[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by DarrenandKathy

But renters have a much right to the amenities as anyone.
Landlords pay their fees and only one group at a time of renters have access to the facilities at a time so I’m not sure what additional wear and tear they would be responsible for.
If anything unless fully booked which certainly isn’t the case lately there would be less use by properties owned by landlords then full time residents.

Originally Posted by Normal

Incorrect. A landlord still has their Full Time Residence pass. The best fix is to just have the landlord pay the transfer fees of their residence pass to correctly assign a “tenant” the privileges for living in the house. It should be done each and every change of any tenant. Duplicity and cheating should be removed from the system both completely and correctly.

Which part is incorrect?
- Renters have as much rights to the amenities? That is true
- Landlords pay their fees? That is true
- Only one group of renters have access to the amenities at a time? That is true
- No additional wear and tear on the amenities? That is true, a resident, guest, or renter all look the same to the carpet and roof.
- A partially booked rental will use fewer amenities than a full-time resident? Arguable since not all full-time usage is the same.

A landlord may or may not retain their resident ID. If they are not present then they aren't using the amenities and the argument above is correct. If they are present in the home then there is little difference from me having friends come to visit. If they are present because they own two homes then they aren't utilizing the amenities from the rented home and the above is again correct.

[Normal]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Which part is incorrect?
- Renters have as much rights to the amenities? That is true
- Landlords pay their fees? That is true
- Only one group of renters have access to the amenities at a time? That is true
- No additional wear and tear on the amenities? That is true, a resident, guest, or renter all look the same to the carpet and roof.
- A partially booked rental will use fewer amenities than a full-time resident? Arguable since not all full-time usage is the same.

A landlord may or may not retain their resident ID. If they are not present then they aren't using the amenities and the argument above is correct. If they are present in the home then there is little difference from me having friends come to visit. If they are present because they own two homes then they aren't utilizing the amenities from the rented home and the above is again correct.

Why not just transfer a resident pass? It is the correct thing to do. Should landlords have a shortcut to increase their rental popularity? It certainly would help amenities.

Wouldn’t a landlord have an advantage otherwise? Of course, they have their cake and can eat it too too all of our expense? What’s $50? Answer…it pads the amenity fund.

Couldn’t more than one group be using amenities assigned to the same address? Absolutely. A landlord can conveniently get guest passes for someone using their home and enjoy a round of golf on the same day.

The current system is absurd. A land lord can just get guest passes and keep their resident card. The best solution is to just transfer their rights and privileges. Why should a landlord keep their privileges and also rent them out?

[defrey12]

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.

So, you're in favor of limiting property rights of individuals? It's MY property and I will do as I please...within the confines of the current rules.. That is, until your ilk attempts to squash my rights. Then I will be at the front of the line to preserve those rights.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by Normal

Why not just transfer a resident pass? It is the correct thing to do. Should landlords have a shortcut to increase their rental popularity? It certainly would help amenities.

Wouldn’t a landlord have an advantage otherwise? Of course, they have their cake and can eat it too too all of our expense? What’s $50? Answer…it pads the amenity fund.

Couldn’t more than one group be using amenities assigned to the same address? Absolutely. A landlord can conveniently get guest passes for someone using their home and enjoy a round of golf on the same day.

The current system is absurd. A land lord can just get guest passes and keep their resident card. The best solution is to just transfer their rights and privileges. Why should a landlord keep their privileges and also rent them out?

So there is nothing incorrect about the previous post?

The $50 does not go to the amenity fund. The amenity fund does not need the $50. An additional $50 would not change our amenity fee.

No shortcut at all. No special privileges for landlords, exactly the same privileges you and I enjoy.

I get guess passes for my guests and use my ID while they are here, that’s the way it is supposed to work. If a landlord is renting then he isn’t here to use his ID. If he *is* here then either he isn’t in the home too (just like when my guests visit) or he has a second Villages home and is eligible for an ID with that home. Nothing at all absurd about it.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

There is a problem, that isn't mentioned here, but is definitely a problem.

There are property owners who have their own permanent resident Villages ID cards. But they don't actually live in those houses, and don't even live in The Villages anymore. Maybe they live in Water Oak, or Stonecrest, or Leesburg Landing, or any of the other, less expensive communities in the vicinity. But they keep their Villages ID and gate card and mailbox. Then they rent out their Villages home, and get their tenants GUEST passes. Those guests now can get guest passes for their own guests. What they can do with these passes is more limited than a temporary resident ID but...

You get the two homeowners who don't live in The Villages anymore, using the amenities they're paying for.

You also get three short-term (30 day) tenants, who aren't paying for those amenities.
You also get three guests of those short-term tenants, who are also not paying for those amenities.

So now you're looking at 8 people using amenities that only two people are paying for.

There are also homeowners who relinquish their ID so their tenant can have a temporary resident ID, and that tenant then gets guest passes for several people, without the homeowner even necessarily knowing that their tenant is hosting other people in the landlord's house

My solution to this: renters of any kind, whether short or long term, guest ID or temporary resident ID, should not be allowed to get any further guest passes. Or perhaps they can be allowed only one pair of weekend guest passes during the term of their tenancy. And - subleasing should be against the rules, full stop. If you're a tenant, you can't rent another bedroom in your landlord's house.

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by defrey12

So, you're in favor of limiting property rights of individuals? It's MY property and I will do as I please...within the confines of the current rules.. That is, until your ilk attempts to squash my rights. Then I will be at the front of the line to preserve those rights.

