New Tenant Pass System for Reduced Amenity Costs

[Normal]

Perhaps the best way to resolve the wear and tear of the Villages amenities is by issuing a new “Tenant Pass” to renters. Charge 25 dollars per month, per pass, whether it’s used for only one day or for the entire month. The extra revenue could be used to keep amenity fees buoyant at current rates for years to come.

It would be right on par with the identical cost of transferring an ID for two members (50 dollars anyway) and landlords wouldn’t be taking advantage of our amenities for their own gain.

It’s a win/win.

Ps. I like the color blue for the pass

[VAtoFLA]

I think we covered it in the other thread. It's not going to reduce the amenity fee which is tied to CPI. It will also have an insignificant impact on wear and tear.

Is your proposal that tenants self identify? An honor system?

You're trying to solve an imaginary problem.

[Velvet]

I like the idea. But not the honor system. We have to do better than that.

[Normal]

I like the idea. But not the honor system. We have to do better than that.

If a home is listed on the VERBO, Airbnb or Rent from a Villager. Then assume passes must be granted. If not, we all have the green pass we must show when confronted.

As far as defraying costs, money not used for defraying can be held for future use and accrued interest.

The idea of having a tenant pass is new to a large extent

[gobuck827]

Ps. I like the color blue for the pass

Blue is already used for non-owner resident ID cards.

[VAtoFLA]

If a home is listed on the VERBO, Airbnb or Rent from a Villager. Then assume passes must be granted. If not, we all have the green pass we must show when confronted.



So someone from The Villages will need to scour those sites and then match up pictures from listings to actual addresses and hope they get it all right? I don't think that's going to work. Full time residents would end up tagged in the system. You would presumably need someone to check every home listed everywhere at least once per month.

[golfing eagles]

So someone from The Villages will need to scour those sites and then match up pictures from listings to actual addresses and hope they get it all right? I don't think that's going to work. Full time residents would end up tagged in the system. You would presumably need someone to check every home listed everywhere at least once per month.

The better solution is to find a way to ban all STRs. 30-day minimum rental, and then who cares whether the owner or the renter is using the amenities. If Florida law prohibits such a restriction, then control it by not issuing guest passes to anyone not staying 30 days. Again, this is a 55+ retirement community. It is not a place where investors should be trying to rent anytime to anyone to make a buck.

[VAtoFLA]

The better solution is to find a way to ban all STRs. 30-day minimum rental, and then who cares whether the owner or the renter is using the amenities. If Florida law prohibits such a restriction, then control it by not issuing guest passes to anyone not staying 30 days. Again, this is a 55+ retirement community. It is not a place where investors should be trying to rent anytime to anyone to make a buck.

That's the change that I think has the most support.

[Normal]

That's the change that I think has the most support.

It certainly would be the easiest. It wouldn’t have to be a direct ban. Just add requirements and safety codes for the STR. Fire suppression sprinkler systems, hotel taxes and weekly inspections will all do the trick and they are completely legal.


Finally we all win with less exposure of our amenities to abuse.

[Nordhagen]

It certainly would be the easiest. It wouldn’t have to be a direct ban. Just add requirements and safety codes for the STR. Fire suppression sprinkler systems, hotel taxes and weekly inspections will all do the trick and they are completely legal.


Finally we all win with less exposure of our amenities to abuse.
I’m not sure I understand this issue and concern at all. The amenity fee is paid monthly by the owner of the house whether it’s occupied or not. If the owner of the house was living in it, they would be taking advantage of the amenities that they are paying for. What’s the difference in usage?
The only issue I see with renters is that they should be required to be over 55. I don’t think that’s true currently.
This is a solution looking for a problem.

[Normal]

I’m not sure I understand this issue and concern at all. The amenity fee is paid monthly by the owner of the house whether it’s occupied or not. If the owner of the house was living in it, they would be taking advantage of the amenities that they are paying for. What’s the difference in usage?
The only issue I see with renters is that they should be required to be over 55. I don’t think that’s true currently.
This is a solution looking for a problem.

A resident ID permits an owner to use ALL amenities. That resident can also CONCURRENTLY have guest passes issued to the same resident address. That alone is one instance of additional use.

