Originally Posted by Bill14564 (Post 2241274)

It's your money.

Originally Posted by Sorrento19 (Post 2241290)

We are all investors with the ability to rent our properties. Just read the deed restrictions. How are you and your property personally being affected? If so hire an attorney and try to sue ( with actual evidence) the property owner.
Otherwise, you are wasting your time.

Originally Posted by Sorrento19 (Post 2241290)

We are all investors with the ability to rent our properties. Just read the deed restrictions. How are you and your property personally being affected? If so hire an attorney and try to sue ( with actual evidence) the property owner.
Otherwise you are wasting your time.

Originally Posted by oldtimes (Post 2241306)

Then The Villages should not be advertised as an age restricted over 55 retirement community because the developer is not making a good faith effort to provide housing for elderly persons. They are throwing up houses as quickly as possible and selling them to anyone who has the money. The deed restrictions are just a joke, why have them at all?

Originally Posted by oldtimes (Post 2241306)

Then The Villages should not be advertised as an age restricted over 55 retirement community because the developer is not making a good faith effort to provide housing for elderly persons. They are throwing up houses as quickly as possible and selling them to anyone who has the money. The deed restrictions are just a joke, why have them at all?

Originally Posted by Bill14564 (Post 2241312)

elude??

If I were your attorney you would not be posting on here.

What did I write that led you to believe I was? Or, that led you to believe I was referring to you at all?

Originally Posted by Bill14564 (Post 2241310)

What evidence do you have that the age restrictions are not being followed? I am aware of zero homes that do not have an occupant over 55. Do you have demographic information for the recent buyers that you can share with us or are you just making it up as you go?

Originally Posted by oldtimes (Post 2241319)

I’m calling it as I see it. I think potential buyers should be aware that their neighbors could in fact be teenagers just renting for the night and not fellow retirees as they would expect.

Originally Posted by Bill14564 (Post 2241240)

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.

Originally Posted by Bill14564 (Post 2241107)

I believe he meant to use e.g.

Originally Posted by BrianL99 (Post 2241186)

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.

Originally Posted by mntlblok (Post 2241370)

Fascinating! Those silly under 55's let us roll up $30 trillion of debt on their backs, too. :-)

Originally Posted by BrianL99 (Post 2241186)

That's sort of true.

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.
.