[Bogie Shooter]

Originally Posted by Mikeod

I would not be optimistic about a change in policy. A few months ago I attended an AAC meeting where a proposal was made by a resident to allow the firefighters at Mulberry to use the sports court there. It was denied and the primary concern as I interpreted it was an aversion to non-residents using the facilities. Another proposal was to comp fees on the executive courses for active duty military who are guests of a resident. It was also denied. The reason was that making a special allowance for one group opens the doors for other "deserving" groups to request accommodation. I believe making an accommodation to allow non-residents who are in a relationship with a resident access to facilities would likely fall into the same category.

I understand the concern and the apparent disparity, but my experience leads me to believe change will be very difficult.

That makes sense.

[rubicon]

The rule is names on deed. If someone is living in your house and not on the deed they get a temporary ID that has to be renewed every three years.

If you have someone visiting from outside the tri-county area you are required to apply for a guest pass. All of these ID's relate to amenity use.

Amenity fees are based on households. It does not matter if you use the amenity or not. suppose enough people complained that they were not using most/any of the amenities should they complain and demand the rules be changed (i.e absolve me from paying amenity fees because I don't use them)? And calling it an amendment doesn't change the fact that you are asking for the rules to be changed.

We were all informed that if we desired this life style then you had to put a down payment of 20% and within a year start building your home.

If we are free with ID's which equate to use of amenities it will place more pressure on amenities and we are not built out yet. In fact with ID's floating around it will open up a pandora's box

Because of the aforementioned while I empathize with the OP I can not support the OP's position.

There is another area pertaining to this subject that should addressed and I did but that's another topic. My guess is based on the responses here it would draw much more emotion than what has been displayed here So for now I will leave it alone

[Skybo]

I completely agree with you Rubicon, and I was in the process of of typing out pretty much the same opinions.

However, I'm curious exactly what the issues are for singles. Other than pools, how many venues deny access to guests of residents? Katie Belles allows one guest per resident. Resident sponsored socials, dances and events at the Rec centers don't usually present a problem for guests.

[villagerjack]

I do not understand all the concern for folks who do not live here and pay amenity fees. One exception leads to another. The business model works perfect. Do not tinker with success. The day residents start to control things will be the day I place my home for sale. I saw what happened with my last place and it was not pleasant.

[rubicon]

Originally Posted by Skybo

I completely agree with you Rubicon, and I was in the process of of typing out pretty much the same opinions.

However, I'm curious exactly what the issues are for singles. Other than pools, how many venues deny access to guests of residents? Katie Belles allows one guest per resident. Resident sponsored socials, dances and events at the Rec centers don't usually present a problem for guests.

Skybo your comments concerning venues are spot on. Thanks for pointing that out

[mulligan]

Originally Posted by 2BNTV

I haven't met anyone yet, but I don't want to limit the possibilities.


Disclaimer: This is not the ranting of a sex crazed maniac, who wants to date anyone, who is breathing.

I find it very amusing that some people have a very myopic view of the world. It seems some people want to see everything in black and white terms, when most of the world is a shade of gray.

I just love how people can look at a simple issue with uncovering, so many sides. Stay tuned for more endearing comments.

A chair has four legs. A horse has four legs. Does that mean a chair is the same as a horse?

As far as I can see, No, the chair eats less.

[graciegirl]

We love you Joe. I am praying that you find the girl of your dreams and that she lives here. Ditto for all the wonderful singles.

You just don't know about "townies". They could be after you for your golf cart.

I am here to protect you.

[Jimturner]

Gracie has some good advise for you. You have so much in common with Villages Singles and (in my opinion) so little with local senior citizens.

[Nightengale212]

Originally Posted by rubicon

The rule is names on deed. If someone is living in your house and not on the deed they get a temporary ID that has to be renewed every three years.

Just curious about this statement. A number of years prior to the passing of my parents they put both my and my sister's names on the deed to their home. I am sure there are people in TV who have done the same. So, if a Villager for example has all six of their children's names on the deed to their TV home, are all these children entitled to full amenity access because their names are on the deed ?