Another option may be rentals must transfer their full time resident IDs to their renters.

[ByebyeMichigan]

They bring in $12M/month in amenity fees already. So it’s plenty “ buoyant “…….

[Carlsondm]

It is not a win win for us. The popular services will be overloaded.

[DrMack]

A resident ID permits an owner to use ALL amenities. That resident can also CONCURRENTLY have guest passes issued to the same resident address. That alone is one instance of additional use.

Another option may be rentals must transfer their full time resident IDs to their renters.
That’s sound reasoning and I would support the actual requirement to transfer resident passes if you rent your place out.

[bmcgowan13]

I’m not sure I understand this issue and concern at all. The amenity fee is paid monthly by the owner of the house whether it’s occupied or not. If the owner of the house was living in it, they would be taking advantage of the amenities that they are paying for. What’s the difference in usage?

That nicely sums up my position. The house across me has 3 people staying it in. SOMEONE is paying the amenity fee for that property. What difference does it make to me (the neighbor) if those 3 are the owners--or renters? or his next-door neighbor from NC who is. coming down to check us out?

Lots of homes are empty several months of the year--we do not offer a suspension of amenity fees to those people who do NOT use the amenities for the summer. Maybe that is why it balances out--

I can't imagine pitching my young kids/teens the idea of an exciting vacation in Florida--at the VIllages. Disney? Universal? The beach? Maybe. But do we really have that many people taking family vacations embedded in a retirement community?

IMHO-This seems like a solution in search of a problem.

[DarrenandKathy]

Perhaps the best way to resolve the wear and tear of the Villages amenities is by issuing a new “Tenant Pass” to renters. Charge 25 dollars per month, per pass, whether it’s used for only one day or for the entire month. The extra revenue could be used to keep amenity fees buoyant at current rates for years to come.

It would be right on par with the identical cost of transferring an ID for two members (50 dollars anyway) and landlords wouldn’t be taking advantage of our amenities for their own gain.

It’s a win/win.

Ps. I like the color blue for the pass

But renters have a much right to the amenities as anyone.
Landlords pay their fees and only one group at a time of renters have access to the facilities at a time so I’m not sure what additional wear and tear they would be responsible for.
If anything unless fully booked which certainly isn’t the case lately there would be less use by properties owned by landlords then full time residents.

[Aces4]

I’m not sure I understand this issue and concern at all. The amenity fee is paid monthly by the owner of the house whether it’s occupied or not. If the owner of the house was living in it, they would be taking advantage of the amenities that they are paying for. What’s the difference in usage?
The only issue I see with renters is that they should be required to be over 55. I don’t think that’s true currently.
This is a solution looking for a problem.

My sentiment exactly.. an old group of people, wasting their final days worrying about a non-existent problem. And no, we don't own a rental in The Villages.

[LonnyP]

Nobody checks them at the rec center pickelball courts anyway.

[DarrenandKathy]

The majority of short term renters are people that are coming down to check out the Villages to see if they want to become your neighbours and families that have come to visit their parents that live here.
The majority of them are super respectful. Which group do you not want to see visit?
Without short term rentals businesses would close and cost of ownership would skyrocket in the Villages.

[ElDiabloJoe]

The better solution is to find a way to ban all STRs. 30-day minimum rental, and then who cares whether the owner or the renter is using the amenities. If Florida law prohibits such a restriction, then control it by not issuing guest passes to anyone not staying 30 days. Again, this is a 55+ retirement community. It is not a place where investors should be trying to rent anytime to anyone to make a buck.
To me, this makes the most sense. The other advantage is that if people renting STRs cannot get guest passes unless they are there for 30 days minimum, fewer people will be interested in renting the STRs. Make no mistake, the amenities are a huge draw and if they are restricted so will be the desire to rent an AirBnB / VeeRBeeOh

[Bill14564]

Nobody checks them at the rec center pickelball courts anyway.

I didn't realize all those times I have had my ID checked that the person was named "Nobody."

Do you have to be named "Nobody" to get hired to work at the rec centers?

[Bill14564]

...
IMHO-This seems like a solution in search of a problem.

