Originally Posted by Cybersprings (Post 2257070)

And again, that person took events that occurred across who knows how long and many different renters and described it as her every day life. Much of what she describes I don't want happening to me at all, some of it would not bother me at all, some of it is in no way limited to renters.

But just be honest. Describe things that occur to you and provide actual frequency to it, e.g. "just over the last year, this is what I have had to deal with (or whatever time period those events have occurred). If the problems are that bad, no exaggeration or hyperbole is required to make the problems felt. If you have to exaggerate them exponentially, then maybe the problem isn't that bad. My take is the problem is very bad for her, just be honest in what you relate.

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 2257095)

You really think that?????:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

Try running hair salon from your home.

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 2257090)

I thought it was pretty clear that her posts did not represent an average day for anyone with a STR nearby.

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 2257090)

But as a collage of snippets, I think it did convey the message about pitfalls of STRs. My only point is that the identity of TV is an active 55+ retirement community. Most of us expected that and bought into it. Yes, change happens, but a wholesale transformation into a motel shantytown is contrary to the expectation of most. And it is completely unnecessary. History tells us that the developer has no trouble selling homes as quickly as he can build them, even without a single sale to "investors". Hopefully "the family" has the wisdom to realize that.

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 2257090)

And there ARE things that can be done to halt this trend in its tracks. There are 2 posters on these threads that would have us believe that STRs are just fine, they pose no problems, and there is nothing that can be done. WRONG.

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 2257090)

It has been done other places.
One of these 2 posters claimed that Orlando did not or could not require the property owner to be present and could rent out their entire property. WRONG.
...

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 2257090)

I thought it was pretty clear that her posts did not represent an average day for anyone with a STR nearby. But as a collage of snippets, I think it did convey the message about pitfalls of STRs. My only point is that the identity of TV is an active 55+ retirement community. Most of us expected that and bought into it. Yes, change happens, but a wholesale transformation into a motel shantytown is contrary to the expectation of most. And it is completely unnecessary. History tells us that the developer has no trouble selling homes as quickly as he can build them, even without a single sale to "investors". Hopefully "the family" has the wisdom to realize that.

...

Originally Posted by Cybersprings (Post 2257111)

I agree that your opinion is just as valid as mine, but I disagree with your opinion 100%.


I think that a wholesale transformation into a motel shantytown is contrary to the expectation of all. Where the disagreement comes is if that is what is ocurring. The problem is small (NOT THE EFFECTS ON THE PEOPLE WHO FEEL THEM!] It has the potential for growing large as you state with hyperbole (shantytown? Really????) , and efforts to prevent that should be taken.

Please provide post numbers on this thread or the other where anyone has stated or implied that they are just fine, that they pose no problems, and there is nothing that can be done. You won't find a single one.
You will find posts that attempt to refute the frequency of the issues, that relay personal experiences that have not been negative, that disagree with the methods that people want to use to address the problem. Why is it necessary to attribute positions to people that they have in no way conveyed just because they have not jumped on your bandwagon? Here is a recommendation. If you think someone on this thread has that position, ask them. Do you support STRs? Do you think there are no problems with STRs? Do you think nothing can be done about STRs? Stop saying that they have a position that they have clearly not stated! I have never commented on how things could be done. So I will assume that I know whom you are talking about on that (even though you attributed that both people). In that person's most recent post on the other thread, they listed several things that have been offered that they felt would not work and why. They offered the suggestion they thought WOULD work. You and everyone else has the right to disagree with their opinions. But stop saying they or anyone else has said nothing can be done. THAT is a lie.
That statement is a lie. The person claimed that Orlando previously forbade STRs and was grandfathered under the state law which says they cannot be forbidden. They CORRECTLY asserted that the new regulations in Orlando were actually a relaxation of rules against STRs, not an increase. They stated that certain bodies in the villages do not have the authority to enact similar rules because it is outside the scope of their authority. They stated that other bodies in the villages do have the authority but posited that they do not have the motivation or the will. I guess I could be wrong on your lie, but please provide the number of the post that supports your statement.

