When have they ever enforced it? Tracking by home sales would not work because the rule applies to residents, not owners. The only feasible tracking method would be with the resident ID cards, assuming they require proof of age when they issue a card.

Why wouldn't ID cards work, at least for the vast majority of homes?

If a rental includes amenities then the owner turns in his/her ID card and a card is issued to the renter at one of the sales offices. The ages of the occupants can be tracked.

If an owner is a snowbird or other part-time resident then they maintain their ID card. Either the age can be tracked through the card or the home could be considered to be unoccupied and not part of the 80/20 count.

This might leave out short-term rentals but would it really make the count grossly inaccurate? Do the HoPA rules even require these to be counted or would they be considered as unoccupied? Even if they are counted, are there enough short-term rental properties to significantly affect the 80/20 ratio?

I've read claims of numbers like 1,000 rental properties or 3,000 rental properties listed. OK, but with 70,000+ homes in the Villages, if all 3,000 were required to be counted and all 3,000 were short-term and all 3,000 were rented with no one over 55 in the party that would still only be 4% of the homes, far from the 20% limit.

Are there "so many kids living in The Villages?" I know of zero. I have seen one post on here mentioning one family.

It could be that there does exist one or a few families living in the Villages. I don't really know and I suspect a large number of those posting don't know either.

"Never enforced?" Really? It would be interesting to see some numbers on that. How many times have internal deed restrictions been reported and homes are still in violation?

I don't know all the rules. If a snowbird lives in The Villages for 4 months every year, is that a fulltime resident, or an unoccupied house? And, how does The Villages count the number of snowbirds? They don't register as snowbirds or even tell The Villages when they leave town. Are there long term renters who don't have an ID card? Shouldn't the 80 percent data and methodology be public information? That would answer these questions.

It's pretty simple.. if you have the $$$ someone will sell you a home, be it a private party or TV. Its all about the money

Every time I have contacted Deed Compliance or Community Standards, the person I am talking to seems to have an attitude that they will do almost anything to avoid enforcing a rule. Someone stored a vehicle in a visitor parking space for a year, and the Deed Compliance guy actually told me that the owner was not violating any deed restriction because he did not own a house in the area and did not live there. Also, he was not visiting anyone.

Where are "all of these kids" who are living in TV?

The only time I see kids is when they're visiting during the Winter/Spring holidays or during Summer break...

For the sake of argument, let's say the Villages does not know who is a snowbird. Simple solution: consider the home to be occupied, consider the occupants of the home to be those with the ID cards, and then count the home in the appropriate category.

Are there long term renters who don't have ID cards? I would guess that there are not. Part of the appeal of the Villages is the amenities and renting long term without use of the amenities wouldn't make much sense.

Should the 80% data and methodology be public information? No. The Villages is a private company and entitled to keep their internal processes private. If they file paperwork with HUD concerning the current ratio then that ought to be public, or at least FOIA'able, but unless HUD chooses to question the methodology it would be private.

I am comfortable that the 80/20 ratio is being met. EVEN IF IT IS NOT, since I don't have a family who was denied the opportunity to live here due to having children I have not been harmed. The 80/20 rule is not a guarantee to me that I won't have a 23 year old on my street. The 80/20 rule is a reason that the family with teenagers cannot purchase a home on my street. If the 80/20 rule is not being met then the parents of the teenager can sue under the Fair Housing Act. If there is a 23 year old on my street then I have someone younger to say hello to.

No, that is not true. At least 80% of PROPERTIES - must have at least 1 person age 55 or older residing in it.

If (hypothetically because these numbers are easiest to understand) you have 100,000 properties, and 80,000 of them have 1 person age 55 or older living in them, but you have 400,000 PEOPLE living in the Villages, then you have an average of 4 residents per home - with at least 1 of them being 55 or older in 80% of those homes. And that satisfies the law.

Lady Lake exists in both counties.