Not a solution in search of a problem, more of a creative end-around solution to a rumored problem that Gladys K hasn't been able to get rid of directly.

These later posts show the real purpose:
- it isn't about the insignificant wear and tear on the amenities
- it isn't about needing more money for the well-funded amenity divisions
- this is about finding a way to discourage/end rentals and the boogeyman of the bad renter

I'm sure bad renters happen but I'm not convinced those bad renters are defined by a time limit. I know the annoying person in our neighborhood has a 30-year or longer rental (we call him a homeowner) while the renter across the street is seen no more often than the snowbird next door. If anything, perhaps 30 days should be a *maximum* rental - otherwise you are stuck with undesirable behavior for quite a long time.

[JGibson]

The bigger issue and maybe you would need to live next to these STR to understand is the loss of any kind of neighborhood feel when you have different people every week/month.

I see no solution in the near future so either deal with it or move to a community that's a true 55+ community that has more stringent rules on STR.

[asianthree]

The better solution is to find a way to ban all STRs. 30-day minimum rental, and then who cares whether the owner or the renter is using the amenities. If Florida law prohibits such a restriction, then control it by not issuing guest passes to anyone not staying 30 days. Again, this is a 55+ retirement community. It is not a place where investors should be trying to rent anytime to anyone to make a buck.

Couldn’t a 30 day pass be issued for a 3 day rental? Then tossed.
Is there a limit on how many guest passes are issued per household, per week, month, year?

Then a 30 day pass wouldn’t stop STR.

Even the one area in TV that residents signed a “NO Rental Agreement” clause at closing has some rentals available.

[BrianL99]

The majority of short term renters are people that are coming down to check out the Villages to see if they want to become your neighbours and families that have come to visit their parents that live here.
The majority of them are super respectful. Which group do you not want to see visit?
Without short term rentals businesses would close and cost of ownership would skyrocket in the Villages.

You must be living in another "The Villages" than most. I've met plenty of short term renters and not one has told me, they were "thinking of buying in TV".

So if we REDUCE demand, by limiting Investor purchases, home values will increase? In what world does "reduced demand", increase prices?

[bcloudman]

When we rented our home, we no longer rent it, we were required to hand over our resident passes to the rental company. Do self renters have any requirements about their passes?

[Normal]

When we rented our home, we no longer rent it, we were required to hand over our resident passes to the rental company. Do self renters have any requirements about their passes?

No, many can simultaneously use the same address. The “landlord” can keep their permanent ID and just get visitor passes for their customers.

[ElDiabloJoe]

You must be living in another "The Villages" than most. I've met plenty of short term renters and not one has told me, they were "thinking of buying in TV"...

Gotta agree with this. Short term renters (under 30 days) are not doing a "dry-run" on what it is like to live here or to explore various Villages for their final purchase decision. Short term renters are here to have fun, use amenities, and party while their kids are occupied with amenities.

Serious home shoppers coming for a short time either do a 4 or 7 day lifestyle visit (or two) or they rent a hotel room for a few days. While their may be some who do short term rental who are responsible home shoppers, they have options (hotel) if short term rentals area restricted in The Villages.

[Bill14564]

When we rented our home, we no longer rent it, we were required to hand over our resident passes to the rental company. Do self renters have any requirements about their passes?

I suspect that was a requirement of the management company, specifically so they could provide a temporary ID (not a guest pass) to whoever was renting.

If a self renter wanted to provide the same temporary ID to the person they were renting to then the self renter would also need to turn in their Resident ID.

[Normal]

But renters have a much right to the amenities as anyone.
Landlords pay their fees and only one group at a time of renters have access to the facilities at a time so I’m not sure what additional wear and tear they would be responsible for.
If anything unless fully booked which certainly isn’t the case lately there would be less use by properties owned by landlords then full time residents.

Incorrect. A landlord still has their Full Time Residence pass. The best fix is to just have the landlord pay the transfer fees of their residence pass to correctly assign a “tenant” the privileges for living in the house. It should be done each and every change of any tenant. Duplicity and cheating should be removed from the system both completely and correctly.

