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.
.

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 mntlblok (Post 2241370)

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

Originally Posted by Escape Artist (Post 2241398)

Yes! Thank you! I’ve been saying this exact thing in the different threads related to this topic. I was shocked when I found out a person I know purchased a home in TV even though he’s in his early 40’s. It’s a investment, perhaps a place to live someday and a way to make money in the meantime. If a few people do this, no biggie, but it’s become an epidemic in TV and that’s the problem. TV turns a blind eye to actions that are strictly profit-driven and does not adhere to its own tenets and by-laws.

Originally Posted by oldtimes (Post 2240455)

I have looked into this exhaustively and there is pretty much nothing we can do as long as the developer chooses to ignore it. Until something horrible happens that negatively affects sales it will continue. At some point if it becomes uncomfortable enough we will probably move into a community that does enforce the restrictions.

Originally Posted by margaretmattson (Post 2240525)

Not necessarily so. I found a Florida law that requires all vacation rentals which are rented out more than three times a year must have a Florida license.

Also, I found information that a bill was voted on in the Florida Government in 2021 regarding HOA ability to ban vacation rentals. The bill was passed by a large margin. I just can't seem to find more information..

Anyone who is truly bothered by this please read Florida laws on Air BNBs and vacation rentals. I think together, we may find something. The developer, at the very least, would have to follow Florida Law.

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 Pairadocs (Post 2241417)

omission

Why have them at all ? No way to know for sure, but, perhaps it's just another piece in the jig-saw puzzle of "gates and gate attendants", passes to enter the "gates" at $50 each (don't know the present cost, but when we built, at closing you were required to purchase TWO passes, regardless of only having one auto, regardless if only one person, etc. No exceptions, no pointing out that a card was not needed to enter public roads ! ? Also part of the puzzle, is country clubs where the advertising says, everyone is a member, when actually they are public restaurants where anyone can dine, and where anyone can golf as long as they pay. Not saying any of this is "bad", but many MANY people just seem to have the illusion that this is a very private, exclusive, enclave !? It does not take long to find another posting from a frustrated resident who does not understand why the development is "overrun" with "outsiders" (seemingly those who do not live IN one of the villages) are doing here at the squares, in the country clubs, etc. !?

I don't remember what well know entrepreneur said: You SELL the SIZZLE, not the steak".

Originally Posted by BrianL99 (Post 2240717)

That is absolute nonsense. The truth is exactly the opposite, as it is in most of the USA.

Most every "vacation area" in the USA is facing the same problem and time and time again, the Courts have ruled in favor of STR's (they are NOT "AirBnbs", they are Short Term Rentals).

They're a financial boondoggle for government. STR's raise property values and generate revenue ... which is why state governments all over the USA are supporting them ... just like Florida has.

Why do you think the State of Florida passed a law that PREVENTED local governments from banning STR's?

Trying to establish credibility by blatant and vociferous assertion, is part of what makes the Internet the wasteland it is. People without a clue, with little or no experience in a subject, can't wait to assert their uneducated and naive opinion and present it as fact.

Originally Posted by Pairadocs (Post 2241420)

So,just asking for the TRUTH so I am not naive as to why the sates of Florida, and all others desire more short term rental property in (once ?) stable neighborhoods and community developments ? Every time a property in the Villages is rented, for a night, or a weekend, does the STATE collect a tax from the land lord ? What about the county ? Do land lords here have to pay a tax to the county on each night's transaction, much like a motel, which actually, they are ! ? If the State and the county are making money on every night's rental, plus the land lord pays property taxes of course, so that would explain things a bit more !

Originally Posted by Pairadocs (Post 2241420)

So,just asking for the TRUTH so I am not naive as to why the sates of Florida, and all others desire more short term rental property in (once ?) stable neighborhoods and community developments ? Every time a property in the Villages is rented, for a night, or a weekend, does the STATE collect a tax from the land lord ? What about the county ? Do land lords here have to pay a tax to the county on each night's transaction, much like a motel, which actually, they are ! ? If the State and the county are making money on every night's rental, plus the land lord pays property taxes of course, so that would explain things a bit more !