The grandkids, if they're under 19 years old, are not allowed to stay longer than 30 days in a calendar year. If they're staying "a few months" then that's against the rules.

If they're just visiting for a few weeks, it's awesome. Great to see kids around here and there - as long as they don't overstay their communal welcome as they apparently have done in Souliere Villas.

Except that it either isn't happening, or isn't happening correctly.

Many older Villagers have passed away and left their properties to their under-55 children. Those under-55 children already have Villagers IDs (since you can have up to 4 ids per property). They own the house, they live in the house, they're under 55, and their over 55 parents, who allowed for that 80% qualification to be valid, no longer exist.

This is not uncommon, it happens.

In addition, private sales that don't involve Properties of The Villages (the developer's agency) are private. The Villages don't get to find out who's moving in, until after the buyer has already purchased the house and moved in. The Developer isn't going to tell them "sorry but you can't live here even though you bought the house fair and square."

This is also not uncommon. It happens.

And don’t forget the 40 and 50 year old loser offspring. They are here too.😝

To clarify, the developer's real estate sales agency is called "Properties of The Villages". The company "Hometown Property Management" is a private rental company that is not owned by The Villages. Some people assume that the "Hometown" company is part of The Villages.

Just because something happens doesn't mean it not uncommon...

I wonder whether sales of Villages properties aren't reviewed by the Developer. IDs are issued by the sales office so the Villages becomes involved at some point. I picked up my mailbox key from the sales office but that may be because my house was listed with them.

The Developer is responsible for monitoring the 80/20 ratio and ensuring it is met. At some point the Developer must have a way to refuse to allow occupancy if there is no resident at least 55+.

The sales people are aware of the deed restriction against children in the house and would refuse to sell to a family. They are also aware of the 80/20 restrictions and they must have a way to check that as well.

But remember, it doesn't matter who owns the home, the requirement concerns who resides in the home.

Plus, none of this really matters if the under 55+ portion is far less than 20%.

Perps
 

Does it say what they did?

Unless you are reporting a person with a little white cross in their garden, then they would be all over it like a fly on you know what!

Isn't that exactly what blueash said in post 22 except you added more zeros.

How do you know that it is not tracked or is done improperly? How do you know that 'The Villages' is not involved and must approve a private sale? How do you know? Assuming does not count.

As long as we are under 20%, then all sales are ok. So, no one has seen a sale get nixed. How does anyone know what that would look like until it happens?

Adult children
 

That’s why.

The biggest offenders.

I know one couple that are both under age 55. And I don't know a lot of people.

That would be nice, if true.

I know about ONE adult child in my village. He is mentally disabled and his parents still care for him... He's a sweetheart...

Understandable. I applaud parents who make the commitment to care for a handicapped child.

The opposite seems to be true as well. I know of two homes in our village where an adult child provides care for a parent or parents who would not be able to live independently here in TV without that help. In fact the church we attend is sponsoring a program for just such caregivers as well as spouses who care for an incapacitated spouse (usually the wife caring for an incapacitated husband). It is just getting off the ground. The program is run by a psychiatric nurse who has had extensive experience in this particular area. I'm not completely familiar with the mechanics of the program but it appears to be several things: a type of respite care where a volunteer, after being trained in the needs and procedures of the person in question, will go into the home to stay with the incapacitated person while the primary caregiver (spouse, adult child, whomever) is free for a period of time to pursue his or her own interests, shop, whatever. It appears also to function as a sort of informal support group where experiences and information is shared.

There is never a lack of stories about ne'er-do-well adult kids to move here to sponge off parents and all too often end up afoul of the law in the process. But that other element exists as well. I have no way of knowing for sure but my guess is that the children who are here as legitimate caregivers far outnumber the the sponges. It is good to see a program designed to help them cope with the strain and inconvenience that being such a caregiver entails.