Two people on this thread have not 100% supported the statements by you and the others. They have corrected the inaccuracies and offered differing opinions on the success of certain methods.

An intelligent person would thank these two for helping to sharpen and refine your statements and methods. IF (proverbial) you would listen to them, as you move forward in efforts to fix the problem, you would take the avenues with the most likely chance of success, and you would be putting forth arguments that do not contain lies, mistatements, or exaggerations.

Originally Posted by Randall55 (Post 2257105)

/// Ten rentals on her street. If 2 people stay in each home, 20 transient people. Do you believe at least one or two is capable of doing the things she stated? What if there are 20 different transients the next week, then the next? You don't see that there could be problems?

I am guessing that each villa has 3 bedrooms. What if there are 4 people staying in the rental or 6? This would result in blocked driveways and streets as she stated. And, lots of trash left out when it is not collection day.

Have you had a newcomer in your neighborhood? Do they ask you for information, directions or recommendations? Do they ask to borrow something? Are they trying to be friendly? Not so bad if it is one newcomer, but over, over, and over again?

Problem with shouting, yelling, children screaming, I can see it! Vacationers tend to be loud. I can also see many drunks who just came back from the square. P#ssing on her lawn, howling at the moon, arguing getting it on,...Yeah! I can see that too! I see crazy and inappropriate things happening in the squares frequently. And, I read about the worst in the news. Why do you believe she is exaggerating?

I believe the owner(s) of the rental(s) have no desire to resolve the issues. He/she got their rent money. Done deal! Do you think they are going to try and stop any of these issues? No! The renter would demand his money back! Some of the owners live out of state or it is corporate owned. How is she supposed to get them to check out their rentals?

Tell me, how many days could you handle of this? 1, 5, 10? You stated some of the things wouldn't bother you. Which ones? You are ignoring how many renters she can see in one month, let alone in one year.

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 2257090)

... There are 2 posters on these threads that would have us believe that STRs are just fine, they pose no problems, and there is nothing that can be done. WRONG. ...

Originally Posted by Randall55 (Post 2257105)

Ten rentals on her street. If 2 people stay in each home, 20 transient people. Do you believe at least one or two is capable of doing the things she stated? What if there are 20 different transients the next week, then the next? You don't see that there could be problems?

Originally Posted by Randall55 (Post 2257105)

I see crazy and inappropriate things happening in the squares frequently. And, I read about the worst in the news.

Originally Posted by Randall55 (Post 2257105)

Why do you believe she is exaggerating?

Originally Posted by Randall55 (Post 2257105)

I believe the owner(s) of the rental(s) have no desire to resolve the issues. He/she got their rent money. Done deal! Do you think they are going to try and stop any of these issues? No! The renter would demand his money back! Some of the owners live out of state or it is corporate owned. How is she supposed to get them to check out their rentals?

Tell me, how many days could you handle of this? 1, 5, 10? You stated some of the things wouldn't bother you. Which ones? You are ignoring how many renters she can see in one month, let alone in one year.

Originally Posted by Two Bills (Post 2257119)

No one gives a **** about complaints on TOTV. but get prospective buyers asking questions, and maybe someone will listen.

Originally Posted by Bill14564 (Post 2257138)

Just in case my remarks resemble one of those two posters....

I have little feelings for or against rentals of one day, one week, one month, one quarter, or one year. They are all the same to me. My concern, as I put into post #122 somewhere, is having government take away even more of my rights/freedoms/ability to do what I want. Whether it's the height of a flagpole, the color of a driveway, or the number of visitors I have in my home, I don't want the government interference. I agreed to some restrictions when I moved to Florida and more when I moved to the Villages but that's enough, no more.

Different complaints on here about STRs involve dogs, trash, kids, noise, and general existence. With the exception of general existence, where a resident wants to have the street to themselves and not be bothered by other people, none of those problems should have to be accepted. But at the same time, none of those problems are unique to renters (short term or long).

