[nanci2539]

My son, who turns 41 is seriously considering buying a villa in TV for his own use as well as investment when he and his family are visiting us.

What are the conditions for this kind of buyer? I understand that 20% of homes in TV are sold to folks under age 55.

[billethkid]

I believe the percentage you quote is correct.

I also understand there is not such a restriction on resale homes in TV.

BTK

[graciegirl]

Now I find that extremely interesting. Never had heard that before. I truly thought it was restricted to 55 or better, or someone had to be 55 in the household. Just shows to go ya, I got lots to learn.

[Russ_Boston]

I believe that BTK is correct. But remember that no one under 19 can live there permanently regardless of type of sale (new or resale). So if he has kids...

As far as investment value goes i think there on some on this board that have experience with that.

[nanci2539]

He has two small boys and no, not to live there permanently. He wants to be able to visit and have space for his family. Especially if my daughter and her family come at the same time. TV homes don't offer lots of room or at least what I'm use to now.

[bsliny]

If I were you I'd contact the Villages There the ones who can tell you the best

[rgray99]

I thought like 'graciegirl'. The age restriction is one of the reasons I came to the villages. But I now realize that being 55 or over, with a resident ID, does not entitle you to anything that visitors cannot receive with the proper ID cards. That must be why it is very hard to utilize many of the recreation facilities during the visiting periods of spring break, holidays, weekends, etc. Where/When is my residency ID a necessity vs a guest ID?

[villages07]

rgray...

yes and no.... as a resident, you are entitled to no or lower fees for a number of things ... exec/championship golf, movies, shows, etc....things a guest pays more for.

Sports pools are for residents only (not even guests can go there); Katie Belle's is for residents only and their accompanied guests.

We may grouse about how the guests use the facilities and amenities...until your own guests arrive and you are so glad that there are places to take them and things to do. Personally, I think it all works well.

The one thing that did surprise me a bit was how The Villages encouraged (or is it did not discourage) short term rentals. We looked at other communities that would not allow any rentals for less than 6 months. The number of rentals reinforces the feeling of TV being a vacation or resort community rather than a bedroom/resident community.

The under 55 exception is barely noticeable. I don't know the percent of owners under 55 but it is well below the 20% max...probably less than 5%.

[billethkid]

Short term rentals lead to sales.

BTK

[Sidney Lanier]

UP TO 20% of buyers can be under age 55, and I agree that the current percentage is likely considerably less than that. Personally I can't see an issue with a 41-year-old buying a place as an investment and to use when visiting. He would still have to abide by the same requirements and regulations as any other owner.

[Talk Host]

It is my understanding that age discrimination laws are the reason why people under 55 cannot be kept out. It stands to reason that if one cannot be refused housing because they are too old, the same rules apply if they are "too young."

[Boomer]

Originally Posted by Talk Host

It is my understanding that age discrimination laws are the reason why people under 55 cannot be kept out. It stands to reason that if one cannot be refused housing because they are too old, the same rules apply if they are "too young."

TH,

There is something about this buried somewhere in my brain. A very, very long time ago I had a real estate license. But I did not quit my day job so I never really used it much. I mainly wanted to learn the stuff. That may be where I picked up that 55 and up is the only kind of age discrimination that is legal.

At the time I heard (think I heard) this, it had more to do with making a rental 55+ as being the only way a landlord could not be required to rent to people with kids. There are a lot more 55+ communities now than there were then. These communities probably would never have proliferated had the 55+ not been legal.

It makes perfect sense that there needs to be a percentage of adults below 55 who are allowed. And I don't know who is doing the head count anyway. My goodness, I bet there are maybe a few sugardaddies and sugarmamas scattered throughout the thousands of households in TV. Think of the enforcement nightmares that could lead to if there was not a little room in the 55+ law.

There are lots of reasons to allow a percentage of adults under 55, but the operative word here is "adults."

