When you don’t do nothing you don’t have to dump you look for way out.:eclipsee_gold_cup:

Agree falls under slumlords:thumbup:

Once sale about anything goes and sometimes before sale :highfive:

So you're saying that an owner cannot take a roommate??? Thats a little too strict.

Just call them you live in mate, there no limit:shocked:

Well, you have to Amit they give use plenty to whine about? :D

Agreed
 

Yes, but they DO need to acknowledge enforcement fault and pay for cleanup through an attorney trust or other compensations. If problems were taken care of when they happened, the increased issues we have now wouldn’t necessarily be here and need to be addressed. They of course are at fault.

At fault for what exactly? Nothing at all to do with STR. What else?

If anyone, the neighbors are at fault. Remember, the Developer is under no obligation to enforce the restrictions. On the other hand, the homeowners are… at least according to the text in my deed restrictions.

I don't know what Florida law you're referring to, but there aren't any FL laws regarding STR's, that any homes in Florida are exempt from, because of when they were built. There are no "grandfathering" provisions in place that affect TV.

& Condominiums are a different animal than "fee simple" properties, such as in The Villages. The Developer could have put restrictions in the Deeds to prohibit STR's, but chose not to.

(It's questionable, if they could have prohibited Short Term Rentals, subsequent to the change in Florida Law, in 2011.)

Local ordinances in place prior to 2011 that defined and limited Short Term Rentals are "grandfathered" and can stay in place and are not subject to the Florida law that prohibits ordinances that limit STR's.

CORRECT too many other scenarieos so does that mean my fiance and I cant live together in MY HOUSE before I chose to marry him? I dont think so. That is pushing privacy way too far

You're 100% correct.

Unless someone has been living under a rock in the woods for the last 25+ years, they should know that society and in most cases, laws, cannot define nor should they define, what constitutes a "family".

Not quite the Bible belt so I think you’re good living in sin! ;) That was a joke btw!

Enforce the rules
 

I agree that the major rules should be enforced even if it adds to our fees. I don't think we need to go overboard. Like if a homeowner adds an extra pot of flowers to their landscaping. We shouldn't penalize them or give them any grief. But those running a business, that impacts their neighbors, should be stopped. And people also shouldn't park on someone's lawn. They risk damaging underground sprinkler systems. But they're doing it and they don't seem to care.

If the developer has not enforced the rule which I will make the assumption they spent zero dollars on this subject. Now the CDD's are to enforce the rule which was/is the developer's responsibility. Any enforcement will involve legal fees. The CDDs are us. The added expense most likely will come out of the amenity fees. That could mean less executive golf course maintenance, less flowers, etc. The CDDs should not accept this proposal without a bucket of money from the developer to clean up their negligence. This has all the making of the Paradise Rec Center fiasco all over again.

Only if you charge her rent and she stays for less than a month

Let's see:
- What rule was not enforced?
- The Developer has no responsibility to enforce any rule (check your deed restrictions)
- There *may* be additional legal fees
- Additional fees will NOT come out of amenity funds
-The CDD is *asking* for this additional authority
- What negligence?

Personally, I have trouble seeing WHY anyone would want to relocate to Florida, especially for full-time living. The summers are disgustingly HOT, moldy and unhealthy, in general. And G.W. is making every succeeding summer incrementally WORSE. The warmer air is holding more RAIN. Hurricanes are predicted to intensify. The property costs are sky-HIGH. The interest rates are HIGH. The insurance costs are 3 TIMES the national average. Sixty vehicles are backed up on 441 at every red light. The local hospitals are considered MARGINAL.
.......On top of all that, you have underage and overage children walking the residential streets that look as if they would be kicked out of any street gang because none would have them. One "child" walks the streets playing a guitar while staring THREATENINGLY at the passing cars. I am sure that they need psychological help. I am just NOT sure that the streets of The Villages are the best place for them to get help. If there is this "change of responsibility" that would enforce a one month rule for visiting grandchildren, then I would be all for it. There are NEWER problem areas for The Villages developing in the last 2 years involving children (unwanted children).

Has that message been vetted by the Florida Department of Travel and Tourism?

