[Escape Artist]

Originally Posted by margaretmattson

If anyone seriously wants to stop the AirBNB business I would suggest starting with the site VillagersHome4Rent. Ask them if they require each renter to have a license and if sales tax is collected.

You aren't necessarily looking to shut them down. You are merely gaining evidence that businesses have been conducted in many homes throughout the Villages for many years.

Then I would just make a call to a company like Morgan and Morgan and jexplain the situation. Deed Restriction is not being enforced and hasn't been for many years. Explain the site Villagers4Rent and how many homes are listed for rent. I believe, right now, it is over 1000. Morgan and Morgan will take your information and decide if they wish to handle the case. If they take the case, you are not required to pay anything unless they win.

If they say they are not interested, you still have a case. You go to the County Clerk office and fill out documents for a Civil Case. The courts handle it from there.

While filling out the documents, you may want to get a petition signed to show the court how many people believe they have been wronged. If there are court costs just collect say $1 from each person to cover that expense. Either way, lawyer or not, there will be no fees.

If you find Villagers4 Rent is not in complete compliance with Florida and County Laws report them. Let the state and counties handle fining them or whatever.

Not a lawyer, just my idea. I would do this myself but I am not fully committed. I believe the Villages would be a better community if there were no AirBNB's. But, I also like the idea of being able to rent my home if I ever needed. Also, I question whether or not this will affect home prices. If prices fall, we lose equity. Too big a gamble for me.

I rented several times through VillagesHomes4Rent while looking for a house in TV and was always charged tax per the county the home was in. I think I may have been charged a state tax, too, some kind of rental surcharge. Maybe that was bogus and I got fleeced?

[retiredguy123]

I think the only way for this issue to be resolved is for The Villages to establish a time limit for rentals, such as a minimum of 30 days, and to consistently enforce the rule. Deed restrictions won't do it, especially the deed restrictions that currently exist. The posters who claim that renting a house is a business and that tenants are customers have a very weak argument at best. Many people consider rental property to be an investment, not a business.

When I tried to get a vehicle removed from a visitor parking space in a courtyard villa area, the deed compliance office told me that the vehicle owner was not violating any deed restriction because he did not own a house in the section. Nevermind that he was also not visiting anyone. He was just storing a vehicle on our property and was not even renting a house. They also told me that renters were not subject to the deed restrictions for the house they are renting.

[margaretmattson]

Originally Posted by Escape Artist

I rented several times through VillagesHomes4Rent while looking for a house in TV and was always charged tax per the county the home was in. I think I may have been charged a state tax, too, some kind of rental surcharge. Maybe that was bogus and I got fleeced?

No, they are correct in collecting the sales tax. The question is did they send it to Florida Dept of Revenue. I would guess probably so. Their business would be shut down if they didn't.

[margaretmattson]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

I think the only way for this issue to be resolved is for The Villages to establish a time limit for rentals, such as a minimum of 30 days, and to consistently enforce the rule. Deed restrictions won't do it, especially the deed restrictions that currently exist. The posters who claim that renting a house is a business and that tenants are customers have a very weak argument at best. Many people consider rental property to be an investment, not a business.

When I tried to get a vehicle removed from a visitor parking space in a courtyard villa area, the deed compliance office told me that the vehicle owner was not violating any deed restriction because he did not own a house in the section. Nevermind that he was also not visiting anyone. He was just storing a vehicle on our property and was not even renting a house. They also told me that renters were not subject to the deed restrictions for the house they are renting.

. This is one hell of a crazy place!

[Vermilion Villager]

I know of a rental in the next neighborhood billed as "a Disney hotel without the Disney prices". The neighbors use it as a destination to let their dogs poop! If they have garbage they dump it it that yard. I'm told now the place is getting bad reviews because it looks so dirty. Sometimes you fight fire with fire......

[Whitley]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

I think the only way for this issue to be resolved is for The Villages to establish a time limit for rentals, such as a minimum of 30 days, and to consistently enforce the rule. Deed restrictions won't do it, especially the deed restrictions that currently exist. The posters who claim that renting a house is a business and that tenants are customers have a very weak argument at best. Many people consider rental property to be an investment, not a business.

