lowering tv avg age ?
 

Just adding to the already available Family area's in TV the way I read it!

The article reflects a lack of understanding by the author of how age restricted communities work. The 55 plus standard (80% must be 55 or over) is not regulated by any developer, it is Federal Law.

The areas that are all ages are not age restricted and are not part of TV as we know it, but may share the same zip code, they can even be built by the same developer.

Yep.

Wow, if the developer can lower the average age in TV a little....early twenties would be an ideal age for me to do a 'do-over'

hope the pricing structure will be in increments of 5 years

those darn "developer's kids" huh?...they keep pushing the envelope...first the new fangled way to grow food, then testing out driverless cars, now pushing back our average age....what's next? Time travel?

It amazes me how many people still don't understand this law. It is not that 80% of the residents must be over the age of 55. The law says that 80% of the homes must be occupied but at least one person over the age of 55.

If you do the math and assuming four people per home on average, it's possible, though highly unlikely, that 80% of the people living here could be under age 55. In fact with so many three bedroom homes, the percentage of residents that must be over age 55 is even lower.

As far as the family areas are concerned, even though they are called The Villages, I don't think that they are technically a part of the same community. Those residents don't have amenities privileges and nor are those neighborhoods golf cart accessible. It seems to me that they are a separate entity owned by the same developer.

When the developer is at a point they can change Federal Public Law 104-76, statute 787 report back to us.

The article was horribly written and is obviously a form of "fake" news trying to incite people. Don't fall for it.

I read the ************* and at least once a week there is an article about a criminal act by a younger person living with their elderly parents in The Villages. They have either been arrested for DUI’s, drugs, larceny, violence, etc. I presume that they are here to take care of their elderly parents, but it seems that they’re just sponging off them and sadly in some cases even attack their parents. This is marketed as an ADULT COMMUNITY, and obviously there are children here who sincerely help and take care of their parents, but allowing more younger people to take up residence in The Villages will not be beneficial to those who came here, bought here and paid for this way of life in our retirement years.

A federal law was written to allow age discrimination, meaning that the district that cools itself a senior community can legally not allow sales to those under 55 or allow those under 55 to live in those communities if less than 80% are under 55 they lose those legal protections. By the way I think you'd have to be an idiot not want those under 55 to live near you. I'm not saying to be in your community but to be near your community after wall where are you going to get a plumber for an electrician then wants to drive 1 hour to visit you? I have to say it's the villages idiocracy of developing contain contiguously and not having pockets of family developments

Oh please! Youll see that anywhere in the country. Not just an age festricted community

Why would you assume an average of 4 people per household, it is more likely under 2 as an average since it is normally a couple or 1 single person occupying a home here.

lol

They are a part of the Villages, but as it clearly states in the article, they have their own amenities. They are a part of the Villages. This means children living there have the right to attend the Villages Charter Schools, no different than the family Villages already a part of the Villages. It doesn't effect our amenities at all, but does make it more attractive to doctors and othes so we get top professionals moving here. If you check out the prices of the family Villages already here the never ones have very pricey homes and are beautifully maintained.

Definition of "younger"?
Many residents here have "younger" children that are in their 60's and older.

Yes, it is Federal Law that prescribes the age requirements. But I've always wondered how resales are accounted for under the law. Does The Villages keep count of resales and the age of all resale buyers? I doubt it.

Lowering the average age in the Villages
 

Unfortunately the ageing process seems to accomplish the same thing. Ultimately, we do lower the average age in the Villages whether we want to or not.

"If you do the math and assuming four people per home " I do not know of any home around me that has 4 person living in them. We should be doing the math using the wrong numbers.

Ohiobuckeye
 

Well I agree somewhat, if TV don’t go under the age 45 to 50. Personally I think that’s way TV have been able to keep things so nice. Believe me I’ve seen some residents grandchildren in the Rec centers without parents & supervision & supposed to be shooting pool, no pool cues just pushing balls as hard as they can around the pool table & thinking they’re pro pool players & when they miss a shot they couldn’t possible make, bang the pool sticks against the pool table. So 45 yrs. old would be the youngest. But personally the age is perfect the way it is. Maybe if you want younger people to live here buy a house in Wildwood or Leesburg & visit TV! Morse’s have a perfect retirement community & would hate to see it ruined, because once they’re here they play hell to change it back. Just my opinion!

Please talking about the children probably living with parents could be 60 have many of you forgot this is adult community. At 82 and having moved through 5 homes and now in Fenney, each neighborhood had younger people living in it , now out in Fenney they are much younger many in , 50’sand early 60’S also quite a few still working including at least 3 airline pilots I’ve met Yes this is adult community but not everybody is old or feels old, one of the many things that I like about the Southern end is the younger adult homeowners

Under Federal law the developer is REQUIRED to keep records to show that The Villages has at least 80% of over 55 years old living here. If The Villages had LESS than 80% of residents over 55 yrs old then we could NOT be considered a retirement community.