[2BNTV]

Originally Posted by Mikeod

I would not be optimistic about a change in policy. A few months ago I attended an AAC meeting where a proposal was made by a resident to allow the firefighters at Mulberry to use the sports court there. It was denied and the primary concern as I interpreted it was an aversion to non-residents using the facilities. Another proposal was to comp fees on the executive courses for active duty military who are guests of a resident. It was also denied. The reason was that making a special allowance for one group opens the doors for other "deserving" groups to request accommodation. I believe making an accommodation to allow non-residents who are in a relationship with a resident access to facilities would likely fall into the same category.

I understand the concern and the apparent disparity, but my experience leads me to believe change will be very difficult.

I am not optimistic about any change in policy. "It is what it is".

However that does not make it right and rules can be improved. Does the powers to be, think, they are perfect, in everything they do?

For the people that say, "no exceptions", I will wait until something rankles them, and say, "no exceptions".

Happy New Year to everyone, and the sun came up today. Life is good!!!

[Challenger]

Originally Posted by Nightengale212

Just curious about this statement. A number of years prior to the passing of my parents they put both my and my sister's names on the deed to their home. I am sure there are people in TV who have done the same. So, if a Villager for example has all six of their children's names on the deed to their TV home, are all these children entitled to full amenity access because their names are on the deed ?

I see so many references to putting "names on "deeds". This can be a very bad choice. Not something to be done casually. Can cause severe agnst in your life.

You are changing ownership which can bring lots of trouble. Family fights and disagreements , Tax issues , liability and so many more.

Talk first to a "Real " attorney with Estate and Real Estate expertise.

Don't count om advise from amatuers on this forum.

[Cisco Kid]

You All can feel free you put my name on your deed to get that 2nd pass to flash.

[njbchbum]

Originally Posted by 2BNTV

snipped
For the people that say, "no exceptions", I will wait until something rankles them, and say, "no exceptions".

Happy New Year to everyone, and the sun came up today. Life is good!!!

Wait for someone to be rankled? Were TOTV posters not rankled over enforcement of the rule about signs; and about enforcement of the lawn ornament deed restriction; and now we even have rules about what color a house can be re-painted! Heck! Permanent residents even get rankled becaue they might 'lose their spot' in an event when snowbirds arrive and have the nerve to want to participate in pool aerobics, use the rec ctr work-out room, take a ceramics class, join a mahjongg game, etc!

Joe - To what event in the villages are singles not allowed to bring a person from beyond the tri-county area; or do singles want to be able to bring in said guest with whom they could laze away a day by the pool or find a hot pickleball game?

[biker1]

I think you are generally better off not saying that it is "unfair". "Unfair" is a relative term and is also a "woe is me" statement designed to elicit an emotional response. Anyone could claim that it would be "unfair" to change the rules and provide 2 IDs for single people because single people would now be getting special treatment. I don't believe you will get very far in pursuing this because we all knew what the restrictions were when we bought. Almost anyone can find some restriction they don't like in a deed restricted community.

Originally Posted by 2BNTV

Being a single person, I have only one complaint about TV.

You only get one resident I.D. and married couples get two. I know the rules that it goes by the names on the deed, etc. I still think this is unfair.

If a single person meets someone outside of TV and who wants to take their date to a resident function where they need to produce a resident I.D. and or gets into a relationship, the other person does not have access as the resident does, because the single person has one resident I.D.

I know people will respond that "it is what it is", but the singles get screwed. IMHO

It indicates one needs to live with a person, if they want to enjoy their company in TV environment. It seems to be a little far fetch option, as opposed to, getting two resident I.D's. Would it kill everything about TV, if single people got an second or resident/guest I.D? How many extra I.D's. would need to be distributed?

I know it's the developer ballpark and he/she can take his/her bat and ball home, if someone states a different point of view. It seems like a form of discrimination, against the single populace.

This has been discussed before but would like to see if there are any options, to changing this scenario.

Just waiting for the married people to say BOO-HOO!!!

[rubicon]

Originally Posted by Nightengale212

Just curious about this statement. A number of years prior to the passing of my parents they put both my and my sister's names on the deed to their home. I am sure there are people in TV who have done the same. So, if a Villager for example has all six of their children's names on the deed to their TV home, are all these children entitled to full amenity access because their names are on the deed ?

Hi Nightengale: Are the six kids living in the village home and are they over 19 years old? For further information contact The Villages district Office.