An opinion:

1/ The Fair Housing Act was Title 8 part of the Civil Rights act of 1968
2/ The Housing for Older People Act (HOPA) of 1995 amended the Fair Housing Act of1 968
a/ Deleted certain requirements for certain facilities and services for qualified housing for persons 55 and older
b/ Set up system allowing some discrimination by Familial age regarding sales of properties in 55 and over communities

Also, to eliminate issues that might lead to suit over refusal to sell/rent to certain persons under the age of 55. Spells out that requirement regarding age -- (i) at least 80 percent of the occupied units are occupied by at least one person who is 55 years of age or older. It makes the Housing Facility or community responsible for maintaining the ratio above.

Now the speculation is how that is done or maintained. The Developer has a goal to maintain the status of an over 55 community which allows them to market to that segment of the population. At some point that responsibility migrates to the community. Perhaps the CDD's.

It would seem that the law specifically benefits the developers, and then the residents only as a byproduct. So, as long as the Developer sells the initial homes, they have control of whom they sell to by age. But, what do they use as their basis for the 80 percent. The whole of the Villages (which gets older each day) or some segment they designate? By law (HOPA) they must track. Could be that over 95% of the homes currently have at least one person over 55. Our community of Caroline at Lake Sumter has around 90 homes and I would guess that 95% have at least 1 person over 55. The Developer could easily keep track of that number even considering sales outside of their control. Likely, they could sell the next 2000 homes to families under 55 years of age without threatening that 80% threshold.

The other part are the covenants regarding persons under 19. I suspect that is a local issue, that might be more of a CDD management issue.

To the OPs concern, yes, we will have the likelihood of many persons under 55 down to age 19 and it would appear that they are entitled to be here. And contrary to some posts, that does not indicate that they are ne're-do-wells.

There also could be some exceptions to the under 19 rule. For example, an owner 55 or older might by some reason become the guardian. Would that owner be required to move to be the guardian. Who administers the exceptions? Would you have any way to overrule by law?

The town of Lady Lake is in Lake County Florida. Have they incorporated land in Sumter or Marion County? Post office Zip Codes don't necessarily define county location.

Gracie girl is back. Not to long ago there was a giant manhunt looking for you. Hope all is well.

The 4 teenagers that had moved into their grandparents home in our neighborhood and had been causing all types of issues and vandalism have moved out. Don’t know if they were told to leave or finally left after the many complaints made and the neighborhood standing up to them but either way they are gone so it can happen.

There's plenty of Villagers that never golf, use the pools, or go to the Rec Centers for anything. Maybe it doesn't make any sense to you, but some people just like the other things like the golf cart community thing or the multiple free live music venues every night. I'm on a small street and from what I can tell, multiple households on my street never use any of the amenities that you would need an ID card for.

I don't see how this would work for resales. Would the RE agent have to check with TV to see if there's extra capacity to sell to an under 55 couple every time? Seems doubtful.

I'm aware that there's a law about the 80% rule, I just haven't seen a specific law about requiring all Deed Restricted communities to have it being tracked. I can't imagine that any of the many smaller condo complexes in Florida with 200 units or less have the financial resources to constantly track the demographics of every unit.

Hope that nurse isn't the one I'm thinking of

Not all deed restricted communities, all 55+ communities that don't allow children. In order to legally refuse to have children as permanent residents the community has to show that they are abiding by the HoPA rules.

A smaller condo complex in Florida with 200 units or less can be sued for discrimination in housing if they refuse to allow a family with children to live there UNLESS they can prove, through the HoPA rules, that they are a 55+ community. Those rules require certifying that at least one resident is over 55 in 80% or more of occupied units.

I only know what I was told by the lawyer who is involved in the tracking. He told me that all sales are reviewed and that there is a mechanism in place. Remember - selling privately does not neutralize the deed restrictions or the requirements to remain a 55+ community. HOPA says that once the 55+ designation is lost, it cannot be recovered. So, yea, they track it.

