community. They developers buildings and homes used for lifestyle are not included cause they’re not private owned retirees O wait this not retirement community but extended Disneyland. :boom:

I can find no text in the majority of the deed restrictions I've read that prohibits rentals.

I can remember no text in the majority of the deed restrictions I've read that mentions any exception for developer-owned properties?

I see no exceptions in any of the Florida statutes that except developer-owned properties either.

I personally like living in the adult Disneyland. I like being able to have friends stay in my house when they visit. I like being able to find places to rent in the Villages when family visits for longer periods of time. Fortunately, the deed restrictions and Florida statutes appear to accommodate those things.

[Topspinmo]

I can find no text in the majority of the deed restrictions I've read that prohibits rentals.

I can remember no text in the majority of the deed restrictions I've read that mentions any exception for developer-owned properties?

I see no exceptions in any of the Florida statutes that except developer-owned properties either.

I personally like living in the adult Disneyland. I like being able to have friends stay in my house when they visit. I like being able to find places to rent in the Villages when family visits for longer periods of time. Fortunately, the deed restrictions and Florida statutes appear to accommodate those things.

It don’t have to be there the developers pull ALL strings. Developers since I been have Never enforced inside rules that I was aware of. But got plenty of extension’s from district to do what they want.

[JMintzer]

Why can’t the get feel in 6 months. IMO should be no rentals in retirement community. They developers buildings and homes used for lifestyle are not included cause they’re not private owned retirees O wait this not retirement community but extended Disneyland. :boom:

Not everyone can afford 6 month rentals. Not everyone is already retired and can take 6 months off their jobs... And if they do buy, they may need that added income to carry the home until they -do- move in full time...

And you want ZERO rentals? Typical "I got mine" attitude...

I'm not yet a "frog", and we don't rent out our home when we're not there. We consider ourselves lucky to be able to pull that off...

[JMintzer]

I can find no text in the majority of the deed restrictions I've read that prohibits rentals.

I can remember no text in the majority of the deed restrictions I've read that mentions any exception for developer-owned properties?

I see no exceptions in any of the Florida statutes that except developer-owned properties either.

I personally like living in the adult Disneyland. I like being able to have friends stay in my house when they visit. I like being able to find places to rent in the Villages when family visits for longer periods of time. Fortunately, the deed restrictions and Florida statutes appear to accommodate those things.

:boom::boom::boom:

[Stu from NYC]

Probably not many. But what about a thread that was active just five DAYS earlier (see post #15)?

I am an active poster on here and do not read every thread, just the ones that perk my interest.

Might not be interested in one yesterday but might be with another one days later.

[nn0wheremann]

The developer is promoting turning over inside deed restrictions to the districts under the guise of stopping under age kids living here.

Sounds good until you realize that enforcement of short term rentals would also be included.

Airbnb website lists 1000 plus rentals under The Villages Fl.

Imagine the costs to address this with lawyer fees and court costs paid by us. Because the developer sees what is happening and wants to pawn another problem onto the districts.
Time to say no thank you.
One would think that most of the STRs are investment properties, financed by mortgages. I would be surprised if in Florida a government lien does not have first priority for collection, so legal cost of enforcement could be supported by liens placed against the offending properties, which would invalidate the first mortgage liens, and make those mortgages immediately collectible. Quite an incentive to get out of the STR business if the District governments would actually start enforcing the deed restrictions.

[Topspinmo]

Not everyone can afford 6 month rentals. Not everyone is already retired and can take 6 months off their jobs... And if they do buy, they may need that added income to carry the home until they -do- move in full time...

And you want ZERO rentals? Typical "I got mine" attitude...

I'm not yet a "frog", and we don't rent out our home when we're not there. We consider ourselves lucky to be able to pull that off...

Why have lifestyle visit. Yes ZERO. You know what the say want in one hand and ——- in the other.

[tophcfa]

One would think that most of the STRs are investment properties, financed by mortgages. I would be surprised if in Florida a government lien does not have first priority for collection, so legal cost of enforcement could be supported by liens placed against the offending properties, which would invalidate the first mortgage liens, and make those mortgages immediately collectible. Quite an incentive to get out of the STR business if the District governments would actually start enforcing the deed restrictions.
Sounds to good to be true. But if it is, bring it on!

[CoachKandSportsguy]

Anything to get rid of short term rentals (leases under 6 months) in The Villages is a good thing!

really? a boon to the developer who will be the only one left with short term rentals for prospective buyers is the end result of this desire.

Most of our rentals have been under 6 months, and most have been looking to buy in the villages, or are family to someone in the villages for holidays as a typical house can't hold more than the owner's immediate family comfortably.

One rental was from an NFL wide receiver who was being treated for brain concussions at the local brain treatment center, also a family member of someone in the villages. .