[Bill14564]

But renters have a much right to the amenities as anyone.
Landlords pay their fees and only one group at a time of renters have access to the facilities at a time so I’m not sure what additional wear and tear they would be responsible for.
If anything unless fully booked which certainly isn’t the case lately there would be less use by properties owned by landlords then full time residents.

Incorrect. A landlord still has their Full Time Residence pass. The best fix is to just have the landlord pay the transfer fees of their residence pass to correctly assign a “tenant” the privileges for living in the house. It should be done each and every change of any tenant. Duplicity and cheating should be removed from the system both completely and correctly.

Which part is incorrect?
- Renters have as much rights to the amenities? That is true
- Landlords pay their fees? That is true
- Only one group of renters have access to the amenities at a time? That is true
- No additional wear and tear on the amenities? That is true, a resident, guest, or renter all look the same to the carpet and roof.
- A partially booked rental will use fewer amenities than a full-time resident? Arguable since not all full-time usage is the same.

A landlord may or may not retain their resident ID. If they are not present then they aren't using the amenities and the argument above is correct. If they are present in the home then there is little difference from me having friends come to visit. If they are present because they own two homes then they aren't utilizing the amenities from the rented home and the above is again correct.

[Normal]

Which part is incorrect?
- Renters have as much rights to the amenities? That is true
- Landlords pay their fees? That is true
- Only one group of renters have access to the amenities at a time? That is true
- No additional wear and tear on the amenities? That is true, a resident, guest, or renter all look the same to the carpet and roof.
- A partially booked rental will use fewer amenities than a full-time resident? Arguable since not all full-time usage is the same.

A landlord may or may not retain their resident ID. If they are not present then they aren't using the amenities and the argument above is correct. If they are present in the home then there is little difference from me having friends come to visit. If they are present because they own two homes then they aren't utilizing the amenities from the rented home and the above is again correct.

Why not just transfer a resident pass? It is the correct thing to do. Should landlords have a shortcut to increase their rental popularity? It certainly would help amenities.

Wouldn’t a landlord have an advantage otherwise? Of course, they have their cake and can eat it too too all of our expense? What’s $50? Answer…it pads the amenity fund.

Couldn’t more than one group be using amenities assigned to the same address? Absolutely. A landlord can conveniently get guest passes for someone using their home and enjoy a round of golf on the same day.

The current system is absurd. A land lord can just get guest passes and keep their resident card. The best solution is to just transfer their rights and privileges. Why should a landlord keep their privileges and also rent them out?

[defrey12]

The better solution is to find a way to ban all STRs. 30-day minimum rental, and then who cares whether the owner or the renter is using the amenities. If Florida law prohibits such a restriction, then control it by not issuing guest passes to anyone not staying 30 days. Again, this is a 55+ retirement community. It is not a place where investors should be trying to rent anytime to anyone to make a buck.

So, you're in favor of limiting property rights of individuals? It's MY property and I will do as I please...within the confines of the current rules.. That is, until your ilk attempts to squash my rights. Then I will be at the front of the line to preserve those rights.

[Bill14564]

Why not just transfer a resident pass? It is the correct thing to do. Should landlords have a shortcut to increase their rental popularity? It certainly would help amenities.

Wouldn’t a landlord have an advantage otherwise? Of course, they have their cake and can eat it too too all of our expense? What’s $50? Answer…it pads the amenity fund.

Couldn’t more than one group be using amenities assigned to the same address? Absolutely. A landlord can conveniently get guest passes for someone using their home and enjoy a round of golf on the same day.

The current system is absurd. A land lord can just get guest passes and keep their resident card. The best solution is to just transfer their rights and privileges. Why should a landlord keep their privileges and also rent them out?

So there is nothing incorrect about the previous post?

The $50 does not go to the amenity fund. The amenity fund does not need the $50. An additional $50 would not change our amenity fee.

No shortcut at all. No special privileges for landlords, exactly the same privileges you and I enjoy.

I get guess passes for my guests and use my ID while they are here, that’s the way it is supposed to work. If a landlord is renting then he isn’t here to use his ID. If he *is* here then either he isn’t in the home too (just like when my guests visit) or he has a second Villages home and is eligible for an ID with that home. Nothing at all absurd about it.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

There is a problem, that isn't mentioned here, but is definitely a problem.

