You might want to read posts from people who have lived next to a nightmare as well. Regardless, this is a 55+ RETIREMENT COMMUNITY, not a vacation resort with daily or weekly rentals or 8 people splitting a home to party day and night. I doubt this is what Harold Schwartz or H. Gary Morse envisioned---investors buying homes so they can turn them into motels for people who would not otherwise qualify to live here, bringing young children and teenagers with them.

I don't see any evidence of this actually happening in The Villages.

This, to me, is a lot like the Amenity crisis. A non-crisis invented by fear of something that may have occurred, but isn't an ongoing and widespread issue at all.

Yeah, I know, they would be rolling in their graves.... Or at least that's what people who never met them write.

I'm not sure you quite understand what 55+ RETIREMENT COMMUNITY means. Sure, to many Villagers it means STAY OFF MY LAWN! But what it actually means is the Developer can legally refuse to sell a home to a family with children. What it DOESN'T mean is that I cannot use my home in any way I desire as long as I don't violate a law or a deed restriction. You may not like my music, you may not like the aroma of the meat I cook on my grill, you may not like the type of people I have over as guest, but as long as I don't break any laws it isn't up to you and it is not in any way restricted by living in a 55+ RETIREMENT COMMUNITY.

I have read most of the posts on this subject. I have asked a few times if those making claims about the nightmare home next door actually had a rental next door. I can remember only two writing that they did. There have been a lot of posts.... there have been two that seem to be writing from actual, personal experience.

Bad renters happen - so do bad neighbors. Bad renters leave after a week or a month or a half year. Bad neighbor/owners can remain much longer. I know there is at least one rental in my neighborhood and I know there is at least one bad neighbor. I much prefer the rental.

Bad renters happen - so do 30mph golf carts, lightning strikes, lithium battery fires, and dog poop. I would be willing to bet that MOST Villagers have not personally experienced any of these.

Great post and probably true for the most part. Now, for the key question: What of any significance does allowing Airbnbs in TV add to our community? Even if they affect only a small minority, why should they have to put up with a nightmare at all. And nobody can claim it doesn’t happen and nobody has good statistics on how often, which is why all we see is anecdotal

The straightforward answer to the question is it adds nothing.

To me, the more important question is what harm could restricting Airbnbs do? The answer to that is twofold. First, it will be difficult to adequately write the restriction and second, it takes away more of our property rights.

Restricting Airbnbs sounds good but it leaves the door open for RentFromAVillager, VillagesHPM, ****, and any others. But that isn't what you meant, you meant restricting all rentals. Okay, but no rentals at all means not daily, weekly, monthly, annually, any. This would also eliminate the Lifestyle Previews but maybe there is an exception for those. And some would say that yearly rentals are okay so another exception for them. Or maybe the rule is 30 days or more except February has only 28 days. Or calendar month but that seems a bit restrictive too. And let's get back to that 3-day Lifestyle Preview... how is that different than a 3-day Airbnb again? Difficult to adequately define.

Then there is the property rights aspect. When I bought a home out in WA the deed came with the restriction that I didn't own anything below the topsoil; if I drilled for oil anything that came up would be the property of the railroad. I didn't like the restrictions but they didn't take away from my use and enjoyment of my home. When I bought a home here I signed a deed with a written set of restrictions. Some of these *did* take away from my use of the home but I knew going in what those restrictions were. Now the proposal is to restrict/eliminate rentals. I had considered renting the house while I still lived in MD. I decided against it but that was my choice. Eliminating rentals would take that choice away from me - would take away from me the right to use my property in that way. We all have given up enough property rights, we shouldn't be demanding to have more rights taken away.

Del Webb Spruce Creek is a retirement community, just up road 441, has a three-month minimum for rentals.

That's a lot but I would like to see a one-month.
When we golf, my buddy and I can get paired with short termers and we usually have more fun with them vs. playing with the TV stay-off-my -lawners.

I think eliminating short term rentals would be adequate. Put a 1 month or 4 week minimum. It can be done.

Right up until the point where one starts operating in close proximity to their home. It most certainly changed our opinion of them when an inconsiderate neighbor was operating a turnstile short term rental business in our neighborhood. Thankfully, the woman running the business out of her home moved out and we are back to the peaceful residential 55+ neighborhood we expected when we bought a home in the Villages. I sincerely feel sorry for other fellow Villagers who have to deal with this unfortunate situation.

Totally agree.

I see evidence of it in my neighborhood. Someone turned their single-family home into a 2 bedroom with an inlaw apartment with its own private entry. They then rented both out - and the main part of the house was occupied by an older person plus their adult child and the child's toddler, and two other younger adults (between 25-40) show up every few days for overnights on a regular basis.

I also saw another neighbor rent their house out to a couple with two younger (under 10) children for three months.

I'm not overly concerned about whether or not we allow rentals. My concern is more about management of those rentals. I think people should be allowed to rent their properties. But they should be required to either a) still actually live in The Villages while renting out their rental unit or b) give over the management of their rental unit to a licensed, insured, local property management company.

That way if something goes wrong, the entire neighborhood isn't at the mercy of "when the owner gets around to it" or "when the owner is able to come down and handle it." Instead, they'd call the local property management company, who would then - manage the property. Either kick out the short-term tenants with their toddler child, or oversee the replacement of the exploded hot water heater, or shut down the golf-cart-sales business the tenant is conducting in the driveway.

Landlords who don't live IN the Villages, don't have that same investment into the community that residents have. They also don't have the same sense of urgency when something goes wrong. And they're not getting paid to care.

good idea. I think the mgmt company should be a sub division of the sheriffs department . Staffed by ,first preference, retired leo's

Rentals in my opinion should be restricted to six months or more. Renting out Village homes like a motel for a night or two cheapens a neighborhood. You have anonymous people showing up next door to full time homeowners.

I agree that short term rentals should be prohibited, but a 6 month minimum is harsh. We have made friends with a couple that rents for 2-3 months every winter, have been coming to the Villages for years, and are excellent tenants. There are also a couple guys in my winter golf group that rent for three months every year. The much bigger problem are people renting out their home by the week, or worse yet by the night. I think a one month minimum rental would be appropriate.

I see your point. Yes there are many repeat renters who come down for a month or more. Let me amend my post to say “Have a one month minimum for rentals in The Villages .