[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by JGibson

...

How would they possibly keep track of Airbnb occupants?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

[retiredguy123]

Originally Posted by JGibson

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.

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.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by mtdjed

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 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.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Marathon Man

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?

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.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

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.

[mtdjed]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

Lady Lake exists in both counties.

Originally Posted by Bill14564

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.

Interesting article. HOPA sets the min requirement but the developer can establish stricter requirements. Sonewhere the Developer must have published their requirements:

What is HOPA | Age Requirements in 55 and Over Communities.


"Housing for Older Persons Act
HOPA stands for Housing for Older Persons Act. This act, passed in 1995, allows senior communities to discriminate based on familial status. The Fair Housing Act prevents discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, handicap, and familial status in real estate transactions. A housing community is defined as a building or group of dwellings that are governed by a common set of rules and regulations. This includes homeowners associations, condominiums, co-ops, municipally zoned areas, mobile home parks, and manufactured housing communities.

The 80/20 Rule
In order to qualify for HOPA, at least 80% of households in the community must be occupied by one resident that is over the age of 55. Some 55 and over communities require 100% of the dwellings to be occupied by a resident over the age of 55, while others only adhere to the 80% minimum requirement. This distinction becomes crucial when a resident over the age of 55 passes away and the surviving spouse or heir is under 55. HOPA does not provide any protection to the remaining inhabitant, so they could be forced to sell the property if the community requires 100% of residents to be of age or if the quota for under-age households is full.

Children & 55+ Communities
Under HOPA, 55 and over communities can prohibit families with minor children from owning or renting a dwelling in the community. However, not all 55 and over communities prohibit minors from becoming inhabitants. If the association does permit minors in the governing documents, they can put special rules and regulations in place for families with children. For example, they may impose a rule stating that children will not have access to certain common amenities. The rules put in place explicitly for families with children can’t violate any state or local laws. Communities may discriminate based on familial status, but there are no exemptions for discrimination based on other protected classes."

[Marathon Man]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

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.

Kids and pets have nothing to do with HOPA. And again, you have no way of knowing what happened prior to closing. It is very easy to find the age of a person. It is an assumption that nothing is done because you did not see it.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by mtdjed

Interesting article. HOPA sets the min requirement but the developer can establish stricter requirements. Sonewhere the Developer must have published their requirements:

...

The requirements are in your deed restrictions.

Mine say:
- 80/20
- Must be 19 to be a permanent resident
- Under 19 limited to 30 days per calendar year

[JGibson]

Is there anything legally stopping the developer from dropping the 55 retirement community status?

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by JGibson

Is there anything legally stopping the developer from dropping the 55 retirement community status?

Yes. The deed restrictions that everyone agreed to when moving in. They offer us some guarantees, one of which is that our community will be a 55+ community. If they eliminate that guarantee, then we can file a class action suit - the entire community as a whole, against the Developer.

And we'd win.

[tophcfa]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

The requirements are in your deed restrictions.

Mine say:
- 80/20
- Must be 19 to be a permanent resident
- Under 19 limited to 30 days per calendar year

Those are internal deed restrictions. The entity authorized to enforce them can do so at their discretion, but are not required to enforce them. Do deed restrictions really exist if they are selectively enforced?

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by tophcfa

Those are internal deed restrictions. The entity authorized to enforce them can do so at their discretion, but are not required to enforce them. Do deed restrictions really exist if they are selectively enforced?

*Are* they being selectively enforced? I've read accusations but not facts.

Realistically, since the details of an internal deed restriction case handled by the Developer would not be made public we might never know what was determined. We may see someone leave or they might still be present but we wouldn't know the difference between non-enforcement and a non-case.