[Russ_Boston]

Originally Posted by MicheleE

Where are those 20%ers? I'm 52 and could use some friends closer to my age!

Right here. Wife is 53 - me 55. Been here for two years.

[Indydealmaker]

[quote=Lbmb24101;679856]

Originally Posted by billethkid

the age rule does not apply to resale or rental properties.....and that's the good news!!

The 55 age does NOT apply to REsales....that explains a lot
Thanks for clarifying that part.

The senior classification for The Villages DOES apply to resales. The federal rules apply to Occupants.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by Russ_Boston

Right here. Wife is 53 - me 55. Been here for two years.

Some younger villagers are afraid of spiders.

But they have older villagers to stomp on them and protect them.

We like you both to pieces.

[chuckinca]

Originally Posted by TraceyMooreRN

BRING THOSE 20 PERCENTERS ON....We could actually have our own club in the parade--TOO YOUNG FOR THE BABY BOOMERS CLUB

Could you see us? I mean--would everyone talk--or just a few that a community that they decided 55 and older meant one thing other than the law...

I believe the youngest Baby Boomers are now in their late 40's.

.

[Mack184]

I'm going to start this by saying that I believe in the freedom to associate. I do not believe that the government has a right to tell you who you have to rent to, eat with, live with or associate with. So places where you have to be 55 or 60 or 65 before you can live there are just fine with me.

In his book Leisureville, Blechman says that communities such as TV are "unnatural" because they do not encompass and/or embrace peoples of all ages. I do disagree, and of course people who are buying and living in TV obviously disagree.

However, how many people here who support the right to establish a community where only people of a certain age can live would be very upset if a community was established based on age that excluded blacks or Jews? I'm guessing most of those people would be adamant that such a community should not exist.

So why is it perfectly OK for age-exclusion communities to exist when race or gender-based exclusions would not be acceptable?

[Bogie Shooter]

Originally Posted by Mack184

I'm going to start this by saying that I believe in the freedom to associate. I do not believe that the government has a right to tell you who you have to rent to, eat with, live with or associate with. So places where you have to be 55 or 60 or 65 before you can live there are just fine with me.

In his book Leisureville, Blechman says that communities such as TV are "unnatural" because they do not encompass and/or embrace peoples of all ages. I do disagree, and of course people who are buying and living in TV obviously disagree.

However, how many people here who support the right to establish a community where only people of a certain age can live would be very upset if a community was established based on age that excluded blacks or Jews? I'm guessing most of those people would be adamant that such a community should not exist.

So why is it perfectly OK for age-exclusion communities to exist when race or gender-based exclusions would not be acceptable?

Age exclusion communities are not totally exclusive, are they?
BTW Mr. Blechman is not an authority on anything.......................

[rubicon]

I understand the 80/20 rule, etc. However I also understand and have before moving here that enforcing this rule was going to be practically impossible and that people are very creative when they have a mind to be.
I also understood that The Villages of Lake-Sumter, Inc. only motiviation was to sell houses.

[Peachie]

[QUOTE=Mack184;680282]I'm going to start this by saying that I believe in the freedom to associate. I do not believe that the government has a right to tell you who you have to rent to, eat with, live with or associate with. So places where you have to be 55 or 60 or 65 before you can live there are just fine with me.

In his book Leisureville, Blechman says that communities such as TV are "unnatural" because they do not encompass and/or embrace peoples of all ages. I do disagree, and of course people who are buying and living in TV obviously disagree.

However, how many people here who support the right to establish a community where only people of a certain age can live would be very upset if a community was established based on age that excluded blacks or Jews? I'm guessing most of those people would be adamant that such a community should not exist.


"So why is it perfectly OK for age-exclusion communities to exist when race or gender-based exclusions would not be acceptable?"



I think I can answer your question, Mack... Everyone is going to get old if they live long enough so it's not being exclusionary and they will be able to live here. Not everyone is going to be white, black, Jewish, male, female and so forth at some point in their lifetime. Probably the most exclusionary are the enclaves with restrictions as to whom can enter the areas in which they live. The Villages is open to the public.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by rubicon

I understand the 80/20 rule, etc. However I also understand and have before moving here that enforcing this rule was going to be practically impossible and that people are very creative when they have a mind to be.
I also understood that The Villages of Lake-Sumter, Inc. only motiviation was to sell houses.

The American way. They are in business to make money. We have enough entities that are losing money.

Good for them. Long live free enterprise.

None of us know the owners so none of us know what their total motivation really is.
They could be Attilla the Hun or Mother Teresa. Or just folks running a business really well. REALLY well.

[OnTrack]

Originally Posted by Mack184

However, how many people here who support the right to establish a community where only people of a certain age ca live would be very upset if a community was established based on age that excluded blacks or Jews? I'm guessing most of those people would be adamant that such a community should not exist.

I wish I could share your confidence, that "most" would be against it.

Especially when it comes to excluding blacks.

Alas, my personal interaction with many residents...indicates the exact opposite.

.

[janmcn]

Originally Posted by Mack184

I'm going to start this by saying that I believe in the freedom to associate. I do not believe that the government has a right to tell you who you have to rent to, eat with, live with or associate with. So places where you have to be 55 or 60 or 65 before you can live there are just fine with me.

In his book Leisureville, Blechman says that communities such as TV are "unnatural" because they do not encompass and/or embrace peoples of all ages. I do disagree, and of course people who are buying and living in TV obviously disagree.

However, how many people here who support the right to establish a community where only people of a certain age can live would be very upset if a community was established based on age that excluded blacks or Jews? I'm guessing most of those people would be adamant that such a community should not exist.

So why is it perfectly OK for age-exclusion communities to exist when race or gender-based exclusions would not be acceptable?

It is perfectly OK for age-exclusion communities to exist because it is the law. President Clinton signed the Housing for Older Persons Act in 1995.

Likewise, it is against the law to establish a community that excluded blacks or Jews because of the Fair Housing Act Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968.

We are a nation of laws and both of these laws must be respected and abided by.

[mrsanborn]

Originally Posted by TraceyMooreRN

I am 39, husband is 49--second home (new construction) bought this year-- First home also brand new purchased in 2007 ...do the math
Moved here fulltime June 2012--prior to that--used our villa as rental.

So, you think your young age will give you the advantage when Bunco becomes a contact sport! Well listen up sister, I just polished off my third bottle of Boost and will be ready.

[Mack184]

Originally Posted by janmcn

It is perfectly OK for age-exclusion communities to exist because it is the law. President Clinton signed the Housing for Older Persons Act in 1995.

Likewise, it is against the law to establish a community that excluded blacks or Jews because of the Fair Housing Act Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968.

We are a nation of laws and both of these laws must be respected and abided by.

Not talking about "the law". I'm talking about how people view this. Over time I've seen a number of comments in different threads as to why people are "entitled" to live here without being annoyed by young children. I agree. But why is that type of exclusion/discrimination palatable, when separation by race or gender or color of hair would be unpalatable?

[njbchbum]

Originally Posted by OnTrack

I wish I could share your confidence, that "most" would be against it.

Especially when it comes to excluding blacks.

Alas, my personal interaction with many residents...indicates the exact opposite.

.

may i suggest that you get out more and interact with a less exclusionary group of residents!?!

[Russ_Boston]

Originally Posted by njbchbum

may i suggest that you get out more and interact with a less exclusionary group of residents!?!

Ditto Ditto Ditto.

OnTrack: That might be the most racist comment I've ever seen on this forum. Speak for yourself not others -Thank you!