We don't have a law against loud music after 10PM when coming from a rental house, we have a law against loud music after 10PM. Similarly, we don't have the right to stop our neighbor from playing loud music at 3PM if he is a permanent resident and we don't have that right for rentals either. If a neighbor is violating an ordinance, inform the proper authorities, renter or not. We already have (too many) laws, use them.

If you want to change the laws regarding rentals, learn what can and cannot be done and how to do it. Demanding that the CDDs create a law to set a minimum duration for a rental is ridiculous. Ignoring the existing Florida law shows a lack of seriousness. Suggesting that guest passes only be given out to those staying more than 30 days is foolish. Implying that every STR is a problem and every Villager is suffering because of STRs is such an overly broad generalization that the rest of the statements can't be taken seriously. Take the time to learn what is possible and what has failed in the past - it will save a lot of time and frustration.

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 2257144)

You're 100% correct, except........

Who is MORE LIKELY to be playing loud music or having a drunken party after 10PM, or any of the other complaints----your neighbor of the last 10 years or a renter staying 3 days?????

It is not a level playing field. Yes, a long term resident or renter can pose the same problems as a STR, BUT IT IS FAR LESS LIKELY. (and yes, I can already see one contrarian getting ready to ask for the statistics on that assertion, but I think we all intuitively know it to be true). I don't care for government intervention or restrictions either, but some of these "freedoms" are what we give up by agreeing to move into a DEED RESTRICTED COMMUNITY. Compared to some other deed restricted communities, some owners here are getting away with murder. (No, I don't have statistics on that either, but to call it "a lie" is way over the line)

Now, I couldn't care less if someone (not you) wants to parse words about whether Orlando's STR restriction are more or less restrictive than whatever was in place prior, nor could I care less whether Clearwater's laws were "grandfathered" in. Bottom line, if we adopted Orlando's CURRENT STR restrictions, it would probably end the STR problem here. And no one should claim it CAN'T be done, since they already did it.

Originally Posted by Bill14564 (Post 2257148)

I would say it is just as likely that a particular renter would be playing loud music. But to your point, the more times you roll the dice the better your chances of rolling a seven.

I acknowledged that I accepted the restrictions that came with the Villages. There is no question that there is a section in the document that allows for amendments. Things can change, the restrictions can change, but that doesn't mean I have to like it or support it.

Yep, things can change and STRs can be affected. But can we at least stay on the path of realistic possibilities and not stray into the "if I were god and the state of Florida didn't already have these laws on the books" kind of arguments?

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 2257123)

You are joking, right?

I mean you have to be kidding. You don't think those 2 posters are defending STR aggressively???? Get real.

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 2257149)

So how did Orlando "circumvent" Florida laws already on the books and implement the STR restrictions that I already posted????

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 2257149)

So how did Orlando "circumvent" Florida laws already on the books and implement the STR restrictions that I already posted????

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 2257123)

You are joking, right?

I mean you have to be kidding. You don't think those 2 posters are defending STR aggressively???? Get real.

Originally Posted by Cybersprings (Post 2257151)

I am not joking. I am not kidding.
If I am one of the 2, then I know that you are 100% wrong and that you have not bothered to read my posts with the intent to understand what I was saying.
If one of the 2 is Bill14xx, then I know that you are 100% wrong because I actually took the time to read his posts, not make up positions for him.
If one of the 2 is Brian..., then I don't know what his real feelings or motivations are because he hasn't expressed them, but I do know that you are 100% wrong on what his posts have actually stated and not what you and others keeping making up and attributing to posters.

So who is left?
I have asked, who do you think supports STRs. You (I think) responded that that violates the rules because we are not to address posters directly. I think that is an absolute copout. Well over half of the post direct their point directly to someone or about someone. Merely stating that I think these 2 posters have agressively defended STRs is not a violation, or not even close to other posts as far as violation. The problem with doing that though is that you know their is ZERO basis for the position, IF YOU READ WHAT THE PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY WRITING.
I think this is the fourth time or fifth time I will ask.
PLEASE PROVIDE THE POST NUMBER OF THE POST IN THIS THREAD OR THE OTHER WHERE SOMEONE SAID THEY WERE IN SUPPORT OF STRS OR DEFENDING THEM.
There are over 500 posts between the 2 threads and has been correctly stated, the vast majority of people posting are against STRs. Sure one of you can find one post that actually defends STRs or supports STRs.