There are property owners who have their own permanent resident Villages ID cards. But they don't actually live in those houses, and don't even live in The Villages anymore. Maybe they live in Water Oak, or Stonecrest, or Leesburg Landing, or any of the other, less expensive communities in the vicinity. But they keep their Villages ID and gate card and mailbox. Then they rent out their Villages home, and get their tenants GUEST passes. Those guests now can get guest passes for their own guests. What they can do with these passes is more limited than a temporary resident ID but...

You get the two homeowners who don't live in The Villages anymore, using the amenities they're paying for.

You also get three short-term (30 day) tenants, who aren't paying for those amenities.
You also get three guests of those short-term tenants, who are also not paying for those amenities.

So now you're looking at 8 people using amenities that only two people are paying for.

There are also homeowners who relinquish their ID so their tenant can have a temporary resident ID, and that tenant then gets guest passes for several people, without the homeowner even necessarily knowing that their tenant is hosting other people in the landlord's house

My solution to this: renters of any kind, whether short or long term, guest ID or temporary resident ID, should not be allowed to get any further guest passes. Or perhaps they can be allowed only one pair of weekend guest passes during the term of their tenancy. And - subleasing should be against the rules, full stop. If you're a tenant, you can't rent another bedroom in your landlord's house.

[BrianL99]

So, you're in favor of limiting property rights of individuals? It's MY property and I will do as I please...within the confines of the current rules.. That is, until your ilk attempts to squash my rights. Then I will be at the front of the line to preserve those rights.

Unfortunately, that's not how it works.

Your "property rights" are subject to and limited by, the "rights" you were deeded when you bought your property. The Developer never sold (to anyone to anyone in TV), absolute, unlimited rights.

Those "rights" are not absolute. They're subject to restrictions and covenants of record, as well as zoning restrictions. What folks seem to forget, is not only can zoning regulations change, but the Deed Restrictions and Covenants give the Developer and District the right to make new rules and restrictions. About the only limit to those rights, is they have to apply equally to everyone in the class.

Mosts every property owner on earth is in favor of "limiting property rights", as long as the "limiting" doesn't apply to themselves.

[Bill14564]

There is a problem, that isn't mentioned here, but is definitely a problem.

There are property owners who have their own permanent resident Villages ID cards. But they don't actually live in those houses, and don't even live in The Villages anymore. Maybe they live in Water Oak, or Stonecrest, or Leesburg Landing, or any of the other, less expensive communities in the vicinity. But they keep their Villages ID and gate card and mailbox. Then they rent out their Villages home, and get their tenants GUEST passes. Those guests now can get guest passes for their own guests. What they can do with these passes is more limited than a temporary resident ID but...

You get the two homeowners who don't live in The Villages anymore, using the amenities they're paying for.

You also get three short-term (30 day) tenants, who aren't paying for those amenities.
You also get three guests of those short-term tenants, who are also not paying for those amenities.

So now you're looking at 8 people using amenities that only two people are paying for.

There are also homeowners who relinquish their ID so their tenant can have a temporary resident ID, and that tenant then gets guest passes for several people, without the homeowner even necessarily knowing that their tenant is hosting other people in the landlord's house

My solution to this: renters of any kind, whether short or long term, guest ID or temporary resident ID, should not be allowed to get any further guest passes. Or perhaps they can be allowed only one pair of weekend guest passes during the term of their tenancy. And - subleasing should be against the rules, full stop. If you're a tenant, you can't rent another bedroom in your landlord's house.

Is this a significant problem? Not that it doesn't happen, but are there more than a handful of local owners doing this? If so then sure, it's something to be fixed.

Six people in one home is a tight fit. There might be some homes that will support that but mine certainly wouldn't (tried it during a hurricane one year).

I wouldn't agree with limiting the guest passes available to certain types of IDs.

Subleasing? I could imagine the owner restricting that in the lease or a management company only accepting a lease from an original owner.

[TVTVTV]

If a home is listed on the VERBO, Airbnb or Rent from a Villager. Then assume passes must be granted. If not, we all have the green pass we must show when confronted.

As far as defraying costs, money not used for defraying can be held for future use and accrued interest.

