[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by DarrenandKathy

A bunch of people on here are saying they chose the Villages as a quiet residential neighbourhood to enjoy a quiet life.
That is certainly not what the Villages has been promoting. It has always been sold as “Disney For Adults”
Even have brochures that show you how you can make money renting your place out.
Sorry but without the STR this place would cease to exist as you know it today.
The constant influx of people is what keeps the local businesses, courses and amenities alive.
Make no mistake this place has never been sold as a quiet place to retire. It talks about the vibrant active lifestyle.
Villages love STR as they keep the monster fed.

Wow, just wow. That’s all the TOTV guidelines will allow as a response to that “accurate” post😂😂😂

[Normal]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Wow, just wow. That’s all the TOTV guidelines will allow as a response to that “accurate” post������������������

Way out from left field. There are also a group of us who remember there would be “no development “ south of 466. To make the case that rentals are for the case of continuing expansion and destruction of the rural life is a positive? That’s just mind blowing? Well I guess not, if you want to sell homes here.



This is of course besides of which, no one is banning them, they may still be around, it will just cost you a lot more to put your neighbors out with your mini hotel business.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by Normal

Way out from left field. There are also a group of us who remember there would be “no development “ south of 466. To make the case that rentals are for the case of continuing expansion and destruction of the rural life is a positive? That’s just mind blowing? Well I guess not, if you want to sell homes here.



This is of course besides of which, no one is banning them, they may still be around, it will just cost you a lot more to put your neighbors out with your mini hotel business.

If you moved here for a rural lifestyle then you did not do your homework. With five lots per acre this is suburban at best. Who cares if they are building below 466 or below 44 or even below 470? You bought into a packed neighborhood and that has not changed.

You moved to a busy area, a growing area, and an area which advertised a very active lifestyle. To complain now that you see a lot of people you don’t recognize is ridiculous.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Normal

Way out from left field. There are also a group of us who remember there would be “no development “ south of 466. To make the case that rentals are for the case of continuing expansion and destruction of the rural life is a positive? That’s just mind blowing? Well I guess not, if you want to sell homes here.



This is of course besides of which, no one is banning them, they may still be around, it will just cost you a lot more to put your neighbors out with your mini hotel business.

I guess the bottom line is this: There will be no restrictions on Airbnb's until the developer gets on board. But for now, as long a homes are selling, they will probably have little interest. However, if they do get involved , rest assured, things will change. But for them to get involved, the reputation of The Villages would have to start to change from "America's friendliest Hometown" to "Take your chances on buying next to an all night party motel", And have an impact on sales as well.

[CFrance]

Judging by responses, I'm thinking there are some airb&b owners on here.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by CFrance

Judging by responses, I'm thinking there are some airb&b owners on here.

Yep, and some of them are blind to reality

[justjim]

Originally Posted by MX rider

I would disagree. Most STR are not prospective buyers. That's what lifestyle visits are for.
Plus there are plenty of hotels close by, some actually in TV, like at LSL.
We lived in a neighborhood that had a couple of rental homes that took short term renters. Needless to say, I'm glad I didn't live nextdoor.

You are spot on. As I mentioned in post #3, who of us bought our home in TV to live next door to a motel? Not in my backyard, next door or across the street.

[justjim]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

I guess the bottom line is this: There will be no restrictions on Airbnb's until the developer gets on board. But for now, as long a homes are selling, they will probably have little interest. However, if they do get involved , rest assured, things will change. But for them to get involved, the reputation of The Villages would have to start to change from "America's friendliest Hometown" to "Take your chances on buying next to an all night party motel", And have an impact on sales as well.

Maybe the CDD (district) can make an impact on this issue?

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by CFrance

Judging by responses, I'm thinking there are some airb&b owners on here.

And others who do not want to see any more of their property rights taken away.

[Normal]

We don’t need AirBnBs. They didn’t even come into comceptionalization until2007, well after the start of The Villages. The developer can go back to its grass roots and have Villa neighborhoods designated for rentals along with their Villages bucks that can be spent in the squares.

STRs need to be scrubbed way back. Again, no one is removing rights, just imposing fees on those who impose their slop on residential neighborhoods with their rental hotel businesses.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by Normal

We don’t need AirBnBs. They didn’t even come into comceptionalization until2007, well after the start of The Villages. The developer can go back to its grass roots and have Villa neighborhoods designated for rentals along with their Villages bucks that can be spent in the squares.

STRs need to be scrubbed way back. Again, no one is removing rights, just imposing fees on those who impose their slop on residential neighborhoods with their rental hotel businesses.

“We’re not taking away your right to do what you want inside your home, we’re just planning to charge you an exorbitant fee to make you not want to do it.” I recognize the argument, I just reject it.

As one of those who has stayed in an Airbnb more than once, I believe I am part of that “slop” you are talking about. I don’t appreciate the insult.

Again, are we talking about that one time in band camp? Whether a single occasion or an ongoing issue, has anyone utilized the available means of dealing with the problem or is it just simpler to sit here and complain?

[justjim]

Cocoa Beach has a number of very nice single family home neighborhoods. The new rules and fees are designed to keep them and their real estate values as single family residential and not busy motel type Airbnb’s. Good for them.

[tophcfa]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

And others who do not want to see any more of their property rights taken away.

Exactly why so many Villagers are against AIRBnB’s, because they take away their right as homeowners to live in a peaceful 55+ single family residential neighborhood, free of turnstile short term rentals. Long term rentals of one month or longer, to fellow senior citizens, is not the issue. It’s rentals by the night, while the homeowner is concurrently living in the home, to people of all ages, which has people up in arms. The key litmus test to just about every zoning controversy is that the activity in question needs to be in harmony with the existing neighborhood. Nightly rentals, in a single family residential 55+ retirement community, are most definitely not in harmony with the existing neighborhood.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by tophcfa

Exactly why so many Villagers are against AIRBnB’s, because they take away their right as homeowners to live in a peaceful 55+ single family residential neighborhood, free of turnstile short term rentals. Long term rentals of one month or longer, to fellow senior citizens, is not the issue. It’s rentals by the night, while the homeowner is concurrently living in the home, to people of all ages, which has people up in arms. The key litmus test to just about every zoning controversy is that the activity in question needs to be in harmony with the existing neighborhood. Nightly rentals, in a single family residential 55+ retirement community, are most definitely not in harmony with the existing neighborhood.

1. What you describe is not a right, it's a preference
2. Your delineation of short/long, occupied/vacant, young/old is arbitrary with no connection to any actual problem.
3. Again (for the 3rd time), is this truly a common problem, is this a "one time at band camp" issue, or is it anticipatory whining?
4. To hear it on these boards, this activity so prevalent that it *IS* the existing neighborhood and so it must be in harmony.
5. Has no one tried solving a real issue through Community Standards or the Sheriff's office or is it more that there have been no real issues to solve?

[michgary]

if you are a renter thru down home properties,, in wildwood,, they are very professional ,, and you pay mucho more per day for a rental until it gets up to 4 weeks,, that has been my experience and it helps keep out the short term rents under a month,,