Children

[tate1443]

What is the restriction for children living in the Villages?

[ElDiabloJoe]

I believe they must be over 19 years old and at least one resident (owner) of the household must be 55 or older.

Children are permitted, in fact encouraged, in the Middleton section. While part of The Villages, they have their own amenities and no access to 55+ amenities (Except the public ones like town squares, stores, restaurants, guest golfing, etc.).

[alwann]

Kids under 19 are not allowed to live here full-time. They can visit as often as you'd/they'd like but can't stay for more than 30 consecutive days. Whether this rule is actually enforced is a whole other can of worms.

[shut the front door]

I believe they must be over 19 years old and at least one resident (owner) of the household must be 55 or older.

Children are permitted, in fact encouraged, in the Middleton section. While part of The Villages, they have their own amenities and no access to 55+ amenities (Except the public ones like town squares, stores, restaurants, guest golfing, etc.).


One resident (owner) does not have to be 55+. See the 80/20 rule.

[villagetinker]

There may be some differences depending on where you live, check your deed restrictions for the specific information. I believe most of the info mentioned so far is accurate, but I do not know the details about the 'family' areas.

[ElDiabloJoe]

One resident (owner) does not have to be 55+. See the 80/20 rule.



While this is indeed true that only 80% of the homes must be occupied by a person 55+ to be considered under the Federal legal 55+ community umbrella, (The Housing for Older Persons Act of 1995 (HOPA), your point is moot.

If they have a house here, they qualified for 80/20 through Villages Sales staff. Of course, the could have purchased via the MLS. I believe the 55+ occupant requirement was to ensure the house was not solely occupied by a 19, a 20, and a 25 year old. Regardless, the rules regarding people under 19 specifically state that SOMEone must be 55+ in the house. See below.

According to The Villages dot com (FAQs About The Villages(R): Your Questions Answered (https://www.thevillages.com/faq/#:~:text=Does%20The%20Villages%20allow%20children, than%2019%20years%20of%20age.) ):

"Can you live in The Villages if you are under 55?

- Yes, if at least one member of your household is 55 and you are not younger than 19 years old.

While The Villages is a 55+ active adult community, we absolutely do welcome children and grandchildren. In fact, The Villages hosts year-round, inter-generational activities as part of Camp Villages. This special program encourages grandparents and grandchildren to experience together all the lifestyle amenities The Villages has to offer.

Please note, there is a 30-day consecutive limit for visitors under the age of 18."

[retiredguy123]

Kids under 19 are not allowed to live here full-time. They can visit as often as you'd/they'd like but can't stay for more than 30 consecutive days. Whether this rule is actually enforced is a whole other can of worms.
If they stay on my street for more than 30 days, I can guarantee that the rule will be enforced.

[John Mayes]

If they stay on my street for more than 30 days, I can guarantee that the rule will be enforced.

Wow.

[asianthree]

Our old neighborhood had 2 sisters that have been living in TV since they turned 19, to take care of their parents. Both parents passed when girls turned 22 & 24. Both now own the home, work in TV, are full time residents. Our first home sold to a couple age 24, and 27.

[Bogie Shooter]

If they stay on my street for more than 30 days, I can guarantee that the rule will be enforced.

Guarantee? How is that?

[asianthree]

Guarantee? How is that?

Pitchforks, and lanterns:girlneener:

[retiredguy123]

Guarantee? How is that?
The rule is pretty clear. Hopefully, The Villages will enforce their own rule if they have a specific, verifiable complaint. I moved here to get away from living around children. Why can't people just follow the rules that they agreed to follow?

[Altavia]

The rule is pretty clear. Hopefully, The Villages will enforce their own rule if they have a specific, verifiable complaint. I moved here to get away from living around children. Why can't people just follow the rules that they agreed to follow?

Internal restrictions are not enforced but any resident can initiate legal action.

[Debra Freeman]

At least 80 percent of occupied unites in a 55+ community must have at least one person living there who is over 55. This leaves the other 20 percent of the community's units available for people of any age, creating the “80/20 Rule.”

So children may live year round in those “20%” households.

[Bill14564]

At least 80 percent of occupied unites in a 55+ community must have at least one person living there who is over 55. This leaves the other 20 percent of the community's units available for people of any age, creating the “80/20 Rule.”

So children may live year round in those “20%” households.

