That's sort of true.

IF the developer got any sort of HUD financing (which he didn't), there would be on-going auditing, that he was in compliance with the program under which he received financing or assistance.

In the case of Senior Housing in general, it's another can of worms.

Prior to 1988, it ws illegal to discriminate by age. In other words, as a result of the Fair Housing Act of 1968, "Senior Housing" was illegal. Under an amendment to the act in 1988, "Senior Housing" became legalized discrimination. In order to take advantage of the new ability to discriminate, the developer had to include "facilities & services" specifically to meet the physical and social needs of all residents. This is why TV model was based on providing amenities. It wasn't an accident, it was required by law.

Then came 1995 and the Housing for Older Persons Act. This act eliminated the requirement to include amenities and service. IF you meet the requirements of the act, primarily the 80/20 standard, you were allowed to discriminate (prohibit anyone from buying if they were under 55). If I remember correctly, there was also a requirement that the development had a land area in excess of 5 Acres.

So ....

While the regulations that allow the discrimination are under HUD jurisdiction, I don't think HUD has a mechanism to enforce, other than perhaps a law suit that TV (or any other such development) is illegally discriminating against people under 55.

Obviously it's a complicated issue, but many people forget the genesis of the laws. It is generally illegal in the USA, to discriminate because of one's age. The Senior housing laws were about given an exception to the anti-discrimination concept, in favor of Seniors (a huge voting block).

Florida also has a Senior Housing regulations, but I suspect they're of a similar nature and I doubt there's any real mechanism to enforce them. (I've never developed Sr. Housing in FL, so I've never dealt with their specific regs.)

As an overview, consider that TV advertises and presents itself as a 55+ community and as a result, the majority of buyers are over 55. From the outside looking in, it appears that TV is making a good faith effort to maintain 80/20 standard.

Sorry for the long winded explanation, but it's a complicated subject and many don't understand how it all happened.

This is not a developer issue. If it is a problem in your neighborhood then you should contact your CDD board or a CDD Supervisor!

I have. I contacted community standards, the CDD board, HUD all of our representatives. No one would help. They all said it was the developer's issue.

See the ENFORCEMENT section of your deed restrictions (mine is section 5). This section in my restrictions clearly puts the responsibility on "All Owners" to "prosecute in proceedings at law" to enforce the restrictions. The Developer also has "the right but not the duty to enforce" the restrictions.

Deed restrictions vary from unit to unit so yours might be different.

I am seeking legal advice on this issue,. Do any of you know where I can find the current number of homes owned in the villages and the current number of those occupied by someone 55+? By current, I mean within the last 30 days? Need this information to continue.

??????? Nothing here makes sense. The topics you discuss are not related to each other. They are each separate issues. So, why tie them together? But, thanks for the copied/pasted history lesson!

I certainly wish you luck as I think the law favors the developer. To me the biggest issue here as that people (like myself) move here thinking they are moving into an "over 55 retirement community" when in actuality it is open to anyone who has the money.

What part of that do you believe was copied/pasted? It looks like original writing to me.

All of it makes sense. The purpose of HOPA is not to provide a guarantee that your neighbor is over 55. The purpose of HOPA is to provide an exemption from age discrimination laws for 55+ communities (i.e. the Villages can discriminate against families with children under 19). The 55+ community has to do certain things to qualify for that exemption and the 80/20 rule is one of those things.

. This is exactly the issue I am working on. Florida law stipulates 4 criteria a 55+ community is required to follow. One covers what you have stated.

Discrimination is one issue. 80/20 rule is a seperate issue. Let's just agree to disagree.

It's not a separate issue. If you don't qualify as an over-55 community, it is a violation of Federal law to discriminate against families with children in housing. But, if you meet the requirements for an over-55 community by complying with the 80/20 rule (and other rules), you are exempt from the discrimination law.

I called a real estate attorney who is willing to work on this provided I supply him with needed information. Florida law states there are 4 criteria a 55+ community must adhere to. Why keep arguing/griping instead of finding/seeking solutions? Opinions are a dime a dozen.

Because it is not an opinion, it is a fact. The HUD FAQ says as much as well as the documentation directly from the HUD rulemaking. Google will provide multiple links explaining that the 80/20 rule is part of qualifying for the discrimination exemption.

HUD has only three requirements for 55+ communities. Can you provide a link to the Florida law that adds a fourth?

If the attorney is working for free, great. But please get advice from someone you trust before spending money.

Thanks again for your opinion. I'd rather get it from a professional who knows and not from onliners who keep spouting information they look up and then agonily analyze it in detail like they are an expert.

It's your money.