As far as costs, a small community would be able to track very easily with little or no costs.

Is there an actual government agency that would do an audit on the age restriction compliance?

Has TV ever been audited for age restriction compliance?

Or is TV governing themselves and they’re on the honor system?

How would they possibly keep track of Airbnb occupants?

TV was able to build sections for families who work in TV is that included in the 80%

Maybe TV keeps track of buyers for legal reasons but in no way with a community this large can they keep track of every household and who is living in it.

I wonder if they even need to. If "occupied" has a lower limit, say 30 days, then airbnbs could be considered to be unoccupied and not part of the count. If not, then the occupancy would depend on the date the survey was conducted. Either there was someone in the home whose age could be determined or the age of the last occupant would be used. Either way, occupied or not, the number of airbnbs could be in the noise compared with the size of the rest of the community.

Middleton is not part of the Villages. Middleton is not a 55+ community. I can't believe Middleton would affect the Villages status any more than the cities of Wildwood or Bushnell do.

All they need to keep track of (or count once every two years) is whether there is one resident over 55 in every occupied home. Unoccupied - isn't counted. One 60 year old with five 23 year old live-in friends - counts as part of the 80%. Most of the homes could be categorized through the information collected for Villager IDs.

HUD, (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development) is the Federal agency responsible for administering the retirement community law. I don't think they do audits, but they require retirement communities to have written procedures in place to ensure compliance with the law. These procedures are approved by HUD. Anyone can file a complaint with HUD if they feel they are being negatively affected by non-compliance with the law. In that case, it would be the responsibilty of The Villages to provide evidence that they are in compliance. The Villages could also be fined or sued by HUD for non-compliance with the law. I don't think The Villages would need to keep track of every household to provide sufficient evidence of compliance with the 80/20 rule.

The exception to the under 19 rule - I've posted about this before. A couple of women, both clearly of the appropriate 55+ age, moved in to the neighborhood over a year ago. They BROUGHT WITH THEM a young child, under 10. That - should not have been permitted, there should be no exception made for that.

The exception should only be for those residents who already live here, and find themselves in a custodial situation after they've moved in. If you know in advance that you have a kid living with you, then you don't move into a 55+ community.

Fortunately this couple didn't stay (we think they were sisters with their nephew), but they were bad enough neighbors that the couple next door to them moved to another neighborhood. These women didn't care what the rules were about their nephew. They didn't care about the rules for anything else either. They didn't keep the lawn neat - it was mostly weeds and bare spots, they never used a sprinkler on it. Weeds were growing through cracks in the driveway, they were parking their car in the golf cart driveway, with half the tires on the lawn, making divots in the ground as a result. They didn't respond to anyone offering to help, they were perfectly fine doing things their own way.

We think they might have been tenants who moved in right after the house was sold. But then that would fall on the landlord, who apparently also didn't care.

People who move in, knowingly breaking the rules, are not going to care about any of the rules. Those are the people you need to say "nope - you can't move in here" to.

I know because I bought via a private sale. The seller used an outside real estate agency to list their home. The Villages didn't vet us. They didn't ask us if we had kids moving in. They didn't ask how many pets we had, they didn't ask if we were over 55 - until closing day when they took our out of state licenses to confirm our identities (we hadn't moved here yet, so obviously we didn't have Florida IDs yet).

If we were age 52 and 53, had two grandkids age 8 and 9 moving in with us, they would not have known until we tried to get Villages IDs for them. And by then, it'd be too late.

Maybe you dodged a bullet. Maybe you would have been sadly surprised when someone pointed out that the deed restrictions on the home you just purchased did not allow your grandkids to move in with you. It would have put you in a position similar to those that now have to remove the stone that was present when they purchased.

Or, maybe something was happening behind the scenes that you weren't aware of.

If this truly was a private purchase with no agents or lawyers involved and the seller did not mention the restrictions at the time then you really did dodge a bullet.