Disclosure
 

Florida Disclosure Law for property sales:

In Johnson vs. Davis, the Florida Supreme Court held that “where the seller of a home knows of facts materially affecting the value of the property which are not readily observable and are not known to the buyer, the seller is under a duty to disclose them to the buyer.” This obligation extends to licensees and, per Section 475.278, Florida Statutes, all licensees have a legal obligation to disclose all known facts that materially affect the value of residential real property and are not readily observable to the buyer.

Obviously it includes all false or temporary perceptions not visible to the buyer. Knowledge of neighborhood structural advancements, rentals etc. all apply to the law. The Villages even goes into the facades of deed restrictions to preserve your value of property. Where someone would really have a good case is if a sales agent said,”You could always rent out the property. Everyone does it.” This would be a major issue and violate disclosure laws.

So are you trying to say "as long as it doesn't affect me directly it's not an issue"? :ohdear:

It has its good aspects and not so good aspects. It depends on what you want from a neighborhood. My specific neighborhood is fairly close, it's away from the main road but close enough to walk to the postal station and the Country Club pool. Our neighbors all know each other and watch out for each other, we have impromptu driveway parties that just sort of happen when one of us is sitting out on the driveway watching the world go buy. People going for their daily walk show up, see us, and we pull up a chair and eventually we end up with half a dozen neighbors shooting the sh!t in the driveway, enjoying the evening.

The landscaping is matured, tall water oaks, laurels, and maples to shade the yards. Most of the streets are wide enough that your guests can park on the side of the road without it causing traffic problems.

We don't have that issue of "kissing lanais." Spanish Spring town square is a 7-minute drive by car, a 5-minute drive by golf cart, from my house. Reason it's faster by golf cart: no red lights. We get a golf cart bridge that takes us over 441, so we never had to wait for the light to turn green in order to cross it. On the other side of the bridge - is a parking lot for the Square. So we never have to even drive INTO the square. We can park right there, and walk to the corner and take a right and boom - we're at the square.

Publix is only 1 minute further. Walmart is the same distance in a different direction by golf cart, so are a variety of restaurants, shops, and medical offices including the outpatient surgery center for the hospital.

There is rarely a "lot" of traffic and most of it is golf carts. Within the neighborhood clusters themselves, most of the traffic is pedestrian. People around here really enjoy walking.

On the downside: manufactured homes. Some of them are old, and even fit into the official "mobile home" category. Single-wides that are a bit run down and need rehab or replacement. There aren't many of those, and they're all in the Silver Lake area. Up in my area (the northern section of Orange Blossom Gardens and western area of Country Club Hills) you'll see a lot of 1985 double-wides and modular homes, or combination of the two (like ours). The structure is off the ground, there's no foundation, and in the older ones, the floorboards are particle board that can swell and warp if (for instance) your dishwasher breaks or a pipe bursts in the bathroom. If there's never any water damage you're fine but that water damage can mean you need to replace the whole floor. Some newer ones have plywood subfloors, and some of the old ones have had the particle board replaced already. It's something to be aware of when looking for a home up here.

I’m still shocked that anyone of any age can buy a home in TV. So of course you’re going to get investors, flippers, those looking to rent the home and never occupy it, etc. Did TV change their convenants or has it always been this way? In the past, with other age restricted communities like Sun City, financing was not allowed using VA loans because of this restriction. You had to be at least 55 to purchase a home.

The Villages did not change their covenants they just chose not to enforce them. The Villages is not truly an over 55 retirement community anymore. Some will say that legally it is but in spirit it is not.

What I posted was merely an observation. Nothing more nothing less.

Why do you constantly challenge reality?

They do come here, baby.

Arguing about the "whys" is pointless until you accept the fact that there are short-term rental problems.

"unruly parties?"
Question: what is the RULE on parties? :MOJE_whot:

For me, it is a relief knowing that some areas of the villages are unaffected by a barrage of short-term rentals. I can confidently move into those neighborhoods and leave this mess I have living very near to a town square.

When we have no plans to go out will go walking around our neighborhood and so very quiet after say 8 pm.