Originally Posted by Cybersprings (Post 2257156)

I know I am going to get blasted by MM for commenting on Orlando, if she hasn't already blocked me, but...

AS STATED IN COPIOUS POSTS and one directly in response to you, Orlando previously PROHIBITED STRs and was grandfathered when the state law was passed. The rules put in by Orlando were actually lessening restricions on STRs and were therefore allowed under FL law.

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 2257163)

Are you saying that THE ONLY REASON that Orlando's STR restrictions are permitted under Florida law is because their previous restrictions were more restrictive????? I'm pretty sure the law does not work that way. (The DA won't prosecute me for stealing $5,000 from a liquor store because the last time I stole $10,000?)

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 2257163)

I have to believe that the Orlando restrictions on STRs stand on their own as legal, and therefore could be adopted elsewhere.

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 2257160)

First of all, you are not one of the two

Second, IF you read all the posts, there is no way on God's green Earth that you could possibly walk away with the take home message that those posts were anything other than supporting STRs. It is so incredibly obvious to not only me that others have suggested that these two are STR owners. What are you missing?????

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 2257144)

You're 100% correct, except........

...

Now, I couldn't care less if someone (not you) wants to parse words about whether Orlando's STR restriction are more or less restrictive than whatever was in place prior, nor could I care less whether Clearwater's laws were "grandfathered" in. Bottom line, if we adopted Orlando's CURRENT STR restrictions, it would probably end the STR problem here. And no one should claim it CAN'T be done, since they already did it.

Originally Posted by Cybersprings (Post 2257185)

I was saying that. but actually I was stealing from someone else's post. And i could be wrong. But that is one of the most ridulous comparisons I have ever read on TOTV.
The reasonable comparison for your example would be that there is a local law against stealing more than $5,000 from a liquor store.
The state then passes a law stating that no locality can make any new laws about stealing from a liquor store. But localities that already have restrictions are grandfathered.
Then the locality modifies their law to state that you can't steal more than $10,000 from liquor stores. That law is ok even though it is a new law because it is not as strict as the previous law that was grandfathered. That is EXACTLY how the law works, except your example is ludicrous.
I really, really don't know why that is such a hard concept to grasp for someone who wrote most of the medical procedures we undergo and most of the papers that we read about medicine on line.



That is completely different point. You may be 100% right.

Originally Posted by DrMack (Post 2256329)

We are purchasing in Dabney and are very excited! There is a major concern though. I have read some threads here and we know we don’t want VRBOs or short term rentals near us. Are there any places that guarantee this in the villages? We would like to take care of our new home and don’t necessarily want to to step into that kind of a mess. Any help would be appreciated.

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 2257204)

Believe me, I get it. But MOST?????? Who stated that?????? And you're the one who criticizes other for making up statements from posts. MOST????? Maybe 1/10,000 of 1 percent, if that.

Originally Posted by Cybersprings (Post 2257233)

Valid point. Those were NOT the word you used. Guilty. But I think (without finding the post) that you stated odds are if you are googling something, my research is what you will quote and if you go into the doctor, odds are the procedures they follow will be one I developed.
I am not sure how many you would have to have published or procedures developed that would make the odds such that those things occur. But my guess would be somewhere far higher than 1/10,000 of 1 percent. All my rambing aside, while I didn't actually attribute that statement to you, there was enough of a sarcastic insinuation to take that from what I said.
So. Good Catch. Valid Point. I am guilty. Thanks for pointing that out. Sorry for doing that.

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 2257241)

Nope, you're still doing it----ODDS ARE??????? Didn't post that either.

Here is the excerpt from the post you are bastardizing: (post #31 from the Epley maneuver thread if you want to fact check):

....As far as "having a degree and being retired" goes, I think my career is a bit more than that. For all anyone knows, when they play Dr. Google they may be quoting me from the content that I myself have written. When they need inpatient medical care, they may be receiving treatment under protocols that I have written.