The idea of having a tenant pass is new to a large extent

I think the best idea is to allow rentals of one month minimum...filters out a lot of vacationers and why we hoped to retire to a relatively quiet area.

[G.R.I.T.S.]

So, if the rentals were instead occupied by the homeowners, there would be less “wear and tear?” Absent snow birds during the summer months already reduce wear and tear. Not a viable alternative.

[Normal]

So, if the rentals were instead occupied by the homeowners, there would be less “wear and tear?” Absent snow birds during the summer months already reduce wear and tear. Not a viable alternative.

Exactly. There wouldn’t be a resident and tenants. There would either be residents OR tenants. And don’t forget the curiosity use, or the week in Florida to vacation groups. Both would frequent what they don’t have at home as an additional luxury .

[BillyGrown]

We just don’t care for how packed the golf courses can get. We have a hard time in the winter getting onto many of the fairways we enjoy.

[BBBnWitty]

But renters have a much right to the amenities as anyone.
Landlords pay their fees and only one group at a time of renters have access to the facilities at a time so I’m not sure what additional wear and tear they would be responsible for.
If anything unless fully booked which certainly isn’t the case lately there would be less use by properties owned by landlords then full time residents.

I have personally observed on MANY occasions people obviously under the age of 55 abusing amenities. I've seen children under the age of 13 (I've asked their age) using indoor rec center equipment incorrectly. I've seen children under the age of 10 causing damage to the outdoor exercise equipment. I've seen teenagers, obviously under the age of 30 in adult pools, on two occasions wearing thongs. I've seen children under the age of 10 damaging outdoor shuffleboard and bocce equipment by being overly aggressive and not using the equipment properly. I've seen tennis and pickleball equipment being used incorrectly by kids. And I've seen kids obviously not yet teens driving golf carts. I do not know if these people are renters, guests or locals using our amenities, but I wish they would pay something extra to cover the cost of repairs. If the owners who invite these folks to our villages would make sure their guests and renters obeyed the rules, this would be an even happier place to live for many of us who signed contracts saying we agreed to obey the rules. I have not observed people aged 55+ that I personally know to be owners, abusing any of our amenities.

[zuidemab]

A resident ID permits an owner to use ALL amenities. That resident can also CONCURRENTLY have guest passes issued to the same resident address. That alone is one instance of additional use.

Another option may be rentals must transfer their full time resident IDs to their renters.
That is not correct. The owners ID isn’t valid when an alternate (renter) ID is issued.

[BrianL99]

That is not correct. The owners ID isn’t valid when an alternate (renter) ID is issued.

Just curious, but has anyone ever seen someone with an invalid ID, tossed out of a golf course, Rec Center, pool, or dog park?

[golfing eagles]

Couldn’t a 30 day pass be issued for a 3 day rental? Then tossed.
Is there a limit on how many guest passes are issued per household, per week, month, year?

Then a 30 day pass wouldn’t stop STR.

Even the one area in TV that residents signed a “NO Rental Agreement” clause at closing has some rentals available.

It wouldn't be a "30 day pass". It would be that NO PASS would be issued to anyone staying less than 30 days.

[golfing eagles]

So, you're in favor of limiting property rights of individuals? It's MY property and I will do as I please...within the confines of the current rules.. That is, until your ilk attempts to squash my rights. Then I will be at the front of the line to preserve those rights.

So you think you have the right to turn a 55+ neighborhood into a revolving door short term rental for profit endeavor at the expense of neighbors who just want to quietly enjoy their retirement. So YES, I AM in favor of limiting that "property right".

[JMintzer]

I have personally observed on MANY occasions people obviously under the age of 55 abusing amenities. I've seen children under the age of 13 (I've asked their age) using indoor rec center equipment incorrectly. I've seen children under the age of 10 causing damage to the outdoor exercise equipment. I've seen teenagers, obviously under the age of 30 in adult pools, on two occasions wearing thongs. I've seen children under the age of 10 damaging outdoor shuffleboard and bocce equipment by being overly aggressive and not using the equipment properly. I've seen tennis and pickleball equipment being used incorrectly by kids. And I've seen kids obviously not yet teens driving golf carts. I do not know if these people are renters, guests or locals using our amenities, but I wish they would pay something extra to cover the cost of repairs. If the owners who invite these folks to our villages would make sure their guests and renters obeyed the rules, this would be an even happier place to live for many of us who signed contracts saying we agreed to obey the rules. I have not observed people aged 55+ that I personally know to be owners, abusing any of our amenities.

