[Bonny]

We moved here in 2000. I was 48 and hubby was 49. We were those bad people under 55 that many are complaining about.
We fully knew the 80 - 20 rule. They tell everyone. People that complain about it or don't like it, shouldn't have moved here.
Our daughter, 19, lived with us for awhile. She then met a great guy, got a good job, got married and moved to their own place.
Then my stepson, 27, came to stay with us. He got a job with the Villages reality, met a great gal and then they got their own place.
All my neighbors loved them.
So I take offence that everyone is putting everyone into these categories such as young trouble makers under 55 or ever so sweet law abiding people over 55.
Don't understand why people move here knowing all the things they don't like & now sit and complain about it all and want it changed. I just don't get it.
I LOVE the Villages !!!

[TheVillageChicken]

I have compiled a list of the ways that having these younger folk live here have impacted my own life.

Here is my list:
1. There is a really nice looking younger gal that works out at the same time as I do. I don't skip my workouts.









.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

Originally Posted by Bogie Shooter

Hey doc, isn't it 20% under 55?

The law reads that 80% of the homes must have at least one person over the age of 55 residing in them.

It's very improbable, but you could conceivably have four people living in every home and three could be under 55. And that's only in 80% of the homes. The other 20% of the homes could have all four people under the age of 55 living in them. To make things simple let's say that at build out there are 100,000 homes and 400,000 people. That would mean that only 80,000 of the 400,000 residents would be required to be over 55. That's only 20% of the residents.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

Originally Posted by ajbrown

Although, I suspect you made a typo, your statement is not wrong. Nothing in the housing act prevents 90% of the people living in The Villages from being under 55 and still qualify as a 55 and over community. The act is not about ownership, it simply states at least 80 percent of the occupied units must be occupied by at least one person 55 years of age or greater

So imagine in my exaggerated example, the homeowner is 30, living with his wife (32), his father who is 57, his father's wife who is 49, their brother-in-law and his wife who are 26.

That situation qualifies as over 55 household.

That's true. I always use an example of four people to a household because we do have many two bedroom and some one bedroom homes. I believe that there are occupancy ordinances that limit the number of people in a home to two per bedroom. But yes, if there were six people living in every house the number of LEGAL under 55 residents could exceed 90%. In addition, don't forget that 20% of the homes could have all occupants under the age of 55.

Incidentally, I am one of those homes with an under 55 person. My wife is not yet 55. She is a good responsible person with a job and has never been in trouble. She rarely drinks and obeys all the laws.

Like I said before. The number of problems that we have for a community of this size is very, very small compared to other communities of 100,000 plus people.

[Indydealmaker]

Originally Posted by 2BNTV

People used to complain The Daily Fun only reported good news items, as it was the developer's paper, or tool. The Daily Sun now reports these type of problems and people complain about these types of episodes in TV, as if there is a major crime wave.

You can't have your cake and eat it too, even though it's my birthday.

As Red said, I suspect these type of things happened before, but were never reported. You have to expect some element of crimes happening, with a population of 110,000. To expect zero crimes, is unrealistic. That is a pretty big town, not to mention the surrounding area population, that comes into TV.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

Originally Posted by rubicon

Is perception someone's reality? The 80/20 rule is a standard application for retirement communities and it means age 55+ 80% of population under 55 20%..It was easy to forecast these the state of The Village because these complaints were raised by a few of us long ago but our concerns were shut out by residents that didn't care or didn't want to know. A few mis-characterized it as animus against/toward the Developer .

This is a common misconception about the 80/20 rule.

As has been pointed out in several posts now, what the law says is that 80% of the occupied residences must have at least one person over the age of 55 living in them. You could conceivably have one person over 55 and 5 people under 55 legally living in a three bedroom home in 80% of the homes. Then you could have six people under the age of 55 living in 20% of the three bedroom homes.

[Indydealmaker]

Originally Posted by Bonny

We moved here in 2000. I was 48 and hubby was 49. We were those bad people under 55 that many are complaining about.
We fully knew the 80 - 20 rule. They tell everyone. People that complain about it or don't like it, shouldn't have moved here.
Our daughter, 19, lived with us for awhile. She then met a great guy, got a good job, got married and moved to their own place.
Then my stepson, 27, came to stay with us. He got a job with the Villages reality, met a great gal and then they got their own place.
All my neighbors loved them.
So I take offence that everyone is putting everyone into these categories such as young trouble makers under 55 or ever so sweet law abiding people over 55.
Don't understand why people move here knowing all the things they don't like & now sit and complain about it all and want it changed. I just don't get it.
I LOVE the Villages !!!

Bonnie, After reading many of the posts on TOTV as well as the online newspaper, it would appear that many people moved here without reading the deed restrictions and researching age restricted communities. Some even were shocked to find out that The Villages is not a gated community.

[Bonny]

Originally Posted by Indydealmaker

Bonnie, After reading many of the posts on TOTV as well as the online newspaper, it would appear that many people moved here without reading the deed restrictions and researching age restricted communities. Some even were shocked to find out that The Villages is not a gated community.