Originally Posted by Papa_lecki (Post 2241445)

The developer isn’t the way to solve STR.
The local government is. Look at Coronado California. They banned STR and they monitor it very closely, and levy large fines - and there are no STR on the island.
The city of Wildwood or Leesburg could ban STR.

Originally Posted by margaretmattson (Post 2241419)

Don't forget the lack of medical services, overcrowded, and traffic issues. Ugh! Years ago, this place was a beautiful and quiet place to retire. Now it is a haven for wannabes who can't wait until they have reached the age of 55. Eastport is going to bring the under-age in by droves.

Originally Posted by Bill14564 (Post 2241465)

They lost that opportunity 12 years ago

Florida Statute 509.032(7)(b)

 A local law, ordinance, or regulation may not prohibit vacation rentals or regulate the duration or frequency of rental of vacation rentals. This paragraph does not apply to any local law, ordinance, or regulation adopted on or before June 1, 2011.

Originally Posted by Normal (Post 2241476)

Orlando follows the law, BUT in 2022 really hamstrung the STR industry and the problems it presented.

It is perfectly legal to : Among the strictest in the state, the city of Orlando – home to Walt Disney World and numerous other attractions – only allows hosted STRs, meaning those in which the host resides on-site, and hosts can only rent out half of the bedrooms in the home. All properties are subject to inspection before approval.

Originally Posted by Bill14564 (Post 2241465)

They lost that opportunity 12 years ago

Florida Statute 509.032(7)(b)

 A local law, ordinance, or regulation may not prohibit vacation rentals or regulate the duration or frequency of rental of vacation rentals. This paragraph does not apply to any local law, ordinance, or regulation adopted on or before June 1, 2011.

Originally Posted by BrianL99 (Post 2241489)

Here's the problem that's raising its ugly head, all over the USA.

As you pointed out, Florida communities can not adopt a regulation, banning STR's. They can however, ban STR's if their existing regulations prohibited them. Herein lies the quagmire. "STR's" were seldom defined in Zoning Regulations, 20+ years ago.

The question that arises, are STR's a "Residential" use (allowed in a Residential Zoning District)?

Are they a "Business" use, only allowed in a Business Zoning District?

Or ... do they fall under a specific definition in a Zoning scheme, that makes them hotels or motels?

The answer to the questions, are being litigated in courts throughout the USA. It's not a simple question. It comes down to how a community wrote their Zoning regulations and how they defined all the particular terms. Not to get too far into the weeds, but it also depends on whether the wording of their Zoning regulations allows alternative uses, previously not contemplated when the regulations were written.

Originally Posted by Normal (Post 2241495)

Communities can enforce state law. Orlando was all-in for recreational dollars at some point and STRs assisted with their tax dollars. Now Orlando has other interests and STRs are not wanted.

So why not make landlords babysit their renters? They can rent all they want, but responsibility isn’t disengaged. If a renter wants to live large, they need to go elsewhere and rent a hotel room. The state law is fully followed in Orlando. Landlords can STR till their hearts are content, but they live with what they chose.

It’s utterly brilliant.

Originally Posted by BrianL99 (Post 2241489)

Here's the problem that's raising its ugly head, all over the USA.

As you pointed out, Florida communities can not adopt a regulation, banning STR's. They can however, ban STR's if their existing regulations prohibited them. Herein lies the quagmire. "STR's" were seldom defined in Zoning Regulations, 20+ years ago.

The question that arises, are STR's a "Residential" use (allowed in a Residential Zoning District)?

Are they a "Business" use, only allowed in a Business Zoning District?

Or ... do they fall under a specific definition in a Zoning scheme, that makes them hotels or motels?

The answer to the questions, are being litigated in courts throughout the USA. It's not a simple question. It comes down to how a community wrote their Zoning regulations and how they defined all the particular terms. Not to get too far into the weeds, but it also depends on whether the wording of their Zoning regulations allows alternative uses, previously not contemplated when the regulations were written.