The 55+ has been pushed in some places by those wanting to move kids in. There are many circumstances that could arise within families that might thrust grandparents into the fulltime parent role. There was a community somewhere in Florida, I think, that made the national news a year or two ago. The people who bought in because it was a 55+ were being painted as ogres because they wanted a woman to sell her house because she had to have her grandchild move in with her.

It was pretty interesting and infuriating to see how the news was spinning the retirees' attitude. They were not being cut much slack It was not pretty. These were not people who hated kids. These were people who had bought into a 55+ community and now somebody was trying to change the rules. I don't know what ever happened there.

So anyway, from what I "think" I know, but admit I have not researched -- operative word -- "Adults."

Boomer

[bsliny]

Boomer You say there is a lot of reasons to allow people under 55 to live in the villages
But you don't say what they are I'm just curious to hear what they are

[Boomer]

Originally Posted by BSLINY

Boomer You say there is a lot of reasons to allow people under 55 to live in the villages
But you don't say what they are I'm just curious to hear what they are

Hello again BSLINY,

The reason I am saying "again" is because I have tried to answer your question a couple of times and both times I managed to lose the post in cyberspace. The first time was because our local internet service cut out. It's been doing that lately. The second time was last night when I saw that I had duplicated the quote from you and while trying to edit one out, I managed to reduce the entire post to that squint print. I should have left it alone. But I could not and I managed to lose that post, that actually got here yesterday. That loss was my fault. I can't blame our subprime ISP. I am a technoidiot. And I need to confine my proofreading to before I go to print, not after. Oh well.

So anyway, I hope you saw my second post yesterday. It stayed for awhile. I am going to now try to get it, or a version thereof, in place again. Third time's a charm. -- Right?

You may have seen it and actually kind of wondered why I did not really answer the question. I ended up giving you my thoughts on how allowing a percentage younger than 55 would help 55+ communities to be able to hang onto their 55+ status.

If the actual law has a percentage written into it, an actual number, not "some" or "a percentage," it seems to me that would give the law some real legs to stand on rather than giving it the potential to grow all kinds of arms and legs.

From "senior citizen" communites to "active adult" communities the law has survived. I think allowing that percentage of younger "adults" is the reason the law has worked. Any law, or restriction for that matter, is only as good as its enforcement. A clean cutoff at 55 would make that enforcement pretty impossible.

We would not be bothering to go through all this rigmarole to buy a home in a community in the sunshine if it were not an "adult" community. As I said above, "adult" is the operative word. Of course, our darling grandchildren will visit. "Visit" is the operative word in that one.

You said that you are curious about the possible reasons that I referred to. Well, there are those May/December marriages, or maybe even February/December, that I was talking about above. There are those who are close to retirement age but not quite there. I think there are probably a few "kids" who own the houses that their parents live in. And I'm sure we could think of many more reasons.

But the bottom line, where I am concerned, is to welcome those percentages and hope they actually will help the "adult" lifestyle to stay off the endangered species list.

My guess is that with the size of TV, and considering the dynamics that can arise within families, sooner or later somebody in TV is going to push having kids move in. I never found out what happened in that other Florida community that I referred to in the last post.

Oh, and I am not an ogre. I like kids just fine. I just want the choice of an adult community. "Choice" is the operatvie word in that one. And I hope the choice that most of us want can continue to be protected.

Adults below 55 are not only good for house sales, those younger adults are a buffer that will help the lifestyle survive.

btw I have not researched any of this or read the law. I keep hoping those on here who are far better at researching and presenting than I could ever be, will do that. This is just one of those 2 cents things from me or a theory or the morning babble that I sometimes write, here in the kichen, drinking coffee.

And I hope I have sort of answered your question, BSLINY. And good luck in your journey.

Boomer

[thistrucksforyou]

I was there in July looking for a place to buy... I bought a guest pass for my wife and I, and I was told at the center that I could do and go anywhere I want , just like I was a resident there. I did go to Kattie Belles and they did check our ID and we were not questioned at all...