NO

All homes in the Villages come with deed restrictions. While there are many version of these deed restrictions, every one that I have looked at limits the number of days a child under 19 can stay in the home.

[retiredguy123]

Kids under 19 are not allowed to live here full-time. They can visit as often as you'd/they'd like but can't stay for more than 30 consecutive days. Whether this rule is actually enforced is a whole other can of worms.
To clarify, in my neighborhood, the deed restrictions state:

"... persons below the age of nineteen (19) may be permitted to visit and temporarily reside for periods not exceeding thirty (30) days in total in any calendar year."

Note that it doesn't say anything about consecutive days, but 30 days "in total".

[Shelbyh]

What is the restriction for children living in the Villages?

We bought a new home in TV 3 months ago. Our deed says no one under 19 can live in the home permanently.
This is not the problem here. If you watch ship smith news in TV who shares the police arrest info, adult children living with mom and dad are the trouble makers. I would agree with him.
Secondly, anyone of any age can be a renter here. Now this I don’t understand.

[retiredguy123]

We bought a new home in TV 3 months ago. Our deed says no one under 19 can live in the home permanently.
This is not the problem here. If you watch ship smith news in TV who shares the police arrest info, adult children living with mom and dad are the trouble makers. I would agree with him.
Secondly, anyone of any age can be a renter here. Now this I don’t understand.
Do you have a source for your last 2 sentences? As I understand it, the deed restrictions apply to the property owner, who must ensure compliance by any residents.

[ithos]

Has there ever been a case where a young adult was forced to move out of a home in The Villages?

[asianthree]

Has there ever been a case where a young adult was forced to move out of a home in The Villages?

Around 2010 in our first neighborhood a retired couple had a horrific life changing event. Their daughter and spouse in a deadly crash, pronounced at the scene. Their 2yo child was not in the car.
Temporary custody was given to grandparents, here in TV. They immediately started looking for a home in the area, outside of TV. Someone filed a complaint, and notice was given to remove child, or vacant home. They took temporary residence outside of TV until home sold, and new residence established outside of TV.

Many neighbors were upset within days of funeral that someone in the neighborhood didn’t even give them a week before filing complaint. Neighborhood raised money to help with their sudden temporary move. We were out of state at the time, but our website gave everyone updates.

[ithos]

Around 2010 in our first neighborhood a retired couple had a horrific life changing event. Their daughter and spouse in a deadly crash, pronounced at the scene. Their 2yo child was not in the car.
Temporary custody was given to grandparents, here in TV. They immediately started looking for a home in the area, outside of TV. Someone filed a complaint, and notice was given to remove child, or vacant home. They took temporary residence outside of TV until home sold, and new residence established outside of TV.

Many neighbors were upset within days of funeral that someone in the neighborhood didn’t even give them a week before filing complaint. Neighborhood raised money to help with their sudden temporary move. We were out of state at the time, but our website gave everyone updates.

I knew that they enforced the rule for children. I was wondering if someone in their 20's or older was required to move out of a home for being too young?

[tophcfa]

The rule is pretty clear. HOPEFULLY, The Villages will enforce their own rule if they have a specific, verifiable complaint. I moved here to get away from living around children. Why can't people just follow the rules that they agreed to follow?

There in lies the key word, “HOPEFULLY”! Don’t hold your breath waiting for hopefully to happen. The precedent has already been set with not enforcing other internal deed restriction violations.

[CybrSage]

To clarify, in my neighborhood, the deed restrictions state:

"... persons below the age of nineteen (19) may be permitted to visit and temporarily reside for periods not exceeding thirty (30) days in total in any calendar year."

Note that it doesn't say anything about consecutive days, but 30 days "in total".

Mine says the same

[CybrSage]

I knew that they enforced the rule for children. I was wondering if someone in their 20's or older was required to move out of a home for being too young?

My deed has no restrictions for people 19 and over. I could sell to a group of 19 year olds and it would be fully legal

[ithos]

My deed has no restrictions for people 19 and over. I could sell to a group of 19 year olds and it would be fully legal

That is what I thought. So due to the twenty eighty rule, there probably never will be a case where an adult is thrown out.

[RRGuyNJ]

If they stay on my street for more than 30 days, I can guarantee that the rule will be enforced.

Yep, one of those.