When I tried to get a vehicle removed from a visitor parking space in a courtyard villa area, the deed compliance office told me that the vehicle owner was not violating any deed restriction because he did not own a house in the section. Nevermind that he was also not visiting anyone. He was just storing a vehicle on our property and was not even renting a house. They also told me that renters were not subject to the deed restrictions for the house they are renting.

Too late to establish a minimum time/rental length for existing owners. If a vote to change is held, and an existing owner votes no to setting a minimum length, they are not required to follow the change. If they vote yes, or sell the unit, then the minimum stay is in play. Does anyone else disagree with this?

[ron32162]

If a parent works for the villages or in one of the approved businesses within The Village, Yes. Just buying or renting a home here in a family area does no just give access to the Charter schools

[retiredguy123]

Originally Posted by Whitley

Too late to establish a minimum time/rental length for existing owners. If a vote to change is held, and an existing owner votes no to setting a minimum length, they are not required to follow the change. If they vote yes, or sell the unit, then the minimum stay is in play. Does anyone else disagree with this?

I admit that I don't know how the process works for The Villages to establish a new rule. But, are you saying that any Villages homeowner can veto any proposed rule? I don't remember voting to shut down 2 of the 3 movie theaters, or to change the operating hours for the rec centers, or to change the type of roof you can install on your house, or to increase the green fees, or the cost to use the exercise rooms, or to expand the non-smoking areas.

[Vermilion Villager]

Originally Posted by Whitley

Too late to establish a minimum time/rental length for existing owners. If a vote to change is held, and an existing owner votes no to setting a minimum length, they are not required to follow the change. If they vote yes, or sell the unit, then the minimum stay is in play. Does anyone else disagree with this?

I disagree.
What you're implying is that existing owners...who vote NO would be grandfathered in. You are also implying that "the villages" is an HOA. You are not alone in this assumption. Fact is the villages is simply a planned housing development with covenants just like a lot of other neighborhoods in America. It is governed by an elected governing board of a city or county. Here they call them CDD's. Any covenant enforced by a government body should be considered just like any other zoning ordinance. You cannot have a cow on your property in the villages because zoning ordinance to do not allow it. If there is a rental covenant that comes under the jurisdiction of the CDD it is just like any other zoning ordinance. I have not read the actual covenant on rental or commercial property. I assume it exists because people are talking about it. If the commissioners of the CDD will not enforce zoning then they held accountable at the ballot box. The power is in your hands.

[margaretmattson]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

I admit that I don't know how the process works for The Villages to establish a new rule. But, are you saying that any Villages homeowner can veto any proposed rule? I don't remember voting to shut down 2 of the 3 movie theaters, or to change the operating hours for the rec centers, or to change the type of roof you can install on your house, or to increase the green fees, or the cost to use the exercise rooms, or to expand the non-smoking areas.

. Not exactly. The deed restrictions say one can sue in a court of law. A judge will rule in your favor. Against you. Or arbitrate a new rule(s) if needed.

[Whitley]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

I admit that I don't know how the process works for The Villages to establish a new rule. But, are you saying that any Villages homeowner can veto any proposed rule? I don't remember voting to shut down 2 of the 3 movie theaters, or to change the operating hours for the rec centers, or to change the type of roof you can install on your house, or to increase the green fees, or the cost to use the exercise rooms, or to expand the non-smoking areas.

FS718 condos, FS720 HOA's

First, I am not certain that The Villages is a HOA (I kind of think it is not). Homeowners do not get to vote on the budget or reserves each year.

If it were, it would follow a similar statute as is in 718.110(13)The Florida Condominium Act, in Section 718.110(13), Florida Statutes, limits the ability of a condominium association to amend its documents to impose new rental restrictions. The statute states that “an amendment prohibiting unit owners from renting their units or altering the duration of the rental term or specifying or limiting the number of times unit owners are entitled to rent their units during a specified period applies only to unit owners who consent to the amendment and unit owners who acquire title to their units after the effective date of that amendment.”
OR HOA Florida Statutes 720
of the Florida Statutes will also clarify that a rental prohibition or regulation that does not apply to a current title holder (because that owner did not consent to the amendment) also will not apply to a subsequent title holder following certain “ownership changes”.

