[CFrance]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

See?

Actually, no, I don't.

[VillageIdiots]

Originally Posted by EdFNJ

From what our agent told us (no, we're NOT even under 70 ) a PRIVATE RESALE can be sold to anyone only new homes are age restricted. That being said why would anyone under 40 want to live here full time? As an Investment for rental ... I understand.

The first 6 words of your post are the problem. I am living/breathing proof, as I lay out in my previous post in this thread, that you don't have to be 55 to buy a new home from the developer, nor does anyone residing in the home have to be 55, nor do you have to get someone who is 55 or older to buy it for you. The agents don't make the rules, enforce rules, and in some cases obviously don't even know the rules. They get paid to sell homes. I visited several open houses over the past few years and started conversations with the agents who then informed me I wasn't old enough to live here once they found out the ages of my wife and I. But I visited many others where agents told me that wasn't true at all and most had their own first hand experiences of selling homes here to people under 55. I even met a few that were under that age themselves when they first moved here.

As for the OP's original question - I know why I want to live here, and it's for most of the same reasons that anyone that is over 55 and fully retired wants to live here. I honestly don't know why someone 19 would want to, at least on their own, but then I haven't met anyone near that age that owns property here. Would be interesting to see/hear how it would be handled if you were young enough when you moved here, but had no kids, but then had kids after titling property in your name. Something tells me it wouldn't be as easy to handle as someone that moves here with 2 dogs and then decides to adopt 2 more after the fact.

[manaboutown]

To me there are good reasons and bad reasons for adult children living with mom and/or dad. The following are representative and not all inclusive.

Good reasons: being a caregiver to a parent(s), parent(s) acting as caregiver(s) for a physically/mentally handicapped or challenged adult child, temporarily taking in a child needing some help recovering from a serious illness or injury and an adult child student preparing for a new career.

Bad reasons: taking in convicted and likely dangerous felons perhaps just out of prison or otherwise homeless, taking in substance abusing adult children and taking in potentially violent mentally ill adult children.

For all the bleeding hearts: How would you feel if your next-door or nearby neighbor had an adult child living there who was a physical threat to you and your spouse, whose adult child was running what amounted to a crack house or meth lab right in their parent's house? What if they were operating what amounted to a homeless shelter or halfway house right next door to you with litter, cigarette butts, loud music and young people coming and going all hours of the night, yelling, reving motorcycle engines, driving on your lawn, throwing their beer cans, empty bottles and used needles on your property? What if they were fencing stolen property out of their parent's garage?

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by VillageIdiots

The first 6 words of your post are the problem. I am living/breathing proof, as I lay out in my previous post in this thread, that you don't have to be 55 to buy a new home from the developer, nor does anyone residing in the home have to be 55, nor do you have to get someone who is 55 or older to buy it for you. The agents don't make the rules, enforce rules, and in some cases obviously don't even know the rules. They get paid to sell homes. I visited several open houses over the past few years and started conversations with the agents who then informed me I wasn't old enough to live here once they found out the ages of my wife and I. But I visited many others where agents told me that wasn't true at all and most had their own first hand experiences of selling homes here to people under 55. I even met a few that were under that age themselves when they first moved here.

As for the OP's original question - I know why I want to live here, and it's for most of the same reasons that anyone that is over 55 and fully retired wants to live here. I honestly don't know why someone 19 would want to, at least on their own, but then I haven't met anyone near that age that owns property here. Would be interesting to see/hear how it would be handled if you were young enough when you moved here, but had no kids, but then had kids after titling property in your name. Something tells me it wouldn't be as easy to handle as someone that moves here with 2 dogs and then decides to adopt 2 more after the fact.

There have been instances discussed of grandparents taking in grandchildren under 19 of deployed children. They had fines levied against them until they moved. It is a deed restriction to have children under the age of 19 for more than 30 days a year. Most of us would have sold our homes and moved to Leesburg so as not to break the rule and to have children in the neighborhood for the kids to play with.

Thank you, bless you to all who served and are serving. My family hold you in high honor.

[slamtennis]

Before you judge a man, walk a mile in his shoes.

[VillageIdiots]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

There have been instances discussed of grandparents taking in grandchildren under 19 of deployed children. They had fines levied against them until they moved. It is a deed restriction to have children under the age of 19 for more than 30 days a year. Most of us would have sold our homes and moved to Leesburg so as not to break the rule and to have children in the neighborhood for the kids to play with.

Thank you, bless you to all who served and are serving. My family hold you in high honor.

Gracie, am I missing something or did something I said come out wrong? I fully appreciate what you said above but I am not sure how my post ranked as the one to quote above your reply. In my opinion, in the scenario you described, there should be an exemption process to allow it as long as it can be verified and there is an agreed to period. We should all do anything we can, including the CDD's, to support those who wear the uniform to protect the freedoms that make this such a great place within a great country.

[terriejb]

👍👍👍👍

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by slamtennis

Before you judge a man, walk a mile in his shoes.

Nicely said. I have been with my parents since late 1991 taking care of them in some way but also doing valuable to some people work as a hobby. This hobby landed me in 14 Marquis Who's Who publications as well I received 24 nominations to various Marquis Who's Who publications from 1992 through 2002. And hundreds of invitations to vanity press publications up through a few years ago. The latest was a few months ago.

I like being in control of this hobby so would not really want to get into an environment where every step I take is controlled by some kind of committee having meetings a few times a week. And I have to really know someone else before allowing someone else to get really involved in what I am doing.