[nn0wheremann]

Kids under 19 are not allowed to live here full-time. They can visit as often as you'd/they'd like but can't stay for more than 30 consecutive days. Whether this rule is actually enforced is a whole other can of worms.
if no kids under 19 years old may live here why do we have to pay county school taxes?

[Bill14564]

if no kids under 19 years old may live here why do we have to pay county school taxes?

Because "here" is part of the county.

[nn0wheremann]

Wow.
Grumpy old guys goys rights too! Just ask Archie Bunker!

[retiredguy123]

Yep, one of those.
Maybe. I won't complain about lawn ornaments and most other things. But, I will complain about children moving in.

[sbrecklin]

Wow.

Don’t want to live on your street with an attitude like that, can guarantee you that!

[asianthree]

I knew that they enforced the rule for children. I was wondering if someone in their 20's or older was required to move out of a home for being too young?

Apparently TV isn’t close to the 20% rule. We know several work from home residents that own homes in TV not in family areas, that are in their mid 20’s, and 30’s. The downside for them is older neighbors look for their help more than they should because they are young, and don’t get the concept of work from home, is a job.

Orlando is their home base, and require once a week in person meetings. TV is much cheaper than Orlando living, with a small apartment near parks starting at $3,000 a month.

[jmaccallum]

What is the restriction for children living in the Villages?

Actually, there is No Precedent in Law. Both the HUD and Florida HOPA speak only to the 80% requirement for a 55+ community. There is no stipulation by either to the other 20% occupancy. The tradition has been to establish allowed occupancy of the 20% with Recorded Deed Restrictions and sometimes only Community Rules. Deed Restrictions can at most times be legally enforced but usually only with some type of Lien against the property. Community Rules however are typically viewed as weak. There is also the Fair Housing Act which is very strong in legal precedent. In summary, it is a hard and expensive issue to litigate.

[Marathon Man]

If they stay on my street for more than 30 days, I can guarantee that the rule will be enforced.

The rule is pretty clear. Hopefully, The Villages will enforce their own rule if they have a specific, verifiable complaint. I moved here to get away from living around children. Why can't people just follow the rules that they agreed to follow?

Nice backpedal.

[Marathon Man]

At least 80 percent of occupied unites in a 55+ community must have at least one person living there who is over 55. This leaves the other 20 percent of the community's units available for people of any age, creating the “80/20 Rule.”

So children may live year round in those “20%” households.

I believe you meant to say "ages 19-54".

[BrianL99]

At least 80 percent of occupied unites in a 55+ community must have at least one person living there who is over 55. This leaves the other 20 percent of the community's units available for people of any age, creating the “80/20 Rule.”

So children may live year round in those “20%” households.

INCORRECT. The 80/20 Rule and the prohibition against "children under 19" are unrelated. The "children under 19" is a Deed Restriction/Covenant that prohibits that occupancy. It cannot be enforced by government, only by a beneficiary of the covenant.


Actually, there is No Precedent in Law. Both the HUD and Florida HOPA speak only to the 80% requirement for a 55+ community. There is no stipulation by either to the other 20% occupancy. The tradition has been to establish allowed occupancy of the 20% with Recorded Deed Restrictions and sometimes only Community Rules. Deed Restrictions can at most times be legally enforced but usually only with some type of Lien against the property. Community Rules however are typically viewed as weak. There is also the Fair Housing Act which is very strong in legal precedent. In summary, it is a hard and expensive issue to litigate.

That is incorrect. Neither HUD nor the State of Florida have a horse in the race when enforcement of the "no under 19 year old" provisions are involved. It is up to a beneficiary of the restriction/covenant to bring an enforcement action.




If they have a house here, they qualified for 80/20 through Villages Sales staff.

Incorrect. They "qualified" by being consistent with the 80/20 maintenance plans and verification process. They could have bought through MLS and had nothing to do with The Villages sales staff.[/QUOTE]



Regardless, the rules regarding people under 19 specifically state that SOMEone must be 55+ in the house. See below.

According to The Villages dot com (FAQs About The Villages(R): Your Questions Answered (https://www.thevillages.com/faq/#:~:text=Does%20The%20Villages%20allow%20children, than%2019%20years%20of%20age.) ):



That may or may not be what that text says (I disagree with your interpretation), but the 80/20 is unrelated in any way, to the "under 19" restriction. That's like saying an orange should be "red", because apples are.


