[Normal]

Yet again villager neighbors have to suffer through the greed of landlords using the Villages as a base camp to earn a few quick bucks.

“According to an arrest report from the Wildwood Police Department, officers responded to a Redding Court rental shortly after midnight. Upon arrival, 29-year-old Jaelan Deondrae Johnson immediately handed a cell phone to an officer and admitted he had taken it from the victim, who is the mother of his child.”

Of course the 29 year old who rents in the Village of St. Catherine has several outstanding warrants. When will the madness stop? Renting to 29 year old felons in a 55 plus neighborhood is unconscionable.

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by Normal

Yet again villager neighbors have to suffer through the greed of landlords using the Villages as a base camp to earn a few quick bucks.

“According to an arrest report from the Wildwood Police Department, officers responded to a Redding Court rental shortly after midnight. Upon arrival, 29-year-old Jaelan Deondrae Johnson immediately handed a cell phone to an officer and admitted he had taken it from the victim, who is the mother of his child.”

Of course the 29 year old who rents in the Village of St. Catherine has several outstanding warrants. When will the madness stop? Renting to 29 year old felons in a 55 plus neighborhood is unconscionable.

Arrested for "suddenly snatching (a cell phone) without a firearm or weapon" and the guy shouldn't be allowed to rent a home?

Seems a little harsh to me.

[Caymus]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

Arrested for "suddenly snatching (a cell phone) without a firearm or weapon" and the guy shouldn't be allowed to rent a home?

Seems a little harsh to me.

Compromise. Only allow him to rent in your Village.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by Normal

Yet again villager neighbors have to suffer through the greed of landlords using the Villages as a base camp to earn a few quick bucks.

“According to an arrest report from the Wildwood Police Department, officers responded to a Redding Court rental shortly after midnight. Upon arrival, 29-year-old Jaelan Deondrae Johnson immediately handed a cell phone to an officer and admitted he had taken it from the victim, who is the mother of his child.”

Of course the 29 year old who rents in the Village of St. Catherine has several outstanding warrants. When will the madness stop? Renting to 29 year old felons in a 55 plus neighborhood is unconscionable.

Having outstanding warrants does not make him a felon.

There is no reason a felon cannot live in the Villages. I suspect there are many, many felons living in the Villages today, some as full-time residents.

Felony now has a very low bar.

Are you really proposing that there should be a restriction in the Villages that only the homeowner may reside in the home? In the case of snowbirds the homeowner will be present or the home shall be empty?

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by Caymus

Compromise. Only allow him to rent in your Village.

He'd probably a lot better than many of the renters and some of the owners.

[vintageogauge]

Originally Posted by Normal

Yet again villager neighbors have to suffer through the greed of landlords using the Villages as a base camp to earn a few quick bucks.

“According to an arrest report from the Wildwood Police Department, officers responded to a Redding Court rental shortly after midnight. Upon arrival, 29-year-old Jaelan Deondrae Johnson immediately handed a cell phone to an officer and admitted he had taken it from the victim, who is the mother of his child.”

Of course the 29 year old who rents in the Village of St. Catherine has several outstanding warrants. When will the madness stop? Renting to 29 year old felons in a 55 plus neighborhood is unconscionable.

"Better by far you should forget and smile" as no one is counting what percentage of under 55 owners or tenants are here.

[CarlR33]

Was it even in your Village or near your home? Get rid of the Rentals then what is next on your list? If there is a demand then comes the supply?

[golfing eagles]

[QUOTE=Bill14564;2526514]Having outstanding warrants does not make him a felon.

There is no reason a felon cannot live in the Villages. I suspect there are many, many felons living in the Villages today, some as full-time residents.

Felony now has a very low bar.

Are you really proposing that there should be a restriction in the Villages that only the homeowner may reside in the home? In the case of snowbirds the homeowner will be present or the home shall be empty?[/QUOTE]

YES!!!

Even one Airbnb is one too many. This is a 55+ retirement community, not a revolving door motel. Minimal rentals should be 1 month and only to well vetted tenants 55+. There are plenty of motels for everyone else. This does not preclude families from staying with a resident for a visit.

It still amazes me that Airbnb's are not considered a business run out of a home and therefore prohibited. The STR is providing a service for a fee. If that's not a business, what is?

As far as felons go, they can live next to anyone who has just posted that it's just fine for them to live here.

[BrianL99]

[QUOTE=golfing eagles;2526527]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Having outstanding warrants does not make him a felon.

There is no reason a felon cannot live in the Villages. I suspect there are many, many felons living in the Villages today, some as full-time residents. ..

Even one Airbnb is one too many. This is a 55+ retirement community, not a revolving door motel. Minimal rentals should be 1 month and only to well vetted tenants 55+. There are plenty of motels for everyone else. This does not preclude families from staying with a resident for a visit.

It still amazes me that Airbnb's are not considered a business run out of a home and therefore prohibited. The STR is providing a service for a fee. If that's not a business, what is?

As far as felons go, they can live next to anyone who has just posted that it's just fine for them to live here.

Here's the distinction. Not that I agree with hit, but I've been involved in the zoning aspects of it, for almost 10 years.

Most courts have ruled along these lines:

Zoning controls the "use" of a property. In the situation of an AirBnB, the "use" it's being put to, is residential. In other words, people are "residing" in the building and using it as a "residence", albeit temporarily.

