[downeaster]

Originally Posted by Skip

This is from the Federal Register...

There continues to be confusion concerning what is often referred to as the 80/20 split. HOPA states that the minimum standard to obtain housing for persons who are 55 years of age or older status is that ‘‘at least 80%’’ of the occupied units be occupied by persons 55 years or older. There is no requirement that the remaining 20% of the occupied units be occupied by persons under the age of 55, nor is there a requirement that those units be used only for persons where at least one member of the household is 55 years of age or older. Communities may decline to permit any persons under the age of 55, may require that 100% of the units have at least one occupant who is 55 years of age or older, may permit up to 20% of the occupied units to be occupied by persons who are younger than 55 years of age, or set whatever requirements they wish, as long as ‘‘at least 80%’’ of the occupied units are occupied by one person 55 years of age or older, and so long as such requirements are not inconsistent with the overall intent to be housing for older persons.

Skip

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.

[Bonny]

Originally Posted by fred53

Met a gentleman and his 17 year old son who live in Sanibel...the son is a junior at Wildwood and will live there till he graduates in a few years...they hadn't had any issues and as long as the son is considerate and respectful of others I don't see the problem...wouldn't want hundreds here though...

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.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

[/COLOR][/B]



Jim. You are right until the last sentence. It is 20%

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.

[downeaster]

Originally Posted by Skip

This is from the Federal Register...

There continues to be confusion concerning what is often referred to as the 80/20 split. HOPA states that the minimum standard to obtain housing for persons who are 55 years of age or older status is that ‘‘at least 80%’’ of the occupied units be occupied by persons 55 years or older. There is no requirement that the remaining 20% of the occupied units be occupied by persons under the age of 55, nor is there a requirement that those units be used only for persons where at least one member of the household is 55 years of age or older. Communities may decline to permit any persons under the age of 55, may require that 100% of the units have at least one occupant who is 55 years of age or older, may permit up to 20% of the occupied units to be occupied by persons who are younger than 55 years of age, or set whatever requirements they wish, as long as ‘‘at least 80%’’ of the occupied units are occupied by one person 55 years of age or older, and so long as such requirements are not inconsistent with the overall intent to be housing for older persons.

Skip

[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!

[graciegirl]

[QUOTE=downeaster;1121142]

Originally Posted by Dr Winston O Boogie jr

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!

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.

[golfing eagles]

[QUOTE=graciegirl;1121150]

Originally Posted by downeaster

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.

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"

[Polar Bear]

Originally Posted by downeaster

...there should be no more questions...

LOL!! Good one.

[downeaster]

Originally Posted by Polar Bear

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.

[Polar Bear]

Originally Posted by downeaster

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

Understood.