Which pool? Asking for a friend...:D:D:D

[SaucyJim]

Perhaps the best way to resolve the wear and tear of the Villages amenities is by issuing a new “Tenant Pass” to renters. Charge 25 dollars per month, per pass, whether it’s used for only one day or for the entire month. The extra revenue could be used to keep amenity fees buoyant at current rates for years to come.

It would be right on par with the identical cost of transferring an ID for two members (50 dollars anyway) and landlords wouldn’t be taking advantage of our amenities for their own gain.

It’s a win/win.

Ps. I like the color blue for the pass

How are landlords, who pay fees for services that go unused if their property is vacant, taking advantage of anything?

I look forward to your logical justification here.

[SaucyJim]

No, many can simultaneously use the same address. The “landlord” can keep their permanent ID and just get visitor passes for their customers.

This may be true, but it is a violation. Renters are not landlord guests. When we rented our snowbird villa the one summer we left before returning full time, we transferred our passes and paid state taxes on the revenue.

[SaucyJim]

Incorrect. A landlord still has their Full Time Residence pass. The best fix is to just have the landlord pay the transfer fees of their residence pass to correctly assign a “tenant” the privileges for living in the house. It should be done each and every change of any tenant. Duplicity and cheating should be removed from the system both completely and correctly.

When I rented, my resident pass was still in my possession, but it was deactivated until the date I set up when my renters departed. So if they scanned the pass, there would be no “Yay!” Coming from the scanner.

Now, could I cheat and let them stay past that date so my pass would become active? Sure! But then my tenants passes would be deactivated.

The only abuse here is if I say my renters are my guests. And that would be a problem with being a cheat. But that’s not a problem with the system.

I don’t think guest passes can be issued, again and again, for the same people, right? And those passes have a short life-span, right? And, unlike pass transfers which can be executed remotely, an owner has to be present for guest pass issuance, right?

Am I right? Maybe I’m wrong? Just don’t ask my first two wives, ‘cause I already know their answer.

[SaucyJim]

Unfortunately, that's not how it works.

Your "property rights" are subject to and limited by, the "rights" you were deeded when you bought your property. The Developer never sold (to anyone to anyone in TV), absolute, unlimited rights.

Those "rights" are not absolute. They're subject to restrictions and covenants of record, as well as zoning restrictions. What folks seem to forget, is not only can zoning regulations change, but the Deed Restrictions and Covenants give the Developer and District the right to make new rules and restrictions. About the only limit to those rights, is they have to apply equally to everyone in the class.

Mosts every property owner on earth is in favor of "limiting property rights", as long as the "limiting" doesn't apply to themselves.

That’s not they said. The current rules were acknowledged and they adhere to them. It the proposed changes to the rules previously agreed to that is the restricting of rights.

Read it again. Your reply is to something that does not exist in the post.

[SaucyJim]

So you think you have the right to turn a 55+ neighborhood into a revolving door short term rental for profit endeavor at the expense of neighbors who just want to quietly enjoy their retirement. So YES, I AM in favor of limiting that "property right".

Nice job only quoting part of what was said. Make genuine arguments. Disingenuous arguments are for politicians.

[Normal]

Jim, you are conflating all the information.

We are talking about STRs. A landlord can get guest passes easily for his customers/guests directly on line. They do no relinquish their residence pass. We aren’t talking about continuing same customers. The pools, golf courses, pickle ball courts etc are visited more frequently by the new renters who want to try everything out, or want to enjoy what they don’t have at home.

There is nothing wrong with charging landlords for the excessive use of amenities we all pay for and there is nothing wrong with issuing a different color pass. If someone wants to market their STR with all these great amenities included, then they can pay for that line too.

The simple and correct procedure would eliminate all loopholes. Go to an ID center, turn in your residence pass and activate new residence passes for renters for the same premises address. Case closed.

