[kstew43]

...

[justjim]

Originally Posted by villagerjack

A three month restriction would go a long way toward reducing property values BIG TIME.

Perhaps I'm not the brightest bulb in the ceiling but (off the top of my head) fail to see how a 3 month minimum for rentals would drop property values Big Time as you say. Many condo complexes along both coast of Florida (properties ($300,000 to $750,000) have such restrictions and I know of deed restricted subdivisions that even have deed restrictions of 1 year minimum lease and some no renting period. Their property values have not reduced at all. Some would argue this makes their homes more valuable.

Anyway, the point is rather mute as it is what it is in The Villages and way too late to make a change. What the OP pointed out is the exception not the rule in The Villages IMHO.

[ColdNoMore]

Originally Posted by PennBF

I am betting the farm that the ones who don't see anything wrong with this own large homes and are not exposed to the problems short term, non restricted rentals bring to a community. I doubt they care about the one who, because of the nature of the community have no way to protect against the abuse.

Am I wrong?

No, you are not.

[asianthree]

Originally Posted by PennBF

I am betting the farm that the ones who don't see anything wrong with this own large homes and are not exposed to the problems short term, non restricted rentals bring to a community. I doubt they care about the one who, because of the nature of the community have no way to protect against the abuse. Am I wrong?

What do you consider large homes? Our home now is less square feet than our basement in our two story house up north. Most seem to downsize here. There are two premiers down the street that are rented. The only problem was their SUVs was too tall to garage it, so it was in the drive, they were young, but I love the mix of people who come here.

[Schaumburger]

Originally Posted by ColdNoMore2

You make a good point and my gut feeling is that you very well may be correct.

If I owned a construction company doing long term work in TV, I would certainly look very hard at this exact option.



As to limiting rents to 3 months or more, I am a bit ambivalent on that one.

A two week, then a month rental the following year.....is what made up our minds to buy here.

Had we not had that option, it's entirely likely that we would have missed being able to live the entire TV 'experience.'

Conversely, short-term rentals to those who are not all that responsible to begin with...can be a real issue.

I have rented in The Villages several times since 2011. All of my rentals have been short term (one to two weeks). I would love to be able to rent in TV for three to six months, but I am still working, and their aren't too many employers who will give an employee 3 months vacation to check out TV. I have a feeling that there are probably quite a few potential buyers who are younger (55 to 60) who are in the same boat as I am and can only rent for a month or less.

This short term renter has always been well behaved -- no accidents, arrests, traffic tickets, wild parties, damage to the home or golf cart. I have always received 100% of my security deposit back when the rentals have ended.

If rentals were limited to a minimum of 3 or 6 months, would there be a lot of potential buyers who would miss out on the The Villages experience? I know some have posted that they have purchased a home during their first visit or first rental or during a lifestyle preview visit, but I am betting many people don't buy until after their second or third rental just to be sure ownership in TV is the right decision.

It is up to landlords to check out the backgrounds of their potential tenants before the lease is signed. If any landlord wanted to check me out, I would be happy to provide references. And if I were a landlord, I would be checking on the backgrounds and references of potential tenants before the lease would be signed.

[goodtimesintv]

Minimum 3-months of rental would do nothing.

Personally, I think that if renters are trashing the place and are behaving like trash, it's better to have them out after ONE month, not wait for three/four/five/six months to pass!!

[rubicon]

Originally Posted by goodtimesintv

Minimum 3-months of rental would do nothing.

Personally, I think that if renters are trashing the place and are behaving like trash, it's better to have them out after ONE month, not wait for three/four/five/six months to pass!!

Referring to my #38 post as respects this thread I speculated at the time I wrote it that perhaps the Developer who has some close associations with his subcontracts devised this arrangement in order to complete the build out and in doing so helped by reducing contractor employee turnover. I ignored it because it would have deviated from this topic. However some 3-4 posters have brought it up. It is a possibility.

As respects my post #38 and my great concern for TV's rental policy I did as some posters suggested took it to the District > I was summarily told they had no legal or administrative power to do anything about it. so I posed the rhetorical question of then who does and do you have an address?

The above poster posit that a three month policy allows renters to thrash the place for 3 months. this may be a possibility since no one seems to be policing who lives here and certainly if the home is purchased for solely rental purposes, well rent is income and income is profit and the rest be damned .