In the English language I learned, there are light years in distance between "odds are" and "may be" Please don't try to make me look like something I'm not.

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 2257241)

Nope, you're still doing it----ODDS ARE??????? Didn't post that either.

Here is the excerpt from the post you are bastardizing: (post #31 from the Epley maneuver thread if you want to fact check):

....As far as "having a degree and being retired" goes, I think my career is a bit more than that. For all anyone knows, when they play Dr. Google they may be quoting me from the content that I myself have written. When they need inpatient medical care, they may be receiving treatment under protocols that I have written.

In the English language I learned, there are light years in distance between "odds are" and "may be" Please don't try to make me look like something I'm not.

Originally Posted by Cybersprings (Post 2257268)

Nope. Wasn't still doing it. I admitted I didn't look up your post, and stated what I thought you had said. You are correct in that I got it wrong.
Apologies again for getting it wrong.

I will search through your posts though and see if I can find where you admit that you attributed to someone a position or statement they didn't make. I might be looking for a long LONG time. Because when you are called on it, you say people are parsing words or they may not have said it but it is obvious that's what they meant.

I get it. Many are tired of reading my posts and don't like me (virtually). But I hope that there are good people out there who can see the differences in peoples' post. But, as I said in another post elsewhere, unmet expectations do not lead to positive emotions (so you need to manage your expectations and hopes).

Originally Posted by Cybersprings (Post 2257274)

If what you think I was trying to make you look like was arrogant, then fair statement. I should use what you actually say if I want to make that point. I was actually saying, for someone as smart and accomplished as you, the very simple point that was made over and over should have been easier to understand. If you are not smart and accomplished, my apologies for trying to make you look like that.

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 2256973)

And yet don't even think of putting a 6 inch garden gnome in your front yard.....:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl: Overall, I'm willing to bet that most of would rather live next to a garden gnome than a revolving door motel with and endless variety of "occupants".

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 2256981)

And most of the time they probably aren't-------until-----you get one next door to you. Here's a repost from another thread by someone who has 10 such STRs in their immediate neighborhood:

You stated you do not have strs in your neighborhood. Let me share my experience.
1. You wake up and trash has been put out when it is not collection day. Animals ripped open the bags and trash has littered your yard. Cars are blocking your driveway because the renters have guests. The renters dog is barking and woke you up early. There are arguments, whistling, shouting, doors slamming, loud engines that wake you up from a peaceful sleep. The renters are on the lanai naked. Their children are running around. I can go on!

2. You go on with your day. Come home and your driveway is blocked (again) or someone has parked on your lawn. Or, a renter knocks on your door asking you to resolve an issue they are having at the rented house. Or, they want to borrow a bike, or some golf clubs, or a pot or pan, or whatever! Or, their dog is barking loud. Or they need some information, or they want directions, or recommendations. Or their children are recklessly playing on the street. Some even ask to watch/feed their pets while they go to Disney.

3. You have a nice dinner, take a stroll on the square, come home and the renters are having a party. Loud and noisy. Or, they are drinkers and are talking loud, and using foul language. Or, they are having a loud argument. Or, their children are screaming and crying. Or, they are with their spouse getting it on in a loud fashion. Or they have entered your lawn to take a p#ss. Or the TV or music is blaring. Or their dog is barking. Or some think it is funny to howl at a full moon. I can go on!

So. It is my job to pick up the renter's trash, knock on the door and tell them to move their cars hoping they do not get beligerent with me(which most do), give out my belongings, go over to the house to assist with a problem, act as a concierge, reprimand their children and babysit their pets. Then, before I go to sleep, go over to the renters and tell them to keep the noise level down or I will call the police. Only to be told F#### off!

How is any of this my responsibility? Oh! Call the owner? Because that is the neighborly thing to do? Good luck with that! He is too busy playing golf and I am probably just overreacting. The action he takes? "Don't worry, they are only here for a few days. They will be gone before you know it, but thanks for letting me know." And, getting him to come over at night and quiet the neighbors or call the police? His answer. "I really don't find that necessary." He gets a good night sleep and I don't.