If someone invests in a home with the intent to rent out the home weekly, and there is nothing in the Declaration, Articles of Incorp., or Bylaws requiring rentals to be at least 30 days, then if at a later time the association enacts a rule concerning rentals, the existing owner is not required to follow it.

[margaretmattson]

Originally Posted by Vermilion Villager

I disagree.
What you're implying is that existing owners...who vote NO would be grandfathered in. You are also implying that "the villages" is an HOA. You are not alone in this assumption. Fact is the villages is simply a planned housing development with covenants just like a lot of other neighborhoods in America. It is governed by an elected governing board of a city or county. Here they call them CDD's. Any covenant enforced by a government body should be considered just like any other zoning ordinance. You cannot have a cow on your property in the villages because zoning ordinance to do not allow it. If there is a rental covenant that comes under the jurisdiction of the CDD it is just like any other zoning ordinance. I have not read the actual covenant on rental or commercial property. I assume it exists because people are talking about it. If the commissioners of the CDD will not enforce zoning then they are are are held accountable at the ballot box. The power is in your hands.

Exactly! It is about zoning ordinances. Posters have squawked at me for stating the same thing. Our ordinance is a 55+ community. If it falls out of that ordinance because of rentals, the rentals could be banned. This is a similar situation that happened in Clearwater. STRs we're banned because of zoning.

[Boomer]

Originally Posted by Whitley

Too late to establish a minimum time/rental length for existing owners. If a vote to change is held, and an existing owner votes no to setting a minimum length, they are not required to follow the change. If they vote yes, or sell the unit, then the minimum stay is in play. Does anyone else disagree with this?

Whitley, that’s an additional can of worms — opened?

We used to own a home in an HOA neighborhood with lovely views from small lots. Parking was at a premium but usually worked out. People parked in their own driveways and most in their double garages. (There were no rentals allowed though.) But if entertaining guests, street parking was sometimes needed. We all usually managed to work that out, too. And nobody ever parked in a place that would impede traffic. It was a low speed, private street. We all vaguely knew each other and everybody was polite — in that way of the Midwest.

BUT! There will always be at least ONE control freak in every HOA. Sure enough the one we had decided street parking should be totally eliminated…..

I think her thing was actually the fact that a couple of neighbors still had teenagers at home and those kids drove cars that ended up parked on the street. Those cars were not the nicest of cars, just functional, first cars for regular kids……

I always suspected had those cars been Mercedes or Porsches, Gladys Kravitz would not have been concerned.

A couple of years after we moved there, Gladys managed to get her wishes for no street parking brought up by the HOA board.

When it was learned from the HOA minutes that Gladys’ request was under consideration by the board, a new sheriff in town emerged and sent an email notice to all neighbors that to change the HOA rules to eliminate street parking could devalue our. . . er, I mean the property of others.

Gladys was stopped in her tracks before she could gain any momentum for her cause. (The new sheriff was quietly applauded.)

Now, I know my little story might look like apples and oranges because we already had HOA rules to restrict renting and nobody ever actually caused a real problem with parking. But it is analogous to what can happen if rules are not there in the first place.

I think that is pretty much what Whitley said. I just happen to be in a typing mood today.

Boomer

[Djean1981]

Nightly rentals involve numerous/ frequent customers at the house and money changes hands. It's nothing but a business.

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by Whitley

Too late to establish a minimum time/rental length for existing owners. If a vote to change is held, and an existing owner votes no to setting a minimum length, they are not required to follow the change. If they vote yes, or sell the unit, then the minimum stay is in play. Does anyone else disagree with this?

Yes, I disagree.

In some (if not all) cases, the Developer reserved the right to modify the Deed Restrictions and Covenants.

CDD's a Florida phenomena, so I'm far from an expert, but I believe the CCD's can alter/change/revisit the Deed Restrictions.

I know most of the CDD's believe they can, as evidence by the discussion in some Districts of re-visiting the prohibition against "hard landscapes" in some neighborhoods (the "rock" controversy is somewhat different, in that it also has implications to the District's Environmental/Drainage permit).