So now you are forcing holiday family gatherings into hotels, of which there are so many?

how nice of you. . .

NIMBY runs rampant, without any understanding of the impacts. . . . and we have had repeats from people very nice, the neighbors all loved the 70 year old couples. . . who visited friends in the Villages for several months in the winter. .

[JMintzer]

Why have lifestyle visit. Yes ZERO. You know what the say want in one hand and ——- in the other.

The Lifestyle visit is a "taste"... It's the bait...

You don't really know what living in TV is until you actually live here for a while.

A week just doesn't cut it...

Our lifestyle visit was actually stying with friends for a week. I was immediately smitten. My wife, otoh, wasn't so sure. So, a year later, we rented for two months. That was the assurance she needed...

During that two month stay, we made an offer on a home and it was accepted. That was just over 3 years ago...

[JMintzer]

You know what the say want in one hand and ——- in the other.

Oh, and who says anything like that?

[JMintzer]

really? a boon to the developer who will be the only one left with short term rentals for prospective buyers is the end result of this desire.

Most of our rentals have been under 6 months, and most have been looking to buy in the villages, or are family to someone in the villages for holidays as a typical house can't hold more than the owner's immediate family comfortably.

One rental was from an NFL wide receiver who was being treated for brain concussions at the local brain treatment center, also a family member of someone in the villages. .

So now you are forcing holiday family gatherings into hotels, of which there are so many?

how nice of you. . .

NIMBY runs rampant, without any understanding of the impacts. . . . and we have had repeats from people very nice, the neighbors all loved the 70 year old couples. . . who visited friends in the Villages for several months in the winter. .

Excellent points...

[Stu from NYC]

Oh, and who says anything like that?

They do:bigbow:

[JMintzer]

They do:bigbow:

They are starting to tick me off!

[Shipping up to Boston]

They are starting to tick me off!

Take a deep breath.....carry on

[Stu from NYC]

They are starting to tick me off!

Just starting? you have a lot of patience.

[Two Bills]

They do:bigbow:

Are you positive it isn't them? :shrug:

[Laker14]

The Lifestyle visit is a "taste"... It's the bait...

You don't really know what living in TV is until you actually live here for a while.

A week just doesn't cut it...

Our lifestyle visit was actually stying with friends for a week. I was immediately smitten. My wife, otoh, wasn't so sure. So, a year later, we rented for two months. That was the assurance she needed...

During that two month stay, we made an offer on a home and it was accepted. That was just over 3 years ago...

You and your wife's experience very closely resembles how my wife and I came to be homeowners here in TV. Visiting friends, then renting, then buying. I was pretty much sold many years ago when I first drove up Morse from 466A (before there was any Villages development south of 466A), and seeing the golf courses on either side of Morse. My wife wasn't sold on the place until many years later, after we rented a couple of winters. Now she loves it and occasionally will even tell me I was "right". (Wow! just wow.)

One really learns a lot by renting for a season or longer. I got past the "honeymoon" delirium, but still found it worthwhile, and my wife moved past her misgivings about the place to deciding it was a good place for our winter migrations. We sort of met in the middle.

In addition to the big question about whether TV was right for us at all, we learned a lot about what kind of home, neighborhood, etc. we'd want to buy into.

That kind of rental experience fits well into the overall TV model. I certainly wouldn't want to be next door to a revolving door **** rental unit.

[JMintzer]

Just starting? you have a lot of patience.

Dealing with "patients" for close to 40 years tends to give one "patience"... :icon_wink:

[JMintzer]

Are you positive it isn't them? :shrug:

https://horrorpediadotcom.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/tumblr_n0jnw7nfu01sn8m9wo1_500.gif

[kkingston57]

Not only about rentals, internal also goes to having kids live with you, kids staing more than 30 days a year, noise complaints. Also, not sure the state bill has any teeth in it or how they will enforce.

Will need to create new agency and call it "Village Enforcement" and they will need to enforce all of the BNB Operations, golf cart speeders, independently investigate Morse Blvd cart vs car accidents, enforce crosses and other similar things, monitor all round abouts, etc and all at a cost which will not increase amenity fees by no more than $5.00 a household.

[Shipping up to Boston]

Will need to create new agency and call it "Village Enforcement" and they will need to enforce all of the BNB Operations, golf cart speeders, independently investigate Morse Blvd cart vs car accidents, enforce crosses and other similar things, monitor all round abouts, etc and all at a cost which will not increase amenity fees by no more than $5.00 a household.

Oh Boy. Smh

[JMintzer]

Oh Boy. Smh

https://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m2zbluIBGu1qdm8qco1_400.gif

[biker1]

There isn't any arbitrary increasing of the amenity fee. The amenity fee changes according to the CPI, as per your deed restrictions.