Enter a new renter- same results.

I have every right to demand the owner of his rental monitor his home. And, yes! 3 times a day! In the morning to pick up their trash, in the afternoon to make certain cars are not blocking driveways or to check if the renters need something, or if pets/children are out of hand. Then, once again, at night to check if there is loud noise and police may need to be called. If the renters were at a hotel, the hotel has staff and security to do this. If they are at an apartment building, staff and security is there, as well. Why shouldn't the owner of an STR have that responsibility?

Long term renters can be as bad. People who rent in the Villages are here to have a good time.They are not here to follow the rules of the community. Most do not even know the rules. You nicely tell them, and they respond with a F### Off!

There is a reason new laws have been enacted in NYC that address THESE SAME issues I am having. It is reasonable to believe people on vacation act the same way throughout the USA. Hopefully, the same laws will be enacted here in the Villages. Especially, the rule that states the owner must be present in the rental.

Note: If you do not have any renters where you live, please do not post in support of the STR owner. You have no idea what living next to a rental property is like. Reasonable people would not call others unreasonable if they have never experienced something. Thank you!

Also, do not come on this thread claiming to know a lot about this issue. Then go on to talk about Clearwater being grandfathered in, government zoning and land restrictions, mineral rights, Euclid vrs Ambler, laws dating back to 2003, Govenor Scott, etc.etc. You may have knowledge but what the heck does any of it have to do with STRS in the Villages? Last I looked, Desantis is our govenor, rules have changed, no one in the Villages sells their mineral rights, govt zoning and deed restrictions are two different things, could care less about Euclid vrs Ambler, and this is 2023 not 2003! If you want to talk about your knowledge on zoning and land restrictions then start a thread on that subject.

Originally Posted by Bill14564 (Post 2257066)

I believe that ordinance has to do with music heard from cars.

25' is about half the distance across the inside of my home. My wife and I can talk at a normal volume from that distance and hear each other just fine. We all would be in violation just for talking if that was the actual ordinance.

Originally Posted by oldtimes (Post 2257083)

All this person does is critique other people's posts, that is why I have them blocked.

Originally Posted by llaran (Post 2257092)

I know at least one home purchased by the Villages for rental in a single-family home area. there was a time when it was clustered not anymore.

Also, when you purchase a home, you can do what you want with it.
Many people buy before retirement and rent it out until they are ready to move.

Originally Posted by JMintzer (Post 2257317)

Then how did you read their post? :confused:

Originally Posted by Randall55 (Post 2257105)

/// Ten rentals on her street. If 2 people stay in each home, 20 transient people. Do you believe at least one or two is capable of doing the things she stated? What if there are 20 different transients the next week, then the next? You don't see that there could be problems?

I am guessing that each villa has 3 bedrooms. What if there are 4 people staying in the rental or 6? This would result in blocked driveways and streets as she stated. And, lots of trash left out when it is not collection day.

Originally Posted by Cybersprings (Post 2257325)

Since I am the person blocked, I was going to ask the same question, then I realized that the post to which he repsonded had the quote of my post embedded. Blocking someone apparently does not block the quoting of them....I think.

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 2257280)

Psychic as well????

Look, I get it, and nobody's perfect. The problem is that you kind of set yourself up as the self appointed guardian of ensuring factual posts. That's a tough role to fulfill and when you screw up everyone is going to point it out, especially on TOTV--America's friendliest social medium:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

Best not to be so literal and give a little latitude.
Look, I do the same thing when somebody posts some medical nonsense---and I justify it by knowing I'm preventing the dissemination of erroneous information. At least I get the benefit of a good laugh when someone wants to argue the point because they "googled it" :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

Originally Posted by Cybersprings (Post 2257268)

I get it. Many are tired of reading my posts and don't like me (virtually). But I hope that there are good people out there who can see the differences in peoples' post. But, as I said in another post elsewhere, unmet expectations do not lead to positive emotions (so you need to manage your expectations and hopes).