I might be able to swing this hobby into something else but also have the concerns of my immediate and extended family to deal with as I do this. I do have four degrees and a lot of experiences in libraries to guide me with this hobby. Also a lot of experiences talking in person, via phone, via various message boards with the people I am trying to help through this hobby. Facebook is wonderful for this hobby. I can interact with police departments, mental health providers, celebrities, journalists in all different media, various association leaders, many different law school libraries, victim/witness assistance providers, social workers, people working to help stop sex trafficking, etc.

It is a labor of love meant to help people. And I do bring in local organizations into this effort as many are on my Facebook page and can see what I am doing.

Look at the individuals of the Villages. There are good and bad people of every age in the Villages and their surrounding communities. Just like anywhere else.

[xcaligirl]

It's an ongoing discussion that never goes anywhere because of the rules. I think there are some sort of a law regarding the "children" being destructive of other people's property, going 30 down the golf cart path, passing people and the 'home-made cart is smoking like a chimney', the break-ins from the under 55 that are living here and the list goes on. Seems to be acceptable by some people. I guess if it doesn't happen to them, is all good.

[TandHSTAR@AOL.com]

Ok, I understand everyone's concern. But in reality this is still a safe community. There are no loud radios, souped up cars or motorcycles. With adult children living with their parents. Sometimes it's a temporary necessity. Notice I said temporary. After that the parent has to say it's time you lived your own life. Is this easy. OOOOH no it is not. Is there an easy solution? I don't know. But before you go bashing people who have their adult children living with them, look at both sides of the coin. If parents have lived here for many years, their house is probably paid off and it's still less expensive than moving. Keep in mind these situations happen not only in The Villages but in all the surrounding "age restricted" communities. We are not the exception. So if you are thinking of moving here, go ahead and do it. You will love it once you acclimate to the weather, activities and all the wonderful people that live here.

[Bucco]

Originally Posted by TandHSTAR@AOL.com

Ok, I understand everyone's concern. But in reality this is still a safe community. There are no loud radios, souped up cars or motorcycles. With adult children living with their parents. Sometimes it's a temporary necessity. Notice I said temporary. After that the parent has to say it's time you lived your own life. Is this easy. OOOOH no it is not. Is there an easy solution? I don't know. But before you go bashing people who have their adult children living with them, look at both sides of the coin. If parents have lived here for many years, their house is probably paid off and it's still less expensive than moving. Keep in mind these situations happen not only in The Villages but in all the surrounding "age restricted" communities. We are not the exception. So if you are thinking of moving here, go ahead and do it. You will love it once you acclimate to the weather, activities and all the wonderful people that live here.

Good post. I have been here a long time and KNOW it is a safe community.

Children of owners can present a problem for sure.....BUT....

Owners can present a problem, etc and etc.

To talk incessantly about children of Villagers is just something to do I suppose.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by VillageIdiots

Gracie, am I missing something or did something I said come out wrong? I fully appreciate what you said above but I am not sure how my post ranked as the one to quote above your reply. In my opinion, in the scenario you described, there should be an exemption process to allow it as long as it can be verified and there is an agreed to period. We should all do anything we can, including the CDD's, to support those who wear the uniform to protect the freedoms that make this such a great place within a great country.

Not at all. I agree with your thoughts. I was clarifying for those who don't know that kids under 19 cannot live in The Villages, no matter how compelling the need. It is a deed restriction.

[dianemg]

bought in 2003 at age 49, moved here 2007; TV is NOT what it is purported to be, home town/safe feeling has been gone a LONG time now; theft (in stores, golf carts, clubs) bad residents (domestic abuse), WAY too much drinking, in and outside crime, uncurteous and downright dangerous driving) ALOT of amenities gone: Church on Square, Katie Bells. (Watch out Polo Field). The Old Man Swartz is turning over. He went around asking residents what they wanted. Now its all about the developers wallet. Must weigh the amenities of the great lifestyle VS negative conditions. Still no place like it in the world.

[Polar Bear]

Originally Posted by dianemg

...TV is NOT what it is purported to be, home town/safe feeling has been gone a LONG time now; theft (in stores, golf carts, clubs) bad residents (domestic abuse), WAY too much drinking, in and outside crime, uncurteous and downright dangerous driving) ALOT of amenities gone: Church on Square, Katie Bells. (Watch out Polo Field). The Old Man Swartz is turning over. He went around asking residents what they wanted. Now its all about the developers wallet. Must weigh the amenities of the great lifestyle VS negative conditions...

Too bad you feel that way. Not everybody does.

And of course it’s the developer’s wallet that is ruining everything!!

[VillageIdiots]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

Not at all. I agree with your thoughts. I was clarifying for those who don't know that kids under 19 cannot live in The Villages, no matter how compelling the need. It is a deed restriction.

Very true. Though the idea that you, or someone in your household, must be 55 to buy a new home is a myth, it is not a myth that having anyone residing in your home that is under 19, for more than 30 days in a calendar year is against your deed restrictions. However, exceptions are made for people that have under age children with special needs. I am fairly sure of that and don't have a problem with it. Seems reasonable to me that there could be some process set up for applying for exemptions much like the requirement for ARC approval for changes to your property. They could still say no, but at least there would be a process. I think looking out for children of deployed military would be a good reason for exemption. But then, there is always the question of who is going to verify it and then police it.