Airbnb Problem
 

Here we are again, same problem same result. The developer needs to crack down on this.

https://www.**************.com/2023/...em-of-airbnbs/

People can’t be using their homes as a business with high customer volume. At the very least, sales disclosures should mention if this is a going problem in a neighborhood. Why should neighborhoods foot the pain for a greedy landlord’s abuses of The Villages system?

I have looked into this exhaustively and there is pretty much nothing we can do as long as the developer chooses to ignore it. Until something horrible happens that negatively affects sales it will continue. At some point if it becomes uncomfortable enough we will probably move into a community that does enforce the restrictions.

Rentals and Access to Charter Schools
 

A passing thought....

Will investors be able to purchase in Middleton (family section), rent the home -- presumably long term -- to a family who can then send their children to The Villages Charter schools?

Wonder if deed restrictions will be placed on those homes...

. Only my opinion but a parent needs to be employed by a business that is associated with TV.

The developer is only concerned with getting his homes sold. I know of one investor who owns 5 homes here. Kinda obvious they are not going to live in all of them, don't you think?

I don't know what you mean that you "looking into it exhaustively", but I disagree.

All owners are 3rd party beneficiaries of the Deed Restrictions. The Developer has the right, but not the obligation to enforce the Restrictions. Any 3rd party beneficiary should have the right to bring suit to enforce them (or at least in some circumstances, as the Deed Restrictions vary throughout TV).

If I'm not mistaken there's a fairly new FL law that prohibits counties/towns from adopting regulations that prohibit STR's, but I doubt that has any bearing on TV, as the owner's of the units, had prior knowledge that "Business Use" is prohibited in TV. Under Florida Law, short term rentals a defined as a "Business".

Personally, I'd love to see a few 100 TV residents get together and file a lawsuit.

How does the developer get away with selling to investors? He is breaking his own deed restrictions. One I am sure he had lawyers draw up for him. Guess he forgot to read them. Too interested in selling homes. The more homes sold means prices can stay elevated.

In what way is he breaking his own deed restrictions? (Please post the wording from the restrictions)

2.10
 

“Properties within the Subdivision are intended for residential use and no commercial, professional or similar activity requiring either maintaining an inventory, equipment or customer/client visits may be conducted in or on a homesite.”

Of course airBnB specifically and repetitively uses the term customer for renters of units throughout its support website. The term commercial involves the exchange of funds and in many instances landlords even have contracts written supporting the commercial transaction. Of course renting also requires additional cleaning maintenance which does occur on the homesite.

The violation as a commercial entity is blatant.

Just responding to the post that states rentals are a business and conducting a business from your home in the Villages is prohibited in the deed restrictions. I believe the poster I responded to quoted the deed restriction. If the developer is knowingly selling his home to investors, he is breaking his own deed restrictions. Selling to a full time investor is selling him a full time business, not a home.

OK, so someone needs to call a lawyer and get an opinion if there is a case, against whom (I would guess the individual owners, or the developer for NOT enforcing the restriction) and the value of the case. I am sure that the owners of the AirBnB as well as probably AirBNB will reply with their own counter suit.

In any case I can feel the pain of the neighbors in this situation.

Sounds like a job for the POA—-they love opposing the developers

I already tried that and they said nothing they can do

I think that's part of the problem ... the case probably has little or no "value".

I suppose there's some possibility of "damages", but I doubt any qualified lawyer would take it on that basis ... too many accidents and other tort cases in FL, to feast on.

Which makes it a "pay as you get billed" action. The Defendants would likely be a sampling of STR owners and the Developer. Given the Developer's resources and track record, he could (& would) throw millions at the case.

I suppose it would be possible to file an action against a small sampling of STR owners and keep the Developer out of it. Whether he would stay out of it, is another story.

If someone was to do the organizing and put together a group of people who felt strongly enough to invest some money into exploring litigation, I'd certainly participate. I'm just not good at the "organizing" part. It would essentially be a "crowd sourcing" endeavor in the beginning ... maybe even a GoFundMe type arrangement.

All the words of the sentence are important. Commercial activities are not prohibited unless those activities require maintaining an inventory or customer/client visits

It is highly unlikely that the couch, chair, or dining room table will be considered to be inventory for the purposes of the deed restrictions. It is also unlikely that the renter would be considered a customer/client for those purposes either.

You want to use your interpretation to make it a violation to have a short term rental but it will also affect long term renters. A renter is a renter if he is there one night, one week, or one month. Since it is not a violation to have a renter for one month then it is clearly not a violation to have a renter. If a renter is not a violation then a renter that stays for only one week would not be a violation either.

You can argue it if you would like but you will still be wrong. But who am I to say? Make your case in court and let the lawyers hammer out whether a person sleeping in a home is a customer/client in the sense of the word as used in the restrictions and then only when they stay for a number of days that you find acceptable.

Be careful taking anything you read on here as correct. Just because a post claims something is a violation or a famous person has passed doesn't make it so.

WHY would the developer selling to an investor be a violation of the deed restrictions? Just because another poster said so? Who is this other poster? What are his qualifications for making such a claim? What is he basing his claim on? Posters on this site make all kinds of claims. You should know this, you've been reading these forums for some time now.

I gave my opinion of the rental situation above. But why assume an investor purchased a home to rent it out? With the way homes in the Villages appreciate, particularly in the last few years, what's to say the investor didn't purchase the homes to hold for 18 months and then sell at a profit? There would be no question of commercial activity because there would be no activity at all. How would that be a violation of the deed restrictions?