[LndLocked]

Originally Posted by mulligan

What ?????

"And it is my personal opinion that the first requirement for any kind of real estate ownership in the US of A should be citizenship"

[BobAllen1290]

Originally Posted by CFrance

It artificially drives up the price of housing...

Not to be confused with Morse Industries artificially ratcheting up the price of new homes south of 466-A on a monthly basis and attempting to fool buyers that they are building "the very last homes in TV" when they are getting ready to pounce on Fruitland Park and keep on building. P.T. Barnum would be so very proud.

[LndLocked]

Originally Posted by CFrance

I believe it has.

And the land and house are still subject to the Developer's deed restrictions, which we agreed to at closing. If one doesn't like the restrictions, one can choose to buy elsewhere.

Your kidding ... right?!? You think that the equivalent house to yours was the same price north of 466 or does not cost more south of 466A??

I was simply asking WHY you (and others by proxy) think this restriction is a good idea.

[justjim]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

Repeat after me five times.

The Developer can do no wrong.

Spoken like a former teacher, no! I've lived with one for several moons.

Prices are going up fast enough without investors immediately "flipping" homes in TV. After a year, you can sell and keep the profit if there is one.

[justjim]

Originally Posted by mulligan

I believe the restrictions should go a lot further. They should be modeled on some of the condominium restrictions that exist in this state. A home can be sold and deeded only to a real person (no trusts, partnerships, corporations, etc.). No rentals allowed for less than 90 days (eliminates most of those who would view our community as a resort). And it is my personal opinion that the first requirement for any kind of real estate ownership in the US of A should be citizenship (don't sell my country to China).

You have some good points----especially the 90 day rental rule which I will have to think about your other points.

Originally Posted by graciegirl

[B][SIZE=5]. It is obvious to me that this place represents a huge opportunity for off site landlords to buy a bunch of homes and rent them out for a business, for some reason, I don't like that a whole lot. I wish this whole place was owned by people who lived here and maybe could buy two or three homes, but I just hate the concept of off site landlords who don't CARE about this place like we do.

I agree Gracie!! I wish this place had stricter rules .Some really don't care & look at this as a business opportunity or a vacation destination. It kind of takes away from the hometown feeling ,

[CFrance]

Originally Posted by LndLocked

Your kidding ... right?!? You think that the equivalent house to yours was the same price north of 466 or does not cost more south of 466A??

I was simply asking WHY you (and others by proxy) think this restriction is a good idea.

I'm confused by your statement. We never looked at a home north of 466. And yes the prices have gone up, but it was my understanding part of that had to do with "raising the rents' on new homes (which happens everywhere) and an increase in the cost of building supplies.

I've explained twice why I think it is a good idea and don't feel I need to repeat my opinion a third time.

I'm done. You can have the last word.

[FLUFFY]

THANK you all for your input! It was extremely helpful!