Most likely track ages/residence when residents fill out the paperwork for their resident IDs.

What?
 

I diubt that the average home in The Villages has 4 people, I would bet it is less then 2.

I am from patchogue as well. Got here xmass day

The Villages keeps track of all residents' ages via the ID card system.

I guess I'm a skeptic. I view these kids as unable to make a way for themselves. MOMMIE DEARAST I NEED A PLACE TO STAY. I LOST MY JOB BECAUSE I GOT A DUI AND CANT PAY RENT. CAN I MOVE IN FOREVER?

When we bought our house last year, I checked in with the development office, to inquire if my husband and I both die before our children are 55, can they inherit the hous, or would they have to sell it. I was told that they don't have to sell it. Also, they wouldn't be able to live in it once they turn 55, if any of their children are still at home (If they are away at college and only come home for visits, that would be considered ok. So if they choose to keep it and rent it out, they would be allowed to come done 2x a year, for a maximum of 30 days, to handle maintainance, upkeep, etc

I don't think there's any reason why the Developer would HAVE to maintain this as a 55+ restricted community. As far as I understand, they only have to abide by the 80% rule IF they want it to continue to be a 55+ restricted community. If they don't care who lives in it anymore, they could just - not advertise it as a 55+ community anymore, and lose whatever benefits they get for having the 55+ community.

Whatever benefits the developer gets is BECAUSE this place is extremely successful by any measure.

The developer would be sued for breach of contract and would be subject to damages if he failed to continue the 80/20 rule and not advertise as an 55+ community. Source is sapling.com

I think the developer can change the undeveloped land south of 44 to family if not yet advertised as 55+. But then when a certain percentage of the 55+ homes were sold he would have to turn over control to the residents, something he might not want to do. GoldwingNut is the expert in these matters but I’m pretty sure I’m correct.

Included in the Federal Law is age restriction that children under age 19 cannot live in a 55+ community. Therefore the Developer is illegally allowing (by default) children to stay over the stated 30 days. I and others don't know how they get away with it. Since enforcement of this age restriction is "at the discretion of the Developer" his obligation is lacking. I wish I could determine following rules and laws at my discretion--what a great way to live! I suppose I just don't have enough money to do what I want without repercussion.

That is incorrect. The minimum age is at the community's discretion. As long as 80% of the properties are occupied by at least one person 55 or older, it is in compliance with the Housing for Older Person's Act. Some communities allow kids, some restrict it to over 30. The Villages allows people 19 or older, plus they have isolated villages set aside for families with younger kids, that are near the Villages, and a couple nested within the Villages, but are not actually part of the Villages.

Not all Senior Communities are age restricted, they just have to follow the 80/20 rule. But, the The Villages is marketed as an age restricted community and the developer would be in breach of contract if he tried to allow under 18 children.

I have been here since 2007 and have not seen this rule breached. It is not at the discretion of the developer, it is part of Federal guidelines for age restricted communities.

If you know someone who is not following this rule, turn them in. Money or lack of it on your part has NOTHING to do with it.

No, it is not part of "Federal guidelines." There is an actual law (not a guideline), called the Housing for Older Persons Act, aka HOPA.

Here is the official documentation of the Act, with questions and answers, directly from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development:

The Fair Housing Act: Housing for Older Persons | HUD.gov / U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/DOC_7769.PDF

And an archived page originating at 55places.com that explains it to the layman, dated 2005 (before you moved to the Villages) is here:

Housing for Older Persons Act of 1995 - Age-Restricted Housing Laws

The 19-year-old restriction is arbitrary, not federally mandated, and at the discretion of each community. It could be 20, or 18, or 32-and-three-months. As long as one person in each of a minimum of 80% of all homes in the community is 55 years old or older, it satisfies the "55+" designation.

We have been here since 2006 and have not seen the developer sell to families with young
children either because
TV is marketed as an age restricted community and he would be in breach of contract. There are, however, senior 55+ communities that allow children per their original documents.

Well it seems then hat you guys are not aware of the family with a young man who is confined to his wheelchair and is a resident there! I'd bet there are other underage kids there who also share physical/mental challenges and resident status, too! And didja know that besides the exceptions for kids - there are exceptions re the number of pets one can initially have in TV?

Seems everyone interprets the law to suit their ideas. Since I don't believe anyone here is a lawyer that has a specialty or has the in depth knowledge of compliance (wait, I forgot the internet lawyers) it's mostly Villagers being Villagers :).

yes there is an exception for disabled children who must live with their parents but that is few in number compared to the developer selling to families with small children which would not be allowed as this is an age restricted community per the documents.

All people over the age of 19 are allowed to live here as long as 80% of the homes are occupied by at least one person over the age of 55. That means that 20% of the homes can be occupied solely by people between the ages of 19 and 55 and that people people between the ages of 19 and 55 can legally live here as long as there is one person in the home over the age of 55.

That is the federal law. There is nothing that The Villages can do about it. It has been this way since The Villages was founded in 1985. It is nothing new.