Thank you Skip, for another clarification of the so called 80/20 rule. However, it seems no matter how many times it is made very clear,and you did, there are those that muddy the waters again.
I have said before and I will repeat, look around you. How many residences do you know of here there is not at least one person over 55?

By the way, my granddad was "Skip", my dad was "Skip" and my late brother was the last of the "Skips" in our line.

I have seen a couple of hardship cases that allowed someone younger to live here. Maybe the parents were divorced, the son was living somewhere else and something happened and they are letting the 17 year old stay here and finish school. We never know what may have happened.

Eighty per cent of the homes must be occupied by at least one person over the age of 55. It's not that 80% of the people have to be over 55. In the most extreme example, if we had an average of four people per house only 25% of those people must be over the age of 55 in 80% of the homes. The the other 20% of the home could be occupied by four people all whom are under the age of 55.

Look at it this way. You have ten homes with four people in each. Eight of the homes each have one person over 55 and three people under age 55 living in them. The other two homes have four people each under the age of 55 living in them. That would give you forty residents, eight over age 55 and 32 under age 55. That's 80% under 55 and 20% over 55 and all within the law.

In fact in some of the neighborhoods where there are mostly three bedroom homes it's possible that the percentage of over 55 year olds could be even smaller. And I would suspect that there are an average of more then two bedrooms per home in The Villages so it might be possible that less than 20% of the residents could be under ager 55 and we'd still be within the law.

It is an extremely unlikely scenario, but permissible under the law.

[QUOTE=Dr Winston O Boogie jr;1121075]Eighty per cent of the homes must be occupied by at least one person over the age of 55. It's not that 80% of the people have to be over 55. In the most extreme example, if we had an average of four people per house only 75% of those people must be over the age of 55 in 80% of the homes. The the other 20% of the home could be occupied by four people all whom are under the age of 55.

Look at it this way. You have ten homes with four people in each. Eight of the homes each have one person over 55 and three people under age 55 living in them. The other two homes have four people each under the age of 55 living in them. That would give you forty residents, eight over age 55 and 32 under age 55. That's 80% under 55 and 20% over 55 and all within the law.

In fact in some of the neighborhoods where there are mostly three bedroom homes it's possible that the percentage of over 55 year olds could be even smaller. And I would suspect that there are an average of more then two bedrooms per home in The Villages so it might be possible that less than 20% of the residents could be under ager 55 and we'd still be within the law.

It is an extremely unlikely scenario, but permissible under the law.[/QUOTE

The posts by Skip and Dr. B take different approaches but by understanding both there should be no more questions. It is all there!

[QUOTE=downeaster;1121142]



I get it,you get it Dr.B gets it, and Skip gets it, but someone who has never been here is telling us different because he said that is what someone on the phone told him. Sigh.


I am going to have a nice comfort meal in a little while and not let this silliness get to me.

[QUOTE=graciegirl;1121150]Yeah, but in all fairness, he was only repeating what the sales rep told him, and probably had no basis upon which to question it. The good news is that, courtesy of some of our more experienced posters, he has much more info now. I think the best advice in the last 100 or so posts was "Get a new sales rep"

LOL!! Good one.

I should have emphasized "should" PB. I know there will be more inane discussion based on faulty information.

It irks me no end that the correct information has been presented but the naysayers won't give up. People are making what is possibly the most important decision of their lifetime and they are being fed erroneous information. Then there are others who have made that decision and are wondering if it was the correct one.

Rumors about Costco or Trader Joe's locating here or is South better than North or any number of subjects are relatively harmless, but not this one.

Understood. :)