The "business" aspect, is being conducted at another location ... the owner or property manager's location. The entire "rental process" is not being conducted in the subject STR, but off-site.

To take it a step further. Even if the "incidental renting" of property, took place in the same structure that was being rented, that "use" would likely be allowed under zoning, as it would be classified as a incidental "home occupation", generally allowed in Residential Zoning Districts.

Again, I'm not agreeing nor justifying the court's position, but that's the argument that's been winning in courts, all over the USA and is similar to the position being taken by the Developer and the District.

[golfing eagles]

[QUOTE=BrianL99;2526537]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Here's the distinction. Not that I agree with hit, but I've been involved in the zoning aspects of it, for almost 10 years.

Most courts have ruled along these lines:

Zoning controls the "use" of a property. In the situation of an AirBnB, the "use" it's being put to, is residential. In other words, people are "residing" in the building and using it as a "residence", albeit temporarily.

The "business" aspect, is being conducted at another location ... the owner or property manager's location. The entire "rental process" is not being conducted in the subject STR, but off-site.

To take it a step further. Even if the "incidental renting" of property, took place in the same structure that was being rented, that "use" would likely be allowed under zoning, as it would be classified as a incidental "home occupation", generally allowed in Residential Zoning Districts.

Again, I'm not agreeing nor justifying the court's position, but that's the argument that's been winning in courts, all over the USA and is similar to the position being taken by the Developer and the District.

And yet there are localities, even in Florida, that have successfully banned STRs

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

...

To take it a step further. Even if the "incidental renting" of property, took place in the same structure that was being rented, that "use" would likely be allowed under zoning, as it would be classified as a incidental "home occupation", generally allowed in Residential Zoning Districts.

...

And to add.... In most areas of the Villages, performing business activities within a home does not necessarily violate the deed restrictions. Certain business activities are restricted but not all.

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

And yet there are localities, even in Florida, that have successfully banned STRs

As you know, Florida legislature created a law that prevents municipalities from banning rental units or even requiring a minimum rental duration. Rental bans that exist pre-date that law.

(IANAL: The law may view deed restrictions as different than municipal ordinances. It might be possible to restrict rentals in that way.)

[Jayhawk]

Originally Posted by Caymus

Compromise. Only allow him to rent in your Village.

Right next door.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

And to add.... In most areas of the Villages, performing business activities within a home does not necessarily violate the deed restrictions. Certain business activities are restricted but not all.



As you know, Florida legislature created a law that prevents municipalities from banning rental units or even requiring a minimum rental duration. Rental bans that exist pre-date that law.

(IANAL: The law may view deed restrictions as different than municipal ordinances. It might be possible to restrict rentals in that way.)

Then the legislature should repeal that law.

As far as the Villages goes, the might have to, for the time being, allow STRs because of that law. But nothing says they have to allow STRs to use any amenities. That is the choke hold that TV holds over them, I wish they would use it.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Then the legislature should repeal that law.

As far as the Villages goes, the might have to, for the time being, allow STRs because of that law. But nothing says they have to allow STRs to use any amenities. That is the choke hold that TV holds over them, I wish they would use it.

I know we've debated this before. How will the District or the Recreation Department distinguish a short-term renter from a long-term renter, grandchild, other family, or friend from out of town? Will there be a box labeled, "check this box if you want this guest pass to be refused?"

[PMac63]

Originally Posted by Normal

Yet again villager neighbors have to suffer through the greed of landlords using the Villages as a base camp to earn a few quick bucks.

“According to an arrest report from the Wildwood Police Department, officers responded to a Redding Court rental shortly after midnight. Upon arrival, 29-year-old Jaelan Deondrae Johnson immediately handed a cell phone to an officer and admitted he had taken it from the victim, who is the mother of his child.”

Of course the 29 year old who rents in the Village of St. Catherine has several outstanding warrants. When will the madness stop? Renting to 29 year old felons in a 55 plus neighborhood is unconscionable.

Deed restrictions in the new area now clearly state monthly rentals only. Enforcement of these new or any other violation of restrictions seems to be another matter……

2.32 Leases. Leasing of all or any portion of a Home is restricted to residential uses for a
minimum period of one (1) month. All leases shall be in writing, shall specify such residential restriction and shall
provide that the Developer shall have the right to terminate the lease upon default by the tenant in observing any
provisions of this Declaration. A copy of any such lease shall be delivered to the Developer upon request. Each lease
shall contain the following provision:
"The lessee hereby acknowledges that this lease is subject to the Declaration of Covenants,
Conditions and Restrictions for Villages of Southern Oaks Unit No. 162, that lessee has
read the same and agrees to be bound thereby, and that failure to comply with the same
may result in certain remedies being applicable to lessee including, without limitation,
termination of this lease without further notice, and personal liability of lessee and lessor
for damages, including reasonable attorneys fees. "
In the event the foregoing language is not contained in any such lease, then the foregoing language is hereby
incorporated therein by reference. In the event a lessee or a lessee's invitee, guest, or licensee of a Home occupies the
same without a written lease, the occupancy thereof shall constitute an acceptance of this Declaration and agreement
to be bound thereby subject thereto. No lease shall be for a term of less than one (1) month. The Developer shall have
the right to collect attorneys' fees against any occupant or tenant and the owner of the Home in the event that legal
proceedings must be instituted against such occupant or tenant for his eviction or for enforcement of the Declaration.
The Developer is exempt from the provisions of this Section