80/20 rule
 

I have seen the 80/20 rule mentioned in a few threads lately. I did not want to further hijack an existing thread so I started this one. I think I understand the law and see it misstated often. I will find out here :)

That is a good link. I am always amazed how many times the law is misstated regarding the 20%. From my reading, TV could deny anyone under 55 from buying a home based on the law. "Many" communities do not sell to folks under 55. They are very careful with the 20%.

I personally am very happy TV allows some to buy under age 55 as I was one of them!

PS. I could not find any FL law which superseded the federal housing act.

Here is the wikipedia link for the federal law. Housing for Older Persons Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

remember the percentages what ever they are and however they are used are for new sales only. Resales have no such intentions, requirements or guidelines....and it is proof positive that common sense pretty much directs who chooses to live and buy in TV (thank goodness).

btk

I am not sure I understand the statement about resales not applying. To exaggerate, if all resales went to folks under 50 to the point where TV had less than 80% 55+ occupancy, TV would lose the over 55 status.

If I understand it correctly, if that happens, then anyone could buy here with no age discrimination, including folks with young children

I am not saying this is happening or arguing for any changes, just discussing how I understand the law.

I think we should do some serious research before reaching any conclusions concerning the Fair Housing Act. There is a lot involved in this law and we could easily find erroneous information posted in this thread.

The best source is the law itself, not random interpretations.

And the last thing The Villages would want, IMO, would be another federal agency, Housing and Urban Development, in addition to the IRS investigating their practices.

It is illegal to discriminate against anyone based on age...the only exception is if a community has at least 80% of it's residents (homeowners) over the age of 55. This has nothing to do with new/resale, the ownership must remain at 80% or more. If the number of residential owners is less than the stated 80% the community loses the right to 'discriminate'. I'm sure that the 'powers that be' are quite careful to not lose this valuable ability to maintain a senior based environment.

Trish - how do they keep track of MLS resales as far as age?

I wonder if the deed restrictions dictate a review of this at each closing?

The only distinction I will make here is that the 80% is not based on homeowners or residents. It is based on number of homes and occupancy. The HUD words it like this:

at least 80 percent of the occupied units must be occupied by at least
one person 55 years of age or older per unit;

I _assume_ someone takes care of monitoring this either by the IDs or census. My opinion based on being in the hood seasonally since 2007 is that we are no where near the 20% mark.

There is also the clause that no one under 19 can be in residence for more than 30 days.

I think that is part of the community restrictions which would prevent selling to young families. (or rather buying by young families)

I bought an MLS resale. When we got our membership IDs we had to show our driver's license. I guess our age was put in "the system" then.

It is unlikely there would be such a shift toward the younger people ever outnumbering the older 55 and older crowd. TV is geared for 55+ and is easily saturated with us old(er)folks.....that is why I say common sense would prevail i.e. the lifestyle of TV just will not appeal to the "younger" folk.

As a hypotheis one could conjur up what if.....and that is fine, however the old farts will not be outnumbered let along do a reverse Pareto (80-20 law).

btk

Officially I'm not sure but even though we bought a resale we still had to go through the "closing dept" with TV. If I remember correctly, that is where we got our Owner IDs and gate cards!

Just like every "Clause" there are exceptions. So, people please don't be bugging out your eyes, when you hear it happens. I know a resident who has a disabled child under the age of 19 living fulltime in her home- right here in TV.

This Act may be cited as the ``Housing for Older Persons Act of 1995.
SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF HOUSING FOR OLDER PERSONS.
Section 807(b)(2)(C) of the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3607(b)(2)(C)) is amended to read as follows:
(C) intended and operated for occupancy by persons 55 years of age or older, and--
(i) at least 80 percent of the occupied units are occupied by at least one person who is 55 years of age or older
(ii) the housing facility or community publishes and adheres to policies and procedures that demonstrate the intent required under this subparagraph; and
(iii) the housing facility or community complies with rules issued by the Secretary for verification of occupancy, which shall--
(I) provide for verification by reliable surveys and affidavits; and
(II) include examples of the types of policies and procedures relevant to a determination of compliance with the requirement of clause (ii). Such surveys and affidavits shall be admissible in administrative and judicial
proceedings for the purposes of such verification.

Please note above there is no mention of ownership. The 80/20 rule is based on occupancy.

Also note there is a provision that could require a survey.

This is not a situation to be trifled with. We should all read and understand the act. Do not rely on the numerous interpretations (many erroneous) you read here.

Losing our status as HOUSING FOR OLDER PERSONS would create a serious situation to say the least.

20%
 

Why do people need to find things to worry about?

Smell the palm trees. Enjoy the lifestyle in TV.

I know, lets worry about things we can really do something about like the National Debt.

I'm sorry, I did not state it correctly and you are right. If it were 'ownership' then the rule wouldn't apply to apartments..mea culpa. Thanks for pointing it out.

Trish