Unfortunately, that's not how it works.

Your "property rights" are subject to and limited by, the "rights" you were deeded when you bought your property. The Developer never sold (to anyone to anyone in TV), absolute, unlimited rights.

Those "rights" are not absolute. They're subject to restrictions and covenants of record, as well as zoning restrictions. What folks seem to forget, is not only can zoning regulations change, but the Deed Restrictions and Covenants give the Developer and District the right to make new rules and restrictions. About the only limit to those rights, is they have to apply equally to everyone in the class.

Mosts every property owner on earth is in favor of "limiting property rights", as long as the "limiting" doesn't apply to themselves.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

There is a problem, that isn't mentioned here, but is definitely a problem.

There are property owners who have their own permanent resident Villages ID cards. But they don't actually live in those houses, and don't even live in The Villages anymore. Maybe they live in Water Oak, or Stonecrest, or Leesburg Landing, or any of the other, less expensive communities in the vicinity. But they keep their Villages ID and gate card and mailbox. Then they rent out their Villages home, and get their tenants GUEST passes. Those guests now can get guest passes for their own guests. What they can do with these passes is more limited than a temporary resident ID but...

You get the two homeowners who don't live in The Villages anymore, using the amenities they're paying for.

You also get three short-term (30 day) tenants, who aren't paying for those amenities.
You also get three guests of those short-term tenants, who are also not paying for those amenities.

So now you're looking at 8 people using amenities that only two people are paying for.

There are also homeowners who relinquish their ID so their tenant can have a temporary resident ID, and that tenant then gets guest passes for several people, without the homeowner even necessarily knowing that their tenant is hosting other people in the landlord's house

My solution to this: renters of any kind, whether short or long term, guest ID or temporary resident ID, should not be allowed to get any further guest passes. Or perhaps they can be allowed only one pair of weekend guest passes during the term of their tenancy. And - subleasing should be against the rules, full stop. If you're a tenant, you can't rent another bedroom in your landlord's house.

Is this a significant problem? Not that it doesn't happen, but are there more than a handful of local owners doing this? If so then sure, it's something to be fixed.

Six people in one home is a tight fit. There might be some homes that will support that but mine certainly wouldn't (tried it during a hurricane one year).

I wouldn't agree with limiting the guest passes available to certain types of IDs.

Subleasing? I could imagine the owner restricting that in the lease or a management company only accepting a lease from an original owner.

[TVTVTV]

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.

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

I think the best idea is to allow rentals of one month minimum...filters out a lot of vacationers and why we hoped to retire to a relatively quiet area.

[G.R.I.T.S.]

So, if the rentals were instead occupied by the homeowners, there would be less “wear and tear?” Absent snow birds during the summer months already reduce wear and tear. Not a viable alternative.

[Normal]

Originally Posted by G.R.I.T.S.

So, if the rentals were instead occupied by the homeowners, there would be less “wear and tear?” Absent snow birds during the summer months already reduce wear and tear. Not a viable alternative.

Exactly. There wouldn’t be a resident and tenants. There would either be residents OR tenants. And don’t forget the curiosity use, or the week in Florida to vacation groups. Both would frequent what they don’t have at home as an additional luxury .

[BillyGrown]

We just don’t care for how packed the golf courses can get. We have a hard time in the winter getting onto many of the fairways we enjoy.

[BBBnWitty]

Originally Posted by DarrenandKathy

But renters have a much right to the amenities as anyone.
Landlords pay their fees and only one group at a time of renters have access to the facilities at a time so I’m not sure what additional wear and tear they would be responsible for.
If anything unless fully booked which certainly isn’t the case lately there would be less use by properties owned by landlords then full time residents.

I have personally observed on MANY occasions people obviously under the age of 55 abusing amenities. I've seen children under the age of 13 (I've asked their age) using indoor rec center equipment incorrectly. I've seen children under the age of 10 causing damage to the outdoor exercise equipment. I've seen teenagers, obviously under the age of 30 in adult pools, on two occasions wearing thongs. I've seen children under the age of 10 damaging outdoor shuffleboard and bocce equipment by being overly aggressive and not using the equipment properly. I've seen tennis and pickleball equipment being used incorrectly by kids. And I've seen kids obviously not yet teens driving golf carts. I do not know if these people are renters, guests or locals using our amenities, but I wish they would pay something extra to cover the cost of repairs. If the owners who invite these folks to our villages would make sure their guests and renters obeyed the rules, this would be an even happier place to live for many of us who signed contracts saying we agreed to obey the rules. I have not observed people aged 55+ that I personally know to be owners, abusing any of our amenities.

[zuidemab]

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 is not correct. The owners ID isn’t valid when an alternate (renter) ID is issued.

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by zuidemab

That is not correct. The owners ID isn’t valid when an alternate (renter) ID is issued.

Just curious, but has anyone ever seen someone with an invalid ID, tossed out of a golf course, Rec Center, pool, or dog park?

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by asianthree

Couldn’t a 30 day pass be issued for a 3 day rental? Then tossed.
Is there a limit on how many guest passes are issued per household, per week, month, year?

Then a 30 day pass wouldn’t stop STR.

Even the one area in TV that residents signed a “NO Rental Agreement” clause at closing has some rentals available.

It wouldn't be a "30 day pass". It would be that NO PASS would be issued to anyone staying less than 30 days.