[CaptainRickA]

Noticed in the Daily Sun today about two young men, one 22 and one 23, who were in an auto accident and each was listed in the article as "a resident of The Villages." One young man died in the accident and the other was charged with DUI. This is not the first time I've read of young residents in The Villages in the newspaper. I thought there was a minimum age requirement of 55, even for the children of residents.

[chuckinca]

I believe children of residents 19 and over are allowed.

.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by chuckinca

I believe children of residents 19 and over are allowed.

.

You used to figure the age of parents by adding 20-25 years to the age of the child. We are getting a lot of young frogs here it seems with some mighty young polywags.

[mulligan]

No, the minimum age is 19. At least one owner on the deed must be 55, but the village wide age is at least 80% over 55, so you will find the occasional "youngster".

[chuckinca]

I believe one owner has to be 55 or older to qualify the home as owned by 55 or older and count toward the 80% 55 or older. Both owners can be under 55 but the total of the under 55's can't exceed 20% of the total homes.

.

[Taltarzac725]

You really do not notice the under 55s here in the Villages unless they get arrested for something or other like DUIs, getting naked and throwing chairs into the Villages' swimming pool, drug use and/or sale, or some other such thing.

[ndrsn]

Maybe the 20 year olds are troubled grandkids that have come to live with grandparents??

[jane032657]

I believe that there is a percentage of people who can buy under 55 and neither has to be 55, and I think that may have something to do with a federal or state housing law. I actually thought I read that on a thread not too long ago. But there can be no one living with them under 19 on a full time basis.

[Posh 08]

"They" say 20% must be under 55, but nobody knows who is keeping track.

[asianthree]

I know of a few families who have young adults living with them. Between 20 and 30, who cause 0 problems for anyone. Just here to help parents. We only hear of the bad never the good

[Madelaine Amee]

Times have changed since TV was originally conceived as a retirement community. In those days people worked all their lives and retired at 65, sometimes at 62.

With the changes in the economy, companies closing their doors, people being unable to get another job, we are seeing more and more very young retirees selling their homes in lucrative areas of the North and moving full time to TV.

There is also a difference in working conditions, I have two adult children who work from their homes, in fact one just took a European vacation and continued to work from Europe! This makes it even easier for people to sell their homes up North, relocate to TV and continue to work from home.

As was mentioned by another poster - if you are in your late 40's/early 50s there is a good chance you have children in their 20s, and if they cannot support themselves, cannot find a decent well paying job, cannot afford decent housing, what do you do with them - you bring them with you! I am not necessarily in favor of this, but what else is one to do?

This is obviously just my personal take on what is happening in this changing world of ours.

[spk7951]

It may also be that they are renting here. I do not believe there is anything that can stop a property owner from renting to anyone over 19.

[Golfer in Sanibel]

There are homes off the North side of El Camino Real between Alhambra and the hospital which I was told were for employees of TV. I'm sure those have residents of this age, 22-23. The people who work in the infrastructure companies may live there.

[Skybo]

Originally Posted by Posh 08

"They" say 20% must be under 55, but nobody knows who is keeping track.

It’s not about the 20%, it’s about the 80%. The federal Housing for Older Persons Act (HOPA) requires that at least 80% of the homes be occupied by at least one person that is 55+. The developer can do whatever he wants about the other 20%. They could require 100% to be 55+ if they wanted. This doesn’t just apply to The Villages, it is for any 55+ community nationwide. My last community in another state was 55+ and they required that every home had at least one occupant that was 55+. I assure you that someone is keeping track of the percentages. They could lose their HOPA designation otherwise.

See page 2 of this link for the details:
http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/library/hopa_final.pdf

[eweissenbach]

Originally Posted by chuckinca

I believe one owner has to be 55 or older to qualify the home as owned by 55 or older and count toward the 80% 55 or older. Both owners can be under 55 but the total of the under 55's can't exceed 20% of the total homes.

.

Originally Posted by Posh 08

"They" say 20% must be under 55, but nobody knows who is keeping track.

Chuck's description of the law is correct. In order to qualify as an "age-restricted" community, AT LEAST 80% of homes must be owned by at least one resident OVER 55. No one under 19 may be a full-time resident, but anyone else may purchase a home as long as no more than 20% are 100% owned by persons under 55. My unscientific observation is that the 20% rule is in no danger of being approached. I did play golf a couple years ago with two men who looked to be in their early 40s or younger, and who each lived in Duval on the same street - both had jobs where they could work from their home and travel. They were bigtime golfers and that is what drew them to TV. The law has no minimum number UNDER 55, and 100% of residents COULD be over 55 and still qualify under the law. I would assume that somewhere in the Morse organization there is someone with a spreadsheet who keeps track of the age distribution and reports to the proper authorities.

EDIT; Skybo pressed the post button before me, thus rendering some of my post redundant.