Will need to create new agency and call it "Village Enforcement" and they will need to enforce all of the BNB Operations, golf cart speeders, independently investigate Morse Blvd cart vs car accidents, enforce crosses and other similar things, monitor all round abouts, etc and all at a cost which will not increase amenity fees by no more than $5.00 a household.

[Stu from NYC]

There isn't any arbitrary increasing of the amenity fee. The amenity fee changes according to the CPI, as per your deed restrictions.

Not if they add more functions that add to expenses

[Shipping up to Boston]

https://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m2zbluIBGu1qdm8qco1_400.gif

Youve been on a lot longer than me....you never know whos kidding and who isn't ;)

[JMintzer]

Youve been on a lot longer than me....you never know whos kidding and who isn't ;)

Well, "Sarcasm" -is- my 2nd language, so...

[biker1]

Doubtful. You have some language that supports that assertion?

Not if they add more functions that add to expenses

[Bill14564]

There isn't any arbitrary increasing of the amenity fee. The amenity fee changes according to the CPI, as per your deed restrictions.

Not if they add more functions that add to expenses

Doubtful. You have some language that supports that assertion?

I have this language in my deed restrictions:
4.1(c) Each Owner agrees that as additional facilities are requested by the Owner, and the erection of such additional facilities is agreed to by the Developer, that upon a vote of 1/2 of the Owners approving such additional facilities and commensurate charges therefore, the monthly Contractual Amenities Fee provided for herein shall be increased accordingly. For the purpose of all votes, the Developer shall be entitled to one (1) vote for each Homesite owned by the Developer.

Additional facilities -> additional costs -> increased amenities fee. Of note, the addition of these facilities must be approved by 1/2 of the owners so not exactly arbitrary.

[biker1]

Yes, my deed restrictions say that. It isn't clear to me that a facility is the same as a service since they use the term "erection", such as building something. What is being discussed is a service and not a facility. Regardless, the CDDs cannot arbitrarily increase the amenity fee unless additional facilities are requested by the owners and agreed to by 1/2 the owners. I have lived here for 10 years and have never seen that happen. Good luck with that.

I have this language in my deed restrictions:
4.1(c) Each Owner agrees that as additional facilities are requested by the Owner, and the erection of such additional facilities is agreed to by the Developer, that upon a vote of 1/2 of the Owners approving such additional facilities and commensurate charges therefore, the monthly Contractual Amenities Fee provided for herein shall be increased accordingly. For the purpose of all votes, the Developer shall be entitled to one (1) vote for each Homesite owned by the Developer.

Additional facilities -> additional costs -> increased amenities fee. Of note, the addition of these facilities must be approved by 1/2 of the owners so not exactly arbitrary.

[Bill14564]

Yes, my deed restrictions say that. It isn't clear to me that a facility is the same as a service since they use the term "erection", such as building something. What is being discussed is a service and not a facility. Regardless, the CDDs cannot arbitrarily increase the amenity fee unless additional facilities are requested by the owners and agreed to by 1/2 the owners. I have lived here for 10 years and have never seen that happen. Good luck with that.

This thread and any additional costs have no connection to amenities fees. The numbered CDDs have nothing to do with amenities fees - they don't levy amenities fees, they don't receive amenities fees, and they don't spend amenities fees.

This thread has to do with the possibility of numbered CDDs taking on additional duties.The activities of the numbered CDDs are funded through the annual maintenance fee.

Amenities fees can be increased beyond the CPI adjustment as detailed in the deed restrictions. However, since the topic of this thread has nothing to do with additional amenities, the topic of this thread cannot result in an increase in amenities fees.

[biker1]

I never said the numbered CDDs. I was also responding to the post suggesting that the amenity fee could be increased by $5 for an additional service. It can't. Reread my post.

This thread and any additional costs have no connection to amenities fees. The numbered CDDs have nothing to do with amenities fees - they don't levy amenities fees, they don't receive amenities fees, and they don't spend amenities fees.

This thread has to do with the possibility of numbered CDDs taking on additional duties.The activities of the numbered CDDs are funded through the annual maintenance fee.

Amenities fees can be increased beyond the CPI adjustment as detailed in the deed restrictions. However, since the topic of this thread has nothing to do with additional amenities, the topic of this thread cannot result in an increase in amenities fees.

[Bill14564]

I never said the numbered CDDs. I was also responding to the post suggesting that the amenity fee could be increased by $5 for an additional service. It can't. Reread my post.

Just trying to tie things together for anyone who has become lost in all the extraneous information.

I read and understood your post. I even agreed with it to a point. What I didn't understand was the post you responded to, it seemed like an April Fool's joke.