[LittleDog]

My son asked me who decides and on what authority are children prohibited from living in TV for more than 30 days. I couldn't answer that question but figured someone here would know. I wonder if that prohibition is legal.

John

[Chatbrat]

Deed restrictions-you agreed to it when you bought a house--its a legal contract

[Topspinmo]

As long as they are over 18 no problem. There are no children police, unless you neighbor counting the days and reports it who going To know? IMO pretty sure that rule broken all the time. Been some traffic accidents with mother drug addicts/drunk arrest living in the villages with their parents with child. Couple years ago there was post about school bus stopping on the historic side. There are three villages that alow children, but from what I read and understand mostly employee's with no card to use the ammenties.

Notice I said children over 18. Some have children well into there 30s living at home

[spring_chicken]

Not only is it legal, it is required by the federal mandate to be classified as a retirement community.

[rubicon]

Originally Posted by Topspinmo

As long as they are over 19 no problem. There are no children police, unless you neighbor counting the days and reports it who going To know? IMO pretty sure that rule broken all the time. Been some traffic accidents with mother drug addicts/drunk arrest living in the villages with their parents with child. Couple years ago there was post about school bus stopping on the historic side. There are three villages that alow children, but from what I read and understand mostly employee's with no card to use the ammenties.

As time passes deed restrictions, et al will suffer progressive infractions because resident will not know or care . The District is already showing a reluctance to police deed restrictions shifting responsibility to residents.

[Trayderjoe]

Originally Posted by rubicon

As time passes deed restrictions, et al will suffer progressive infractions because resident will not know or care . The District is already showing a reluctance to police deed restrictions shifting responsibility to residents.

[Polar Bear]

Originally Posted by rubicon

As time passes deed restrictions, et al will suffer progressive infractions because resident will not know or care . The District is already showing a reluctance to police deed restrictions shifting responsibility to residents.

The optimism never stops.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by Polar Bear

The optimism never stops.

Lordy yes.

It is a rule. I like rules. Rules keep things all nice and tidy. I can't see the residents "not knowing or caring". I moved here because I like deed restrictions. I moved to an area that is focused on SENIORS. I love children. I have lived with them and enjoyed them. Now I want a place geared to my peers.

[Jayhawk]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

Lordy yes.

It is a rule. I like rules. Rules keep things all nice and tidy. I can't see the residents "not knowing or caring". I moved here because I like deed restrictions. I moved to an area that is focused on SENIORS. I love children. I have lived with them and enjoyed them. Now I want a place geared to my peers.

Agree 1000%.

[dirtbanker]

Originally Posted by Topspinmo

As long as they are over 18 no problem. There are no children police, unless you neighbor counting the days and reports it who going To know? IMO pretty sure that rule broken all the time. Been some traffic accidents with mother drug addicts/drunk arrest living in the villages with their parents with child. Couple years ago there was post about school bus stopping on the historic side. There are three villages that alow children, but from what I read and understand mostly employee's with no card to use the ammenties.

Notice I said children over 18. Some have children well into there 30s living at home

The bus stop is still active. It is just out side the Jeffery Drive gate at Griffn Avenue...Ride by at 8am and see the kids arrive by golf cart.

The historic district is not deemed a "family friendly village". I am not sure why it is like a free for all over there. Golf cart graveyards, pitt bulls, and tattoos.

Teenage kids skateboarding in the Paradise Rec Center parking lot at 11PM on a school night wearing dark hoodies...Great parents!

Won't be long and you will meet someone that says they were "born and raised here in the villages".

I believe I saw a rezoning meeting scheduled in the newspaper, to change the zoning back to "mobile home" on 8 of the lots they had removed mobile homes from. I guess the developer has admitted defeat in trying to clean the area up.

[dirtbanker]

Originally Posted by rubicon

The District is already showing a reluctance to police deed restrictions shifting responsibility to residents.

Take the bridge down, problem solved!

[Waverunner]

I don't have any first hand knowledge on the bus stop situation, but I am a grandparent, and have a grandchild nearby. There is a possibility that the grandparent is providing before school and after school care for working parents, and that the children are not living (i.e. sleeping overnight) permanently in The Villages. I could especially see this for parents bringing their kids into the Charter School system and needing before or after school care.

I see no evidence of kids living in TV, so I am not jumping to conclusions here.

[blueash]

And Back to answering the OP's question, which has been hinted at.

HERE is the Wikipedia page explaining the Federal Law on age restricted communities

And HERE is a simplified presentation of the same information.

So yes, there are reasons for the way the regulations were written. This 1995 amendment to the original law removed a requirement for having "significant facilities and services", in other words made it easier to qualify as senior housing and eliminating a term that the government was struggling to define and caused confusion.

Very interesting read HERE of the legislative history and intent which is part of the Congressional documentation

and for those who prefer to see the link before you click
S. Rept. 104-172 - HOUSING FOR OLDER PERSONS ACT OF 1995 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

When the Fair Housing Law began in 1968 it prohibited discrimination in housing based on race, color, religion or national origin. In 1974 it was amended to also prohibit discrimination based on sex. In 1988 it was amended to prohibit discrimination based on "family status" which meant the presence of children [and pregnancy]. This suddenly made senior communities illegal. Thus an exception was made to allow discrimination if the community was a senior community. There were 3 kinds of communities given exemptions to this prohibition.
1. Those operated by the State or Federal Gov't as senior facilities
2. Those that only allowed persons 62+ years old, no exceptions
3. Those that would keep the ratio of those units occupied by at least one person age 55+ at 80% or better AND to qualify it could not just say "We don't want kids" There had to be more than animus against children, there had to be those facilities and services which were geared toward seniors.

It was left to HUD to develop regulations for determining what qualified as enough services to get by under this exemption. HUD eventually did so but there were so many lawsuits challenging it that Congress essentially threw up their hands.

The requirement was intended to ensure that housing communities claiming this exemption were indeed legitimate retirement communities designed to meet the specific needs of senior citizens not just communities of seniors united by their preference to not live around children. By eliminating such a requirement, this bill may have the unintended effect of increasing discrimination against families with children.

HUD had developed a checklist:

Under the new regulations, which went into effect on September 18 of this year, a housing facility can `self-certify'' that it falls under the Fair Housing Act exemption-- by simply filling out a straight forward, easy-to-understand checklist of facilities and services designed for older folks. This checklist contains a "menu'' of some 114 facilities and services in eleven categories; if a facility provides 10 among them--like wheelchair accessibility, communal recreational facilities, periodic vision or hearing tests, or fellowship meetings--it qualifies as senior housing, and may exclude families. If the facility's status is challenged, it need only show that the certification was accurate at the time of the alleged violation

So now there are 3 types which qualify for the exemption to the fair housing law regarding age discrimination
1. Those run by the Federal or State governments
2. Those which only allow 62+
3. Those which keep at least 80% of units having one person age 55+

[Jayhawk]

If everyone followed the rules WE ALL AGREED TO, there would not be a problem. Too many people believe they are exempt. YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED !!!!!!!!!!!!

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by Jayhawk

If everyone followed the rules WE ALL AGREED TO, there would not be a problem. Too many people believe they are exempt. YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED !!!!!!!!!!!!

What Jayhawk said. I don't agree with Dirtbanker. It is not true that there was a meeting about zoning aiming to change it "back to mobile home".

Sometimes TOTV posts sound like posts on Political. Untrue and inflammatory, just for the sake of stirring up trouble. As if we don't have enough with a major hurricane threatening us.