[eweissenbach]

We still occasionally go to open houses, out of curiosity and we just find it fun. Today we went to two open houses in Creekside Landing, partially because that is where we spent six days in 2010 on a Lifestyle Preview. They were both courtyard villas being offered for about $400k. My question is; how can these be sold as new homes? They have updated floors, decorating, and kitchen appliances, but the ones we looked at had washers and dryers, HVAC, and roofs from 2008. If I am not mistaken they have 30 year amortized bonds. Yet, The Villages residential sales department is advertising and marketing these homes as NEW. In my opinion that is false advertising as these homes have generally been rented for over a decade. Now I assume that most, if not all people who buy these know their history, but nonetheless I believe it is wrong. Your opinion?

[tophcfa]

They don't sound new to me. We have a friend who lives in Creekside landing and as far as I know nothing new has been built in there for many years. Creekside is a very nice place and is in a great location, but new homes, NOT.

[twoplanekid]

My opinion from one year ago about this issue -> Again, what is a new home?

[vintageogauge]

Same as buying a new car that was a "demonstrator" never titled.

[Bay Kid]

New, 11 years ago.

[Chi-Town]

You don't pay list for a demo.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[Boomer]

Originally Posted by eweissenbach

We still occasionally go to open houses, out of curiosity and we just find it fun. Today we went to two open houses in Creekside Landing, partially because that is where we spent six days in 2010 on a Lifestyle Preview. They were both courtyard villas being offered for about $400k. My question is; how can these be sold as new homes? They have updated floors, decorating, and kitchen appliances, but the ones we looked at had washers and dryers, HVAC, and roofs from 2008. If I am not mistaken they have 30 year amortized bonds. Yet, The Villages residential sales department is advertising and marketing these homes as NEW. In my opinion that is false advertising as these homes have generally been rented for over a decade. Now I assume that most, if not all people who buy these know their history, but nonetheless I believe it is wrong. Your opinion?

I have been reading your posts for years and find you to be credible and fair. Although you like TV, you speak up about things that others choose not to see — or try to spin. Thank you.

You asked for opinions. Here’s mine: I do not see how advertising those houses as “New” can be characterized as anything other than a bald-faced lie. (Or is it a bold-faced lie?) Whichever it is, it is an insult to the intelligence of potential buyers.

We have bought several houses over the years—only one in TV though. Mr. Boomer always looks at the electrical panel, along with all those other guts-of-the-house things.

If a potential buyer looks at the electrical panel in these “new” houses, they should see the date of the original inspection — I hope. (It is unlikely that the panel would have been replaced in a house just 10 years old so there the date of build should be.)

(And, btw, a Florida roof usually gets long-in-the-tooth years before a northern roof.)

The advertising should be changed to “recent updates.” How stupid do they think people are. (Rhetorical question — that is why I did not put a question mark at the end.) The false advertising makes the answer obvious.

[Fredster]

In my opinion they are used homes, because they were USED!

[CWGUY]

Originally Posted by eweissenbach

We still occasionally go to open houses, out of curiosity and we just find it fun. Today we went to two open houses in Creekside Landing, partially because that is where we spent six days in 2010 on a Lifestyle Preview. They were both courtyard villas being offered for about $400k. My question is; how can these be sold as new homes? They have updated floors, decorating, and kitchen appliances, but the ones we looked at had washers and dryers, HVAC, and roofs from 2008. If I am not mistaken they have 30 year amortized bonds. Yet, The Villages residential sales department is advertising and marketing these homes as NEW. In my opinion that is false advertising as these homes have generally been rented for over a decade. Now I assume that most, if not all people who buy these know their history, but nonetheless I believe it is wrong. Your opinion?

I think just recently I read a post from someone I think seems very wise....... Rule #2 It’s all small stuff!

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by Boomer

I have been reading your posts for years and find you to be credible and fair. Although you like TV, you speak up about things that others choose not to see — or try to spin. Thank you.

You asked for opinions. Here’s mine: I do not see how advertising those houses as “New” can be characterized as anything other than a bald-faced lie. (Or is it a bold-faced lie?) Whichever it is, it is an insult to the intelligence of potential buyers.

We have bought several houses over the years—only one in TV though. Mr. Boomer always looks at the electrical panel, along with all those other guts-of-the-house things.

If a potential buyer looks at the electrical panel in these “new” houses, they should see the date of the original inspection — I hope. (It is unlikely that the panel would have been replaced in a house just 10 years old so there the date of build should be.)

(And, btw, a Florida roof usually gets long-in-the-tooth years before a northern roof.)

The advertising should be changed to “recent updates.” How stupid do they think people are. (Rhetorical question — that is why I did not put a question mark at the end.) The false advertising makes the answer obvious.

As Ed said, most people know they aren't "new". I think" a bald face lie" is a little much though.

I don't think people try to "choose not to see" or "try to spin". I think most people just think these are homes used for lifestyle visits, for rentals, for quite some time but never SOLD to anyone.

No biggum dealum.

[Boomer]

Originally Posted by CWGUY

I think just recently I read a post from someone I think seems very wise....... Rule #2 It’s all small stuff!

Nope. Not always. Sometimes it’s a microcosm.

[retiredguy123]

Originally Posted by CWGUY

I think just recently I read a post from someone I think seems very wise....... Rule #2 It’s all small stuff!

It appears as though The Villages has only one house in Creekside Landing that is advertised as a new house, 1184 Atlas Drive. It is furnished and the photos look like everything is upgraded and look new on the inside. The Sumter County property website says that the house was built in 2009, so it is clearly not a new house. So, I think the "buyer beware" principle would apply, and I would hope that the selling agent would reveal to an uninformed buyer that the house was not recently constructed. So, I would agree that this is small stuff.

[eweissenbach]

I did not imply it was “big stuff”. I merely find it to be disingenuous, and kind of silly.

[tophcfa]

I think it is wrong that a home built in 2009 is advertised as new. On the other hand, anyone stupid enough to buy a home in Creekside Landing and actually believe it is new probably gets what they deserve.

[Velvet]

Perhaps what they mean by “new” is that the same sales conditions apply to this home as to the brand new homes; 10 year warranty, unpaid bond etc The term “demo home” might be a bit more descriptive .