Your understanding is incorrect. You have never needed to be at least 55 to purchase a home in the Villages. Anyone who is legally allowed to sign an agreement (typically 18 or older, but could be an emancipated 16-year-old) is allowed to purchase a home in The Villages. They can't LIVE there full time until they're 19. And even then, 80% of those homes have to have at least one person living in it who's 55 or older. So a 60-year-old couple with a 19-year-old grandson and a 21-year-old granddaughter can absolutely live in the Villages together. There is, and has never been, any rule against it.

I know there are short-term rental problems. There's one home in my area that is a short-term rental problem. I've never said otherwise. The tenants aren't kids though.

I'm asking why because I want to know why. I'm not arguing the why. I'm asking why. Check your attitude. I'm not your baby.

Check your attitude, your TOTV name is orange blossom baby. They just shortened it.

The 20% rule has always been on the books for anyone under 55

But they don’t answer my emails! Now I know I can call them but I didn’t know that back when I called the rental company.

Then why is it considered a senior retirement community? I feel I was misled :confused:

This is what is written in the deed restrictions which are not worth the paper they are printed on

The Developer or its designee in its sole discretion
shall have the right to establish hardship exceptions to permit individuals between the ages of nineteen (I 9) and fifty-
five (55) to permanently reside in a Home even though there is not a permanent resident in the Home who is fifty-
five (55) years of age or over, providing that said exceptions shall not be permitted in situations where the granting
of a hardship exception would result in less than 80% of the Homesites in the Subdivision having less than one
resident fifty-five (55) years of age or older, it being the intent that at least 80% of the units shall at all times have
at least one resident fifty-five (55) years of age or older.

Do you have some evidence that this is NOT being followed, either permanent residents under 19 or fewer than 80% of occupied homes having one resident over 55? Daily or weekly rentals don't apply, it takes more than a few days of presence to be considered a resident.

Daily or weekly rentals are the problem. They are the direct opposite of the definition of a retirement community.

I disagree, the Villages seems to disagree, Florida law seems to disagree, and HUD seems to disagree. Besides that, daily or weekly rentals have nothing to do with the section of the restrictions that you posted.

Do you have some proof that those restrictions are not being followed or are you just throwing things against a wall to see what might stick?

I am not debating the legality of what they are doing but I do feel they are misleading people about how much of an over 55 retirement community TV actually is. It’s definitely not what we were pitched years ago when we purchased.

This is still a private community.Why cant rules of renting provide legal recourse? Imagine a bunch of yahoos creating a late night early morning ruckus disrupting entire neighborhood. There must be something that can be done.

Short term rentals.
 

We just sold our home up north to move to TV full time. Our plan was to sell our courtyard villa and buy a bigger home but I’m starting to have second thought about living in TV full time because of all of the short term rentals.

Why on earth doesn’t The Villages at least restrict rentals to a month minimum! That would certainly cut down on a lot of the problems. Someone mentioned that Lakewood Ranch has a one month minimum for rentals. I’m going to consider looking there. I wish the powers that be would use some common sense.

Is it because investors buy several homes? It would be easy for the Developer to get rid of their inventory faster. Just call a known investor and say "Hey! We have just completed some new homes in your price range , how many do you want?". Do the deed restrictions address investors who have no intention of buying a home?

One is not including full time residents, who have visitors, that treat host home like a nonstop party. Sometimes it’s hard to figure out an ab&b to someone who lives here full time, has non stop drop ins, and makes life miserable for those around them.

This is an absurd situation that was avoidable and should have been foreseen by the developer to curtail abuses and help the community retain its original intent which was to cater to those 55 + as a safe and sane place for their retirement. Now it’s become a vulgar, greed-driven, money-grab for the developer when the popularity of TV, and Florida itself, increased dramatically.

Again, other senior communities have enforceable restrictions as to purchase and resident age. Del Webb/Sun City has both. The only way you are allowed to have a person under 55 living at residence full-time is if you are their legal caregiver or guardian. The other is if a couple has an age difference where one is over 55 but the other is not. Obviously, that one is just common sense.