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?