The Villages and/or the CDD's have to certify to HUD that they are in compliance with the 80/20 rule. There is also a plan in place, to insure that the community maintains conformance.

The Villages took a very smart approach. When they started selling new homes, they essentially maintained a 100% "age restricted" business model. They knew the ratio would change as the community matured, but they had such a head-start on the "over 55" side, it would be a long time before the ratio became questionable. (I don't know if VLS will sell to someone now, if one of owners is not 55+)

Just speculation, but at least north of 466A, i would estimate the mix at over 90% 55+.

This one of the simplest explanations of how it all works in the "age restricted housing" world. Protecting the Age Restricted Status of Your Community (http://www.neighborhoodlink.com/article/Community/Protecting_Age-Restricted_Status)

[ithos]

Apparently TV isn’t close to the 20% rule. We know several work from home residents that own homes in TV not in family areas, that are in their mid 20’s, and 30’s. The downside for them is older neighbors look for their help more than they should because they are young, and don’t get the concept of work from home, is a job.

Orlando is their home base, and require once a week in person meetings. TV is much cheaper than Orlando living, with a small apartment near parks starting at $3,000 a month.

Good point. The Turnpike is better than having to commute in on I4(for now). Also TV is a great place if you have business in Tampa or Gainesville.

[BrianL99]

My deed has no restrictions for people 19 and over. I could sell to a group of 19 year olds and it would be fully legal

They may be legal to buy/own the home, but "buying" and "living in" are 2 separate and distinct positions.

& be careful, somewhere on your deed it says something like "subject to matters of record, previously recorded". That's all the stuff your subject to, but might not know about, if you didn't use an Attorney when you purchased your home.

[Bill14564]

INCORRECT. The 80/20 Rule and the prohibition against "children under 19" are unrelated.
...

That may or may not be what that text says (I disagree with your interpretation), but the 80/20 is unrelated in any way, to the "under 19" restriction. That's like saying an orange should be "red", because apples are.


...

Not exactly.

The restriction discriminating against families is only allowed in a 55+ community that meets certain standards such as 80% of homes with at least one resident over 55.

(See HUD Fair Housing Act:Housing for Older Persons (https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/fair_housing_act_housing_older_persons))

[jmaccallum]

[QUOTE=BrianL99;2355977]INCORRECT. The 80/20 Rule and the prohibition against "children under 19" are unrelated. The "children under 19" is a Deed Restriction/Covenant that prohibits that occupancy. It cannot be enforced by government, only by a beneficiary of the covenant.




That is incorrect. Neither HUD nor the State of Florida have a horse in the race when enforcement of the "no under 19 year old" provisions are involved. It is up to a beneficiary of the restriction/covenant to bring an enforcement action.

Actually it is correct. We are saying the same thing. The Federal Government nor the State of Florida has any law that speaks to the other 20% occupancy. If stated in the Deed Reservations and Restrictions, it is up to the Declarant or Declarant Designee to bring action upon the violation. Yes, a beneficiary or group of such may also bring action, however that beneficiary status must be established beforehand. All that I’m saying is that it is a long and drawn out expensive proposition. That’s why Dan Newlan and Morgan & Morgan chase ambulances. You also have to argue the relevant and practical aspect of the Reservation & Restrictions. For example, in most of the early CDD’s the R&R’s state that a homeowner must notify the Developer if they are leaving their house for more than 7 days and then tell them the date they will be returning. How many people do this now? Does the Declarant or Declarant Designee take action in such instances? Most of those same R&R’s say a homeowner can have only 1 dog. I don’t know how many times I see people walking more than 1 dog. Again, does the Declarant or Declarant Designee take action on that issue? Enforcing R&R’s is a difficult endeavor at best. I wouldn’t take the case, but then again, I’m retired so it’s a moot point.

[BrianL99]

[QUOTE=BrianL99;2355977]
If stated in the Deed Reservations and Restrictions, it is up to the Declarant or Declarant Designee to bring action upon the violation. Yes, a beneficiary or group of such may also bring action, however that beneficiary status must be established beforehand. All that I’m saying is that it is a long and drawn out expensive proposition. at best.
.

When 170,000 people have knowingly bought homes in a community that prohibits children and have acknowledged the restriction at closing, I don't think "standing" is a difficult obstacle.