If you want customers to enjoy amenities as guests, just pay for a guest pass and still collect your income from the use of the amenities.

[ElDiabloJoe]

Nice job only quoting part of what was said. Make genuine arguments. Disingenuous arguments are for politicians.
and defense attorneys. Never understood why the plural shouldn't be attornies.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Which pool? Asking for a friend...:D:D:D

Is his last name Epstein?

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Is this a significant problem? Not that it doesn't happen, but are there more than a handful of local owners doing this? If so then sure, it's something to be fixed.

Six people in one home is a tight fit. There might be some homes that will support that but mine certainly wouldn't (tried it during a hurricane one year).

I wouldn't agree with limiting the guest passes available to certain types of IDs.

Subleasing? I could imagine the owner restricting that in the lease or a management company only accepting a lease from an original owner.

Depends on what you consider to be "significant." If you mean statistically significant, yes, it is in my area.
If you mean "enough that it's noticeable by the average passerby" then yes, it's noticeable.

We've had homes be split into single-family Plus in-law apartments, with private entries for the in-law apartment. ALL free-standing homes (as opposed to townhouses and apartment buildings/condos) in this community are supposed to be single-family homes, exclusively. And yet we have seen a tenant with a family of four, plus their very young children (like, under 7) staying for a couple of months, while another person is living in the "in-law" apartment that isn't legally allowed to exist.

They ALL have passes to use the amenities, while the homeowner doesn't live in The Villages, but retain their own Villages ID and uses it to access all the amenities.

We have another rental that sees different families every month, some with young kids and younger teenagers. And because the homeowner is only letting them stay for 30 days, they're able to get around the "no one under 19 can stay for more than 30 days" rule. It's a revolving door of random folks, and so we often see young teens wandering around the golf course after hours or zipping little electric skateboard thingies around the neighborhood, scaring other residents, especially the ones trying to walk their little dogs.

[BrianL99]

So, you're in favor of limiting property rights of individuals? It's MY property and I will do as I please...within the confines of the current rules.. That is, until your ilk attempts to squash my rights. Then I will be at the front of the line to preserve those rights.

Unfortunately, that's not how it works.

Your "property rights" are subject to and limited by, the "rights" you were deeded when you bought your property. The Developer never sold (to anyone to anyone in TV), absolute, unlimited rights.

Those "rights" are not absolute. They're subject to restrictions and covenants of record, as well as zoning restrictions. What folks seem to forget, is not only can zoning regulations change, but the Deed Restrictions and Covenants give the Developer and District the right to make new rules and restrictions. About the only limit to those rights, is they have to apply equally to everyone in the class.

Mosts every property owner on earth is in favor of "limiting property rights", as long as the "limiting" doesn't apply to themselves.

That’s not they said. The current rules were acknowledged and they adhere to them. It the proposed changes to the rules previously agreed to that is the restricting of rights.

Read it again. Your reply is to something that does not exist in the post.

I don't have to read it again, I understand what he said, but I've quoted it here, so you read it again.

When you buy in TV, you agree to the "Rules and Restrictions", one of which is ... the Developer/District gets to change them and/or has discretion as to which owns they chose to enforce or ignore. Read your Deed and Covenants again.

[DarrenandKathy]

I already pay for my clients or guests as I have never missed an amenity fee.
It doesn’t stop when I’m not there.

[Normal]

I already pay for my clients or guests as I have never missed an amenity fee.

There is quite a difference between someone with expectations for use in what they pay for continuing week in and week out. While a friend, relative or guest visits a total of maybe 2 weeks out of the entire year. Another option may be no guest passes for renters?

I pay school taxes but I don’t expect to ever get what I pay for there either.

[golfing eagles]

Nice job only quoting part of what was said. Make genuine arguments. Disingenuous arguments are for politicians.

Thank you

[Normal]

That’s not they said. The current rules were acknowledged and they adhere to them. It the proposed changes to the rules previously agreed to that is the restricting of rights.

Read it again. Your reply is to something that does not exist in the post.

Like the new Fire Assessment tax?
Like the increase in maintenance assessments?
Like allowing short term rental businesses to operate and not enforcing rules?
Or like changes in government and rules?