Originally Posted by Bill14564 (Post 2241465)

They lost that opportunity 12 years ago

Florida Statute 509.032(7)(b)

 A local law, ordinance, or regulation may not prohibit vacation rentals or regulate the duration or frequency of rental of vacation rentals. This paragraph does not apply to any local law, ordinance, or regulation adopted on or before June 1, 2011.

Originally Posted by BrianL99 (Post 2241489)

Here's the problem that's raising its ugly head, all over the USA.

As you pointed out, Florida communities can not adopt a regulation, banning STR's. They can however, ban STR's if their existing regulations prohibited them. Herein lies the quagmire. "STR's" were seldom defined in Zoning Regulations, 20+ years ago.

The question that arises, are STR's a "Residential" use (allowed in a Residential Zoning District)?

Are they a "Business" use, only allowed in a Business Zoning District?

Or ... do they fall under a specific definition in a Zoning scheme, that makes them hotels or motels?

The answer to the questions, are being litigated in courts throughout the USA. It's not a simple question. It comes down to how a community wrote their Zoning regulations and how they defined all the particular terms. Not to get too far into the weeds, but it also depends on whether the wording of their Zoning regulations allows alternative uses, previously not contemplated when the regulations were written.

Originally Posted by BrianL99 (Post 2241450)

Yes. Yes. Yes.

STR's are taxed similar to hotel rooms. They pay Sales Tax and Local Option Transient Rental Taxes.

https://floridarevenue.com/Forms_lib...t/gt800034.pdf

One of the more obvious reasons STR's are supported by most state governments, is their overall effect on the economy. Statistics say that vacationers spend more money locally, than residents do. Which means STR's bring in more money to local businesses, which in turn provides jobs and increases tax revenue.

Originally Posted by margaretmattson (Post 2241682)

What country do you live in? Laws are always changed and rewritten in the United States I live in.

Originally Posted by margaretmattson (Post 2241689)

You do know it is illegal for a judge to prejudicially favor one side of case over another don't you? Your statements are laughable. Favoring the State of Florida would get the judge fired.

Originally Posted by Bill14564 (Post 2241692)

What does anything in his post have to do with a judge? The judge makes rulings based on the law and the law allows STRs.

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 2241694)

Best advice at this point----don't engage.:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

Originally Posted by Bill14564 (Post 2241692)

What does anything in his post have to do with a judge? The judge makes rulings based on the law and the law allows STRs.

Originally Posted by Normal (Post 2241701)

Orlando tackled this problem correctly post 2011. They still allow STRs, but they say how they are run and how they are tracked by the municipality, which is totally lawful. There are virtually no STRs in the city now.

Florida Short-Term Rental Report | GovOS

Originally Posted by margaretmattson (Post 2241704)

GREAT POST! Laws are created, altered, and changed all the time in America. Don't know why people keep posting that nothing can be done. Maybe they are investors and want you to believe their nonsense so you do not try to get it changed in the Villages? Who knows?

Originally Posted by margaretmattson (Post 2241689)

Your statements are laughable. Favoring the State of Florida would get the judge fired.

Originally Posted by BrianL99 (Post 2241727)

What is laughable, is folks who have no understanding of the basic issues involved, who don't have any experience or knowledge of potential avenues of redress, yet insist on posting repetitive, sophomoric nonsense.

FYI: Judges in Florida are ELECTED. They don't serve at the whim of some Big Boss who gets to fire them, if they don't like their decisions.

Originally Posted by BrianL99 (Post 2241727)

What is laughable, is folks who have no understanding of the basic issues involved, who don't have any experience or knowledge of potential avenues of redress, yet insist on posting repetitive, sophomoric nonsense.

FYI: Judges in Florida are ELECTED. They don't serve at the whim of some Big Boss who gets to fire them, if they don't like their decisions.

Originally Posted by Happydaz (Post 2241737)

County and Circuit court judges are elected. District Court and Supreme Court judges in Florida are appointed by the Governor. If a vacancy were to occur on the county or circuit court the Governor appoints a replacement judge.

An ambitious County or Circuit Court judge who may have been initially elected might want to impress the Governor with their decisions so that when he appoints the higher level judges they might be on the preferred judicial candidates list.