Not allowing children in an age restricted community, is a far cry from requiring notification of an owner's absence. Minimizing or eliminating "children/students" from the population of age restricted housing, was one of the founding principals and motivation for the original legislation.

I'm not all that familiar with Florida CDD regulations, but it seems to me, that the towns of Lady Lake, Wildwood and the others, would also be 3rd party beneficiaries of restrictions that may effect them? At the very least, it would be a situation where a real estate development was approved under a given set of circumstances, which are no longer in place.

[Velvet]

If they stay on my street for more than 30 days, I can guarantee that the rule will be enforced.

Also in my area.

[Velvet]

Don’t want to live on your street with an attitude like that, can guarantee you that!

Thank you. There are designated areas for children to live as mentioned before. Trying to integrate children into a retirement community is sort of like trying to integrate a teenager into kindergarten. It is not good for the kindergarten children and not for the teenager either. Abilities and interest differ. TV is designed around older folk.

[John Mayes]

Don’t want to live on your street with an attitude like that, can guarantee you that!

My street? Attitude like what?

[scubawva]

“… and at least one resident (owner) of the household must be 55 or older.”

Anyone over 18 can own a home. The over 55 resident does not need to be an owner.

[birdawg]

At least 80 percent of occupied unites in a 55+ community must have at least one person living there who is over 55. This leaves the other 20 percent of the community's units available for people of any age, creating the “80/20 Rule.”

So children may live year round in those “20%” households.nope got be over 19 to live in the Villages

[ithos]

From HUD comments on the rule:

Communities may decline to permit any persons under the age of 55, may require that 100% of the units have at least one occupant who is 55 years of age or older, may permit up to 20% of the occupied units to be occupied by persons who are younger than 55 years of age, or set whatever requirements they wish, as long as “at least 80%” of the occupied units are occupied by one person 55 years of age or older, and so long as such requirements are not inconsistent with the overall intent to be housing for older persons.”

Florida’s 55 And Older Communities And The 80/20 Rule (https://www.sweeneylawpa.com/floridas-55-and-older-communities-and-the-80-20-rule/)

The developer made the wise business decision to exclude children but also to waive the 55 requirement up to the maximum amount.

[Janie123]

What is the restriction for children living in the Villages?
Those under 19 are NOT permitted for more than 30 consecutive days. The 20% of the 80/20 federal regulation can be anything TV wants. Also, TV is required to let the feds know the percentage of the homes belong to which bracket. I would assume it's based on Villages IDs. Guess technically, a guest pass can be issued for 30 days, skip a day, get another pass, skip, etc... but that seems like a whole lot of work to skirt the rules.

So if one person/spouse is less than 55 and the older dies or moves out, that unit falls from the 80% or more bracket to the 20% or less bracket. I'd guess TV is more like 98%/2% but we'll probably never know.

[retiredguy123]

Those under 19 are NOT permitted for more than 30 consecutive days. The 20% of the 80/20 federal regulation can be anything TV wants. Also, TV is required to let the feds know the percentage of the homes belong to which bracket. I would assume it's based on Villages IDs. Guess technically, a guest pass can be issued for 30 days, skip a day, get another pass, skip, etc... but that seems like a whole lot of work to skirt the rules.

So if one person/spouse is less than 55 and the older dies or moves out, that unit falls from the 80% or more bracket to the 20% or less bracket. I'd guess TV is more like 98%/2% but we'll probably never know.
Do you have a source for your first sentence? My deed restriction document reads differently. It doesn't say anything about consecutive days, but limits children under 19 to thirty days in total during a calendar year. It says:

"... persons below the age of nineteen (19) may be permitted to visit and temporarily reside for periods not exceeding thirty (30) days in total in any calendar year."

[clossonjunk]

Has there ever been a case where a young adult was forced to move out of a home in The Villages?

I know of a 40 year old who had to move out last year. She got pregnant and had her first child.

[Velvet]

Do you have a source for your first sentence? My deed restriction document reads differently. It doesn't say anything about consecutive days, but limits children under 19 to thirty days in total during a calendar year. It says:

"... persons below the age of nineteen (19) may be permitted to visit and temporarily reside for periods not exceeding thirty (30) days in total in any calendar year."

Yes, my deed too; 30 day per year in total. My brother inherited my parents’ home in TV and he did renovations in the house over the years and loved the place! But he had two young children and that made it impossible for him to spend longer time in the home. He had to sell it.

