They are residents. And to their credit, they introduce all the 20 or so young people that come off and on, and do their best to get them to do “Villages” behavior eg no playing water polo in the neighborhood pool etc… the real difficulties exist with the STRs where there is no attempt at civilized behavior by some.

So by definition Villager=good and not-good=not-Villager? Ha!

*I* have left the pool area when I realize I have forgotten my ID. Was I not a Villager for that part of one day?

So the kids..... Only renters' kids and not Villagers' kids? Is that full-time Villagers and Snowbirds' kids should be shunned as well? If weekly renters' kids are the problem does that mean that if you rent for 31 days rather than 27 days your kids are allowed in the pool? STAY OFF MY LAWN!

Perhaps one should have spent some time learning what the community was actually like before they attributed characteristics based on the word "retirement."

There are fines and penalties for people who break the law. Like it or not, sneaking out of a pool area is not an infraction of the Florida Statutes or Sumter County Regulations. A fine is out. Caught? Are you volunteering to put on your cross trainers and chase them down the road?

If they do not have a form of resident ID or guest pass then they should be out of the pool. If they sneak away then they are out of the pool - the system worked. If there truly are pools that have a problem with non-residents use then as I mentioned above, perhaps there needs to be a permanent ID checker at those pools. There is a PWAC meeting Monday morning, 8:30 at Seabreeze. I plan to be there and I'll be anxious to hear the response when you stand up and make the suggestion. (NOTE: I believe there is a joint AAC & PWAC meeting on 8/22 to cover amenity access)

The pools and recreation areas, golf courses, as far as I know, are private properties and therefore, people who do not have passes are trespassing.

And you are trying to split hairs, it’s not whether it’s the renters’ kids or Villagers’ kids, it’s the behavior and the large numbers that is the problem.

I understand that you would like to justify some renters’ actions to promote business income but it hurts the lifestyle that people hoped to have in the Villages. Turning this place into a ghetto is not what most of us would like to see - even if it makes some landlords well off.

Works for me but that would end the 4-7 day lifestyle visit. I don't see how they could allow one owner do one thing and others not be allowed.

That's what you understand, eh?

I would think The Villages could find a way to categorize lifestyle visits as something other than a short-term rental. Perhaps as a promotion or a 1-week temporary resident.

I am considering purchasing within the next couple of months. I rented the AirBnB because I was not interested in staying in a Lifestyle Cottage down south where there are no amenities, shopping, or even trees; lol. We wanted something more centralized.

I was the Vice President in an Gated HOA community and I'm fully aware of what a detriment rentals can be to a community.

Lucky the neighbors had you. Next week it might be families going to Disney with 5 or more kids, or groups of young people looking for a getaway. You just never know what you are going to get.

If the community as a whole adopted a "must have local, active, licensed insured property management company responsible for all rentals" that would solve the problem, since The Villages sales department has a property management section to handle all those lifestyle visits. Landlords of residences here could use one of the others in the area, like the Hometown Management company located right here in The Villages.

Perhaps, but could a property manager deny renting to a family with 5 kids???? And would they????

Not a bad idea for longer term rentals. But how would this address the big problem of people renting out rooms in their home by the night while they are concurrently living there (AIR BnB type rentals)?

Yes, they can. This is a 55+ community, and properties here have capacities. I believe the maximum number of occupants is 4. Or at least, it is in some of the deed restrictions. It might vary depending on the type of home and which village it's in.

The 80/20 law applies to the minimum required for seniors, not the maximum allowed for non-seniors. The 80/20 law means that a 55+ community MAY forbid ANY children residing in the home, if it wants to set up the community regulations that way. The law exists to protect seniors. The Villages allows UP TO 20% of homes to be occupied by people where no one is 55 or older, AND it also forbids anyone under 19 living in any of the homes.

It's not enforced, but it IS the regulation of this community, as allowed by federal law. Theoretically, a couple could move in, and neither of them be 55 or older. But if they have a baby - that baby would not be permitted to live here. They'd have to make a decision - have someone outside the Villages raise the kid, or move out.

If the homeowner is living in the same building they're renting a room out in - not much you can do about it EXCEPT point it out to the county, that someone might be bypassing the zoning and tax laws by turning their single-family home into a boarding house.