[QUOTE=jimjamuser;2313254]Personally, I have trouble seeing WHY anyone would want to relocate to Florida, especially for full-time living. The summers are disgustingly HOT, moldy and unhealthy, in general. And G.W. is making every succeeding summer incrementally WORSE. The warmer air is holding more RAIN. Hurricanes are predicted to intensify. The property costs are sky-HIGH. The interest rates are HIGH. The insurance costs are 3 TIMES the national average. Sixty vehicles are backed up on 441 at every red light. The local hospitals are considered MARGINAL.
.......On top of all that, you have underage and overage children walking the residential streets that look as if they would be kicked out of any street gang because none would have them. One "child" walks the streets playing a guitar while staring THREATENINGLY at the passing cars. I am sure that they need psychological help. I am just NOT sure that the streets of The Villages are the best place for them to get help. If there is this "change of responsibility" that would enforce a one month rule for visiting grandchildren, then I would be all for it. There are NEWER problem areas for The Villages developing in the last 2 years involving children (unwanted children).[/QUOTE

By ‘newer areas’ are you talking about the new high school area?

Or the Morse family!

- People under 18 living in TV/ Running business from home
- Developer has no responsibility = selective enforcement - why not ignore my landscape violation 10 feet from the curb ?
- There will be legal fees
- The CDD and new residents are overreacting to the fear of short term rentals
- Negligence ? Look squirrel !

According the Newspaper (the name of which is not to be mentioned) article quoted in the original post, the CDD's did not "ask for this authority".

Apparently the Developer, on his own motion, met with legal counsel for CDD #4. The Supervisors were unaware of the meeting, until informed about it last week.

According to the Supervisors, such an undertaking would result in higher fees to residents, to pay for the legal costs incurred.

1. If that is happening then it should be fixed but, os it actually happening or is it just a rumor?
2. There has been no selective enforcement described here. All complaints to the CDD are followed up. Complaints to the Developer would likely not be made public so there is no way to know if they were dealt with.
3. If your crystal ball is that good, would you share the winning lottery numbers with us?
4. The CDD may be overreacting to something but STRs do not violate deed restrictions and in any case, the CDD is asking for authority, they are not being forces to take it.
5. Again, what negligence are you referring to?

Looks like I need to do some digging. The article was not the first time I heard about this and I thought it involved a different CDD. When I find those details and source information I will post it.

Yet you are presumably here and the Villages continues to sell homes as fast as they can build them. Go figure?

-:oops::a20:

Where Will the Additional Money Come From?
 

Basic Rule of Business: The CDD's should NOT accept the responsibility to enforce rules against children and businesses if there is additional cost to them UNLESS the developer also provides the funds estimated to execute the associated effort. To do otherwise would be irresponsible, as it would be like a Contractor accepting a Change (New Work) without an associated increase in Cost.

In the March 8 minutes of the CDD4 board meeting at the 1:10:12 mark, there is a discussion of CDD4 assisting in the enforcement of internal deed restrictions. This was a follow-up on a request CDD4 made to the Developer. CD4 does not want to take over enforcement but wants to assist, particularly with complaints about children and businesses. There is a possibility that Florida Statute 190 may need to be amended to allow this. A meeting was set up for the following week (possibly 3/17?) with the Developer's attorney for further discussions.

CDD4 initiated the request. The meeting that was reported on was the follow-up meeting. CDD4 was not surprised and the Developer did not initiate.

I still believe I heard the same topic mentioned with another CDD but I doubt I will search the minutes to find it.

Wow. Just, wow.

They could hire Guido Two Fingers and the Joyzy Guyz who would do the enforcement cheap, or place a lien on the offending property and collect when the offenders sell.

Indeed! I want to type LOL, but they may be serious....

:undecided: May?????

I totally agree. My biggest problem is teenagers/moocher kids who play video games and dont work. They also are a problem with crime here in TV. I hope someone in TV will report this behavior (seeing these people living where they shouldn't be)

They're parents should stop enabling them. They need a swift kick in ass .

Every thing comes at a price; do the complainers want children and businesses in their neighborhoods or not; if they don’t, get ready to scratch a check out for more money to the CDD’s.

Have you heard - they want to make ME their spokesperson.

Yes, life tends to have its contradictions.

Can the typical Villager continue to afford increases in everything? Next thing you know, we will pay more for fire too.

🤦🤦 🤦🤦

Guess so... Considering you're still living in TV Hellhole...

Wow, what a convoluted, misguided, and contradictory post. Here’s the litmus test. Would the people referenced be allowed in the home without paying rent? If the answer is no, it’s a business. Family and friends who stay with residents for free are house guests of residents. People who pay rent to stay in someone’s home, while they concurrently live there, are customers of a business. Any reasonable person looking objectively would draw the same conclusion. Justify it any way that floats your boat, it’s a business being run out of a home.