[golfing eagles]

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.

So you think you have the right to turn a 55+ neighborhood into a revolving door short term rental for profit endeavor at the expense of neighbors who just want to quietly enjoy their retirement. So YES, I AM in favor of limiting that "property right".

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by BBBnWitty

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.

Which pool? Asking for a friend...

[SaucyJim]

Originally Posted by 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

How are landlords, who pay fees for services that go unused if their property is vacant, taking advantage of anything?

I look forward to your logical justification here.

[SaucyJim]

Originally Posted by Normal

No, many can simultaneously use the same address. The “landlord” can keep their permanent ID and just get visitor passes for their customers.

This may be true, but it is a violation. Renters are not landlord guests. When we rented our snowbird villa the one summer we left before returning full time, we transferred our passes and paid state taxes on the revenue.

[SaucyJim]

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.

When I rented, my resident pass was still in my possession, but it was deactivated until the date I set up when my renters departed. So if they scanned the pass, there would be no “Yay!” Coming from the scanner.

Now, could I cheat and let them stay past that date so my pass would become active? Sure! But then my tenants passes would be deactivated.

The only abuse here is if I say my renters are my guests. And that would be a problem with being a cheat. But that’s not a problem with the system.

I don’t think guest passes can be issued, again and again, for the same people, right? And those passes have a short life-span, right? And, unlike pass transfers which can be executed remotely, an owner has to be present for guest pass issuance, right?

Am I right? Maybe I’m wrong? Just don’t ask my first two wives, ‘cause I already know their answer.

[SaucyJim]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

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.

That’s not they said. The current rules were acknowledged and they adhere to them. It the proposed changes to the rules previously agreed to that is the restricting of rights.

Read it again. Your reply is to something that does not exist in the post.

[SaucyJim]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

So you think you have the right to turn a 55+ neighborhood into a revolving door short term rental for profit endeavor at the expense of neighbors who just want to quietly enjoy their retirement. So YES, I AM in favor of limiting that "property right".

Nice job only quoting part of what was said. Make genuine arguments. Disingenuous arguments are for politicians.

[Normal]

Jim, you are conflating all the information.

We are talking about STRs. A landlord can get guest passes easily for his customers/guests directly on line. They do no relinquish their residence pass. We aren’t talking about continuing same customers. The pools, golf courses, pickle ball courts etc are visited more frequently by the new renters who want to try everything out, or want to enjoy what they don’t have at home.

There is nothing wrong with charging landlords for the excessive use of amenities we all pay for and there is nothing wrong with issuing a different color pass. If someone wants to market their STR with all these great amenities included, then they can pay for that line too.

The simple and correct procedure would eliminate all loopholes. Go to an ID center, turn in your residence pass and activate new residence passes for renters for the same premises address. Case closed.

If you want customers to enjoy amenities as guests, just pay for a guest pass and still collect your income from the use of the amenities.

[ElDiabloJoe]

Originally Posted by SaucyJim

Nice job only quoting part of what was said. Make genuine arguments. Disingenuous arguments are for politicians.

and defense attorneys. Never understood why the plural shouldn't be attornies.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

Which pool? Asking for a friend...

Is his last name Epstein?

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

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.

Depends on what you consider to be "significant." If you mean statistically significant, yes, it is in my area.
If you mean "enough that it's noticeable by the average passerby" then yes, it's noticeable.

We've had homes be split into single-family Plus in-law apartments, with private entries for the in-law apartment. ALL free-standing homes (as opposed to townhouses and apartment buildings/condos) in this community are supposed to be single-family homes, exclusively. And yet we have seen a tenant with a family of four, plus their very young children (like, under 7) staying for a couple of months, while another person is living in the "in-law" apartment that isn't legally allowed to exist.

They ALL have passes to use the amenities, while the homeowner doesn't live in The Villages, but retain their own Villages ID and uses it to access all the amenities.

We have another rental that sees different families every month, some with young kids and younger teenagers. And because the homeowner is only letting them stay for 30 days, they're able to get around the "no one under 19 can stay for more than 30 days" rule. It's a revolving door of random folks, and so we often see young teens wandering around the golf course after hours or zipping little electric skateboard thingies around the neighborhood, scaring other residents, especially the ones trying to walk their little dogs.

[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.

Originally Posted by BrianL99

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.

Originally Posted by SaucyJim

That’s not they said. The current rules were acknowledged and they adhere to them. It the proposed changes to the rules previously agreed to that is the restricting of rights.

Read it again. Your reply is to something that does not exist in the post.

I don't have to read it again, I understand what he said, but I've quoted it here, so you read it again.

When you buy in TV, you agree to the "Rules and Restrictions", one of which is ... the Developer/District gets to change them and/or has discretion as to which owns they chose to enforce or ignore. Read your Deed and Covenants again.

[DarrenandKathy]

I already pay for my clients or guests as I have never missed an amenity fee.
It doesn’t stop when I’m not there.

[Normal]

Originally Posted by DarrenandKathy

I already pay for my clients or guests as I have never missed an amenity fee.

There is quite a difference between someone with expectations for use in what they pay for continuing week in and week out. While a friend, relative or guest visits a total of maybe 2 weeks out of the entire year. Another option may be no guest passes for renters?

I pay school taxes but I don’t expect to ever get what I pay for there either.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by SaucyJim

Nice job only quoting part of what was said. Make genuine arguments. Disingenuous arguments are for politicians.

Thank you