[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

And everyone should pay their taxes and everyone should obey the speed limit and …. When faced with a non-perfect world, what do you do, continue to whine about the developer or make changes?

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

[Normal]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

And everyone should pay their taxes and everyone should obey the speed limit and …. When faced with a non-perfect world, what do you do, continue to whine about the developer or make changes?

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.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by Normal

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.

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by JGibson

That Florida law has a date of enforcement on it and some homes in the Northern section don't fall under that Florida law.

How is it condominiums in Florida are able to implement restrictions on STR but not TV?

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.

[Karmanng]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

There are some homeowners who have live-in aides. They're not family, they're contractors/employees. You'd need to offer exceptions. And that means you'd have to be up in someone's health business, which is against HIPAA law.

Also how would you know that someone is renting a room to someone, and isn't in a non-marriage relationship with them? Best friends who aren't life partners, or the lady down the street who lost her husband and downsized and sold her house, and is now renting a room at a neighbor's house...

Also what of friends who share a property, but aren't related, and share expenses and sleep in their own bedrooms.

The only thing you could really enforce, is if you catch the property being offered for rent on a website, or newspaper, or a sign on the window.

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

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by Karmanng

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".

[Shipping up to Boston]

Originally Posted by Karmanng

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

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

[mermaids]

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.

[rustyp]

Originally Posted by Keefelane66

It’s a poor decision for the CDD’s to accept. The Developer should clean up its mess and enforce the covenants in the real estate contract!

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.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Karmanng

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

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

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by rustyp

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.

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?

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

The covenant says that the Developer MAY enforce internal restrictions. It doesn't say that they WILL enforce them. It wasn't all that big a deal until the last decade or two, when the older generation of owners passed on, and children inherited the properties. Once that happened, they would move in - or rent - or sell - without concerning themselves with who the buyers were.

There was also a wave of new construction when people could buy the land for little to zero money, with the contract to build on it. They got the home cheap, and flipped it as an investment. That was before the Developers realized how much money people were making off these new homes and built a "no flipping for the first year" rule into the new contracts.

Now, it -seems- as though everyone and their brother is either in the process of buying and flipping, or bought because someone else bought and flipped. I know it's just a perception and hardly the reality, but that's what makes the news.

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).

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

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?

[Shipping up to Boston]

[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?

[Shipping up to Boston]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

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

Or the Morse family!