We looked at a few other places and they all said about the 80 - 20 rule. I knew it wasn't gated the day we first came to look cause I could go to the gate and say hi and they lifted the gate. LOL
I have a friend who's been here 14 years and still complains about the bond. Ha ha

[PennBF]

The problem is not the under 55 restriction(s) but that when someone under 55 commits a rather serious crime there are no consequences. Any person under 55 who commits a felony or is charged with drugs should be restricted from visiting or living in The Villages. I know I did not include those 55 and over as they were and are living within the age "senior rules" of The Villages. But even with 55 and over those committing felonies/drug laws should have consequences. A fundemental problem today is there are no consequences for those who abuse communities and the quite llife of residents. Some examples are taking away
Country Club, pool, and Rec Center priveliges. The member cards can be so marked to control these people. I am betting the violations will fall.

[onslowe]

Originally Posted by Wandatime

I was with you up til that last paragraph, which was rude and unnecessary.

Wanda, I admit that I get revved up on this overall topic. That's an explanation of sorts, but certainly not an excuse for my leaving in my last paragraph which was a gratuitous zinger and a hurtful one to other posters, you included.

It was wrong of me, and I acknowledge it and apologize.

I have to say, perhaps to clarify my upset, that it is not and has never been an under 55 issue as such. I knew full well about the rule when I bought. Indeed, my Villages sales agent himself bought here when he was 40. I am sorry for any offense to Bonny or any others that my own words may have caused.

The issue is oversight of seemingly out of control single or multi-house landlords. I know very well that steps and measures can be introduced as mandatory items in the leasing process. I believe also that some kind of penalty should exist for the wrongdoing tenants, even those who might not maintain the rented property and allow it to become an eyesore. Of course, the same holds true for errant homeowners.

If there is a sense that 'anything goes' then, in fact, everything will indeed go. A person or corporation or family trust should not buy a house or houses and rent them out solely for the biggest return. Property rights do not go that far. There can be reasonable mandates in place so that maybe those who are habitual wrongdoers, or evictees or who become wrongdoers while here are faced with very strict penalties for the good of this place and the law abiding retirees who live here and have invested here.

I'm not Chicken Little, nor am I making mountains out of mole hills. Sometimes, it is wiser to redirect things in the early stages for the good of everyone - and the value of their investments and their right to quiet enjoyment of their homes and surroundings.

I think it is broken and should be fixed.

[Bonny]

Originally Posted by PennBF

The problem is not the under 55 restriction(s) but that when someone under 55 commits a rather serious crime there are no consequences. Any person under 55 who commits a felony or is charged with drugs should be restricted from visiting or living in The Villages. I know I did not include those 55 and over as they were and are living within the age "senior rules" of The Villages. But even with 55 and over those committing felonies/drug laws should have consequences. A fundemental problem today is there are no consequences for those who abuse communities and the quite llife of residents. Some examples are taking away
Country Club, pool, and Rec Center priveliges. The member cards can be so marked to control these people. I am betting the violations will fall.

Sorry but if someone under 55 commits a felony or is charged with drugs and can't live here, then those over 55 committing the same crime shouldn't be allowed to live here either.
So that would mean if they are 54 out they go, 55 they can stay ?
Do you realize how many people over the age of 55 are using drugs here ? I can name at least 30 people that I know use drugs.
What are the "senior rules" in the Villages ? I've been here 14 1/2 years and I'm not familiar with them.

[Bizdoc]

There are good reasons for the 80/20 rule, mostly to maintain the exemption to fair housing laws based on age. If you read up on the early 55 plus communities, you'll find out what happens when you don't have that - the entire community becomes family housing and the seniors get squeezed out.

While I share the discomfort with the problems of 20/30 somethings who get in trouble, I also recall a fair number of people who moan about not being able to have their grandkids for more than 30 days per year. Folks, you can't have it both ways.

Alternately, vote in judges who will put the pedal to the metal in sentencing problem people. You may not agree with strict sentences, but they do help filter out problem people. Just don't get huffy when folks over 55 get equally stiff sentences.

I do have to admit that the latest tale of drunken sex on the cart path made me start humming "Why Don't We Do It in The Road"

[rubicon]

Villages marketing does with every marketing department do....market the upside. One can't say they lied but they certainly said things and staged The Villages that created a pivot affect for prospective buyers. For instance they call it a retirement community. What does that denote to most people? Perhaps some can retire before age 55 but not most. Prospective buyers whether with a realtor or on the trolley watched as people flashed gate passes in order to raise a gate.....and don't forget the existence of a gate in the first place. I can remember one marketer painting a picture of grand kids visiting and then losing sight of taillights as they returned home.

Some of us did the math on the 80/20 but always they came back to this was after all a retirement community and that was their market.

[Indydealmaker]

It would be a bit of nirvana to know that all of our neighbors were true blue, trustworthy, law-abiding, drug-free nice guys.

However, that cannot be legislated. The only legal housing restrictions that I know of relate to convicted sex offenders.

Everybody else gets to fly under the radar, until they don't.

[tuctba]

We bought in 2004 when we were 46. At the time we were told they surpassed the 80/20 and wouldn't sell to us. So instead they sent us to First Village Reality. We bought a new home that was being flipped by a couple who bought 3 homes at the time. One for them and 2 to flip. We paid forty thousand more for the house that they closed on only 6 weeks earlier. It was still the best thing we ever did! Love TV[emoji1]