Very true

A complaint needs to be filed. If one is unhappy with the airb in your area, file a complaint, only then can a deed restriction either be enforced or ignored by the powers that be. Other wise nobody is picking or choosing

The law is that <at least> 80% of homes must have <at least> 1 person aged 55 or older living in it.

The law does not prevent The Villages from making that a 100% rule instead of 80%, or requiring that ALL persons in the homes instead of at least one must be at least 55 years or older. We had to deal with this law when I was on the board of a condo association back north.

Because this is a 55+ community, it stands to reason that there will be some folks who require 24/7 home health care. Not all home health caregivers are relatives, some are hired employees. Some of them live in the patient's home. My parents have 24/7 home health care, with 2 people working 12 hour shifts 7 days a week. They have different people on weekends, otherwise it's the same two people monday through friday. Each of them has "residence" access because their job requires them to use their own cars to transport my parents in and out of the community for doctors' appointments, grocery shopping, dining out, everything else. And they have access to the pool, because my mom is still able to swim, and the aide needs to be permitted to sit there. Visitors have limited numbers of days per year they're allowed to enter the community - it is a true gated community.

All of these aides are under 40, and they are granted residence status. Even though it is an age-restricted community. They are not related to my parents in any way, shape, or form (though one of them has been calling them Mom and Dad since they met, it's adorable).

I did about two years ago, the complaint was acknowledged as legitimate and it was confirmed that two deed restrictions were being violated. However, lots of excuses then followed about the complexities and difficulties of enforcing internal deed restrictions and ultimately nothing was done. So yes, the powers that be absolutely do pick and choose which deed restrictions to enforce and which to ignore. Fortunately, the woman who was running the extremely disruptive Airbnb in our neighborhood moved away, much to the delight of everyone living in the vicinity.

Having seen and experienced first hand how much it sucks to live close to a poorly run Airbnb operation, I sincerely wish the deed restrictions violated would be strictly enforced and truly feel sorry for fellow Villagers that have the unfortunate luck of living close to one. That’s not what people signed up for when purchasing a home in a deed restricted community.

Now I gotta' find a gif of Tony's "heart" blinking "12:00"...

Did I say anything that implied the laws does that?

Oh they do it for sure, it's hysterical ! Some carry both cell phones AND a clip board they make notes on, then snap a picture. During the height of the Covid "pandemic", it was actually entertaining to watch the "watchmen" take pictures of what they considered inappropriate gatherings... meaning people NOT separated by 6 ft. What was so funny is, if such people were that concerned that their health would be impacted by people they didn't even know getting "too close" together....LOL... why were they out in carts and not in their homes ? ? People, it's just people, all of these types of things will always take place because...people are people and they come in all brands and varieties . Just sit back and enjoy the "show" !

Maybe that’s why they moved. Sometimes letters, instead of legal action is worth the wait. But one will truly never know why they sold, but filing the complaint may have eventually helped. Most don’t like the conflict and pressure from neighbors, so they either stop the Issue, or just move.

We looked at a 5 bed here, that was Airbnb, (didn’t know it until the showing) agent told us they were selling because of the harassment from neighbors, to them and their drop in renter’s. So if that was our plan, we might want to think twice.

Thank you for the clarification and the details. I assumed that there were some exceptions due to handicaps. And I assumed that it would be only a small % of the residents. I am glad that your parents are happy and getting good care while still living in their own home.

I still wonder why The Villages ownership decided to go with the 80% over 55 for residents instead of making it a HIGHER %. It seems to me that they have PLENTY of would-be buyers over 55 for ANY house to be sold here. I don't see any advantage to anyone for not maximizing the % of over 55 here ?

Covid WAS and still IS something that kills OLDER people. It would come under MY classification as Village problems greater than white crosses and dogs dumping on someone's perfect grass. What is serious and what can be ignored exists on a spectrum from like maybe..........murder.....drunk driving........Covid at the Delta-peak.......lots of things in the middle..........and then at the end.....the trivial ......like dog poo and white crosses.

Rules and enforcement need to be spelled out and who should enforce them? It seems, to me, like judging from the complaints and trolls, that Villages Land has loosely defined rules which give rise to the current "helter-skelter" approach - which allows vigilante groups to form and fill the vacuum.

Because 55+ communities are generally about 90% of the price of non-age restricted homes, to begin with.

Narrowing the age demographic even more, would only increase the price disparity between age-restricted housing and non-age restricted housing.

As to the 1st sentence.......I read that to mean that around the WHOLE US the selling price for equal houses that a retiree in a 55 plus would buy is 10% cheaper than that in an any age area. I am then thinking about all the differences between LOCATION like between upstate New York and The Villages. Then there is the size of the over-55 community where a small one golf course community would be worth less than one with as many as TV-Land. Then, differences of climate and state government and taxes. IMO those are too many variables to make a blanket statement like that 1st sentence. If I interpreted it wrong, I apologize in advance.

As to the 2nd sentence.....let's say it is GIVEN that it is true, Then I don't understand if that WOULD favor the SELLER / The Villages or favor the BUYER / new resident ?
........There is another confusing thing about that 1st part of the 2nd sentence. let us assume that the average in an over 55 community is SAY (?) age 70 and the average age in a non-age community.......the parents SAY (?) would be about age 35. So, you can't change the non-age community. So, you would HAVE to change the age-controlled community to say over age 45 in order to "NARROW the age demographic" as you quoted.
.......As I interpret that, it would make the 2 age groups more similar and would RAISE the cost of homes for the over-age 45 group - thus decreasing the price disparity between home costs for the 2 groups. Which is OPPOSITE to the conclusion of the 2nd sentence. I am sure that you seem to understand these home costs differences better than I do, but I am still confused despite trying hard to understand.

Maybe some instruction on how to fit the aluminum foil hat properly would be beneficial to some folks?

As others have stated, it's a good thing YOU don't set the rules...