[Jayhawk]

So children may live year round in those “20%” households.

Wrong.

[ElDiabloJoe]

Maybe. I won't complain about lawn ornaments and most other things. But, I will complain about children moving in.

Walt Kowalski, is that you?

I'm same as you - there are some things I don't care about, but somethings are a deal breaker - like an RV perma-parked on the driveway. However, someone else will have to complain about that cuz I ain't no snitch.

[retiredguy123]

Nice backpedal.
Guarantee may not have been the best word to use since The Villages or a court would be the ultimate decision maker. But, a deed restriction is a legal constraint on a property.

[jmaccallum]

[QUOTE=BrianL99;2356003][QUOTE=jmaccallum;2355998]

When 170,000 people have knowingly bought homes in a community that prohibits children and have acknowledged the restriction at closing, I don't think "standing" is a difficult obstacle.

Not allowing children in an age restricted community, is a far cry from requiring notification of an owner's absence. Minimizing or eliminating "children/students" from the population of age restricted housing, was one of the founding principals and motivation for the original legislation. [Quote]

No, that is where you are incorrect. The HUD and HOPA - the Laws - only stipulate that a 55+ Community have 80% or more property ownership by persons 55+. The Law states nothing about children nor prohibition of any age for the other 20% occupancy. That is left to the CDD Deed Restrictions which are not Laws.

[jmaccallum]

And BrianL99…. for the 20% - Florida Statutes…

222.17 Manifesting and evidencing domicile in Florida.—
(1) Any person who shall have established a domicile in this state may manifest and evidence the same by filing in the office of the clerk of the circuit court for the county in which the said person shall reside, a sworn statement showing that he or she resides in and maintains a place of abode in that county which he or she recognizes and intends to maintain as his or her permanent home.

(7) Nothing herein shall be construed to repeal or abrogate other existing methods of proving and evidencing domicile except as herein specifically provided.

All I’m saying is with no Law to the 20% and Florida domicile laws - and others - avenues are open in Litigation. If a person capitulates on their own accord, that is fine, however if they are in for a fight it will be long, drawn out and expensive. It’s gray, not black and white.

[BrianL99]

[QUOTE=BrianL99;2356003][QUOTE=jmaccallum;2355998]

When 170,000 people have knowingly bought homes in a community that prohibits children and have acknowledged the restriction at closing, I don't think "standing" is a difficult obstacle.

Not allowing children in an age restricted community, is a far cry from requiring notification of an owner's absence. Minimizing or eliminating "children/students" from the population of age restricted housing, was one of the founding principals and motivation for the original legislation. [Quote]

No, that is where you are incorrect. The HUD and HOPA - the Laws - only stipulate that a 55+ Community have 80% or more property ownership by persons 55+. The Law states nothing about children nor prohibition of any age for the other 20% occupancy. That is left to the CDD Deed Restrictions which are not Laws.

You are perhaps unaware of the genesis of "age restricted housing"? Minimizing the number of school age children in a community, therefore reducing the tax burden to host communities, was one of the arguments in favor of creating age restricted housing in the first place. Not only that, it created an avenue for sponsors to discriminate, in a way that was previously illegal, pursuant to the Fair Housing Act.

If you were to read the history of the original legislation, you'd see that minimizing the number of children was an intended consequence and attainable without creating a "2nd layer of age discrimination".

While restrictions on school age children was omitted from the federal enactment, the door was left open for sponsors to discriminate through other mechanisms, which the Developer of TV wisely chose to do.

The validity of the deed restrictions, while challengeable, seem squarely within the parameters of the both state and federal law. While no one knows what a court may do, it seems the Declarant or a group of Beneficiaries wouldn't have to work very hard to get a court to enforce the restriction, provided the community is operated consistent with the regulations.

These 2 links offer in one case, a simplified understand of how it works and in the other case, direct from HUD guidance on the subject.

Did You Know You Can Restrict Based on Age if You’re a HOPA Community? - Altitude Community Law (https://altitude.law/resources/newsletter/yes-55-age-restricted-communities-legal/)

HUD.gov / U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) | (https://www.hud.gov) › sites › documents › DOC_7769.PDF

[Cliff Fr]

nope got be over 19 to live in the Villages

How does this work with the airbnb rentals in The Villages?