I happen to disagree and would prefer long term rental agreements because this is our home and we should treat it as such and not a vacation destination because the latter will create the chaos, etc found in other Florida communities.

There is a built in problem within this community in addition to the no rules application of rentals but I'll leave that for another discussion.

In the years that I have lived here this is the very first time I have witnessed so many people publicly showing concern for their investment and having a rational discussion about the effect it has on our community. Indeed this is not about RENTERS many of whom are welcome additions. NO rather its about the RENTAL RULES OR LACK THEREOF THAT HAS AN EFFECT ON OUR WAY OF LIFE AND OUR FINANCIAL INVESTMENT.

The question I still have is exactly how important is it to you as a resident? I also posed these same sort of questions to the POA and perhaps I am wrong but was left with the impressed they were not interested.

The rental policy is measured only as it is profitable to those who have financial interests in making a profit. Well the rest of us have a financial interest in our invested properties and we should likewise be concerned. There is a win win here but first we need residents to speak up...and the higher the dollar amount of your investment the greater the potential loss, albeit many resident have invested near their life savings in this community.

My thought is if the POA gets a sufficient number of inquiries showing concern here that it may prompt them to act. I did and 1 is the loneliest number that there ever was....... Perhaps residents will disagree with me entirely and this is not an issue at all? I opine others can decide
Personal Best Regards:

[Chatbrat]

Post a picture of whats happening--this thread without real proof is worthless--pictures from the pool, pictures of the trucks in the driveway--pictures of the beds/cots

[Cedwards38]

I'm not weighing in on whether they did or didn't rent a villa to laborers, but the OP doesn't mention anything that these renters did wrong. Are they loud? Do they make a mess? Are they violating parking restrictions? Are they disrespectful? It certainly isn't wrong to rent a property to someone who is a laborer.

[maureenod]

If they are getting picked up at dropped off, they are probably illegals. I would think there would be cheaper rentals outside the bubble, unless the owner is the subcontractor.

How would one get pictures of the beds, or why? Peeping Tom.

[ColdNoMore]

Originally Posted by Happydaz

Ridiculous! Do you want signed statements submitted? How about we get the Orlando TV stations involved. Maybe also the state and national newspapers. You want pictures?

There are three posters on this thread that have reported this situation. It is real. If you don't believe us that is your problem. The OP said call the Villages rec department and see if a Pinellas pool monitor asked a group of young men to leave. They probably won't disclose this info to you, but you could try. You want real proof? Get it yourself. I have never seen so many obnoxious, nervy people on one thread.

..........

[ColdNoMore]

Originally Posted by maureenod

If they are getting picked up at dropped off, they are probably illegals. I would think there would be cheaper rentals outside the bubble, unless the owner is the subcontractor.

Given the politics of the developer, he would never (under ANY circumstances) allow illegals from a contractor or subcontractor to work here...would he?

Originally Posted by maureenod

How would one get pictures of the beds, or why? Peeping Tom.

I know...right?

[photo1902]

Originally Posted by ColdNoMore2

..........

[ColdNoMore]

Originally Posted by Schaumburger

I have rented in The Villages several times since 2011. All of my rentals have been short term (one to two weeks). I would love to be able to rent in TV for three to six months, but I am still working, and their aren't too many employers who will give an employee 3 months vacation to check out TV. I have a feeling that there are probably quite a few potential buyers who are younger (55 to 60) who are in the same boat as I am and can only rent for a month or less.

This short term renter has always been well behaved -- no accidents, arrests, traffic tickets, wild parties, damage to the home or golf cart. I have always received 100% of my security deposit back when the rentals have ended.

If rentals were limited to a minimum of 3 or 6 months, would there be a lot of potential buyers who would miss out on the The Villages experience? I know some have posted that they have purchased a home during their first visit or first rental or during a lifestyle preview visit, but I am betting many people don't buy until after their second or third rental just to be sure ownership in TV is the right decision.

It is up to landlords to check out the backgrounds of their potential tenants before the lease is signed. If any landlord wanted to check me out, I would be happy to provide references. And if I were a landlord, I would be checking on the backgrounds and references of potential tenants before the lease would be signed.

Exactly!

Many (including myself) are/were in the same boat and didn't/don't have the time to spend months here at one stretch, when first looking.

[rcook715]

Thanks Gracie Girl

I think you hit the nail on the head with "I bet I won't hear back"

The lack of specificity as to what villas is the giveaway unless we should all look for growing oil spots in driveways.