[Normal]

Perhaps the best way to resolve the wear and tear of the Villages amenities is by issuing a new “Tenant Pass” to renters. Charge 25 dollars per month, per pass, whether it’s used for only one day or for the entire month. The extra revenue could be used to keep amenity fees buoyant at current rates for years to come.

It would be right on par with the identical cost of transferring an ID for two members (50 dollars anyway) and landlords wouldn’t be taking advantage of our amenities for their own gain.

It’s a win/win.

Ps. I like the color blue for the pass

[VAtoFLA]

I think we covered it in the other thread. It's not going to reduce the amenity fee which is tied to CPI. It will also have an insignificant impact on wear and tear.

Is your proposal that tenants self identify? An honor system?

You're trying to solve an imaginary problem.

[Velvet]

I like the idea. But not the honor system. We have to do better than that.

[Normal]

Originally Posted by Velvet

I like the idea. But not the honor system. We have to do better than that.

If a home is listed on the VERBO, Airbnb or Rent from a Villager. Then assume passes must be granted. If not, we all have the green pass we must show when confronted.

As far as defraying costs, money not used for defraying can be held for future use and accrued interest.

The idea of having a tenant pass is new to a large extent

[gobuck827]

Originally Posted by Normal

Ps. I like the color blue for the pass

Blue is already used for non-owner resident ID cards.

[VAtoFLA]

Originally Posted by Normal

If a home is listed on the VERBO, Airbnb or Rent from a Villager. Then assume passes must be granted. If not, we all have the green pass we must show when confronted.

So someone from The Villages will need to scour those sites and then match up pictures from listings to actual addresses and hope they get it all right? I don't think that's going to work. Full time residents would end up tagged in the system. You would presumably need someone to check every home listed everywhere at least once per month.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by VAtoFLA

So someone from The Villages will need to scour those sites and then match up pictures from listings to actual addresses and hope they get it all right? I don't think that's going to work. Full time residents would end up tagged in the system. You would presumably need someone to check every home listed everywhere at least once per month.

The better solution is to find a way to ban all STRs. 30-day minimum rental, and then who cares whether the owner or the renter is using the amenities. If Florida law prohibits such a restriction, then control it by not issuing guest passes to anyone not staying 30 days. Again, this is a 55+ retirement community. It is not a place where investors should be trying to rent anytime to anyone to make a buck.

[VAtoFLA]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

The better solution is to find a way to ban all STRs. 30-day minimum rental, and then who cares whether the owner or the renter is using the amenities. If Florida law prohibits such a restriction, then control it by not issuing guest passes to anyone not staying 30 days. Again, this is a 55+ retirement community. It is not a place where investors should be trying to rent anytime to anyone to make a buck.

That's the change that I think has the most support.

[Normal]

Originally Posted by VAtoFLA

That's the change that I think has the most support.

It certainly would be the easiest. It wouldn’t have to be a direct ban. Just add requirements and safety codes for the STR. Fire suppression sprinkler systems, hotel taxes and weekly inspections will all do the trick and they are completely legal.


Finally we all win with less exposure of our amenities to abuse.

[Nordhagen]

Originally Posted by Normal

It certainly would be the easiest. It wouldn’t have to be a direct ban. Just add requirements and safety codes for the STR. Fire suppression sprinkler systems, hotel taxes and weekly inspections will all do the trick and they are completely legal.


Finally we all win with less exposure of our amenities to abuse.

I’m not sure I understand this issue and concern at all. The amenity fee is paid monthly by the owner of the house whether it’s occupied or not. If the owner of the house was living in it, they would be taking advantage of the amenities that they are paying for. What’s the difference in usage?
The only issue I see with renters is that they should be required to be over 55. I don’t think that’s true currently.
This is a solution looking for a problem.

[Normal]

Originally Posted by Nordhagen

I’m not sure I understand this issue and concern at all. The amenity fee is paid monthly by the owner of the house whether it’s occupied or not. If the owner of the house was living in it, they would be taking advantage of the amenities that they are paying for. What’s the difference in usage?
The only issue I see with renters is that they should be required to be over 55. I don’t think that’s true currently.
This is a solution looking for a problem.

A resident ID permits an owner to use ALL amenities. That resident can also CONCURRENTLY have guest passes issued to the same resident address. That alone is one instance of additional use.

Another option may be rentals must transfer their full time resident IDs to their renters.

[ByebyeMichigan]

They bring in $12M/month in amenity fees already. So it’s plenty “ buoyant “…….

[Carlsondm]

It is not a win win for us. The popular services will be overloaded.

[DrMack]

Originally Posted by Normal

A resident ID permits an owner to use ALL amenities. That resident can also CONCURRENTLY have guest passes issued to the same resident address. That alone is one instance of additional use.

Another option may be rentals must transfer their full time resident IDs to their renters.

That’s sound reasoning and I would support the actual requirement to transfer resident passes if you rent your place out.

[bmcgowan13]

Originally Posted by Nordhagen

I’m not sure I understand this issue and concern at all. The amenity fee is paid monthly by the owner of the house whether it’s occupied or not. If the owner of the house was living in it, they would be taking advantage of the amenities that they are paying for. What’s the difference in usage?

That nicely sums up my position. The house across me has 3 people staying it in. SOMEONE is paying the amenity fee for that property. What difference does it make to me (the neighbor) if those 3 are the owners--or renters? or his next-door neighbor from NC who is. coming down to check us out?

Lots of homes are empty several months of the year--we do not offer a suspension of amenity fees to those people who do NOT use the amenities for the summer. Maybe that is why it balances out--

I can't imagine pitching my young kids/teens the idea of an exciting vacation in Florida--at the VIllages. Disney? Universal? The beach? Maybe. But do we really have that many people taking family vacations embedded in a retirement community?

IMHO-This seems like a solution in search of a problem.