Originally Posted by La lamy (Post 2460484)

I think a limit on guest passes per household is a great idea for mitigating short term rentals. My guess is 10 passes per year. No extras at any cost, or else it'd still be too easy to put that cost onto short term visitors.

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 2460535)

A solution to that would be to limit FREE passes to an arbitrary number of adults, and children under 19 who are accompanied by those adults, would always be free. So if you did the 10 passes per year...

Then up to 10 ADULTS would get passes for free. AND all kids under 19 would get passes for free. If an 11th adult wanted a pass, and brought 3 kids with them, then the adult would pay for an adult pass. And the kids would still get free passes.

Originally Posted by asianthree (Post 2460547)

I replied to the above post from LaLamy on 10 pass’s NO exception.

Our family of 16 is 25-55yo, zero under 19, ever.

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 2460532)

$10/week and $25/month for temporary unlimited use of amenity passes (except regional and sports pools) seems reasonable to me. It's not a "big" surcharge. All the swimming, basketball, archery, bocci, billiards/pool, video games, and opportunity to get in on many rec center classes, for just $10/week? How is that a "big" surcharge?

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 2460589)

So then you'd have to pay for six out of the 16 people who visit, if you want them to have a guest pass. I don't see the problem.

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 2460538)

True, but the neighbors will know. Since anyone can anonymously report an 8-inch garden gnome, why not accept anonymous reports of someone running a STR business?

Originally Posted by Aces4 (Post 2460505)

Just remember you have set the table for higher fees for everything. It's the same as the way our government works, just increase funding little by little by little. To me, all this points out is the fact The Villages is not self sustaining and get ready to pay. IMHO, this is the tip of the iceberg.

Originally Posted by Bill14564 (Post 2460605)

The Amenity Divisions have been successfully running the amenities for how many decades now? There was a period of time with no amenity fee increases, the area north of 466 is pushing for another freeze now, and the area south of 466 is struggling to explain why they don’t want a freeze. To me, this shows the amenities are successfully self sustaining, are funded very well at the moment, and don’t need additional sources of revenue.

Originally Posted by asianthree (Post 2460525)

Renters sure charge just like the $50 residents pass.

However, for us what children, or grandchildren do we forbid coming to see us at holidays, with 10 passes no exceptions.

3 kids, 3 spouses, 6 grands + 2 fiancé’s. It’s hard enough for some to get family to visit. Your idea to limit, would only cause hardship. Choose who is special and who is unloved.

3 kids come 3 times a year, twice with spouse’s, 6 grands once a year for parks, along with fiancé’s.(gone 4 days out of 7 day visits).
One child is nearing hospice, so visit is difficult yet important for all.

All come for two holidays per year. None go to any public pools because we have our own. All frequent restaurants, so great for economy.
2 kids and 1 grand + fianc, are avid golfers each belonging to private clubs. Each value playing time with their dad and grandpa.


So in your opinion who would you choose for only 10 passes. Some would say dump the 49yo stage 4 brain tumor, visits can be sad.

Originally Posted by Bill14564 (Post 2460601)

That’s part of the problem - those who would impose restrictions or fees would not be affected by those restrictions or fees and don’t see a problem. Others would be affected and for them it understandably is a problem.

Originally Posted by Bill14564 (Post 2460603)

Nothing to report.

A STR is probably not considered to be “running a business out of the home” but clearly is not one of the two business types explicitly prohibited by the deer restrictions.

Originally Posted by tophcfa (Post 2460617)

I’d be totally in favor of restrictions that hit my wallet, as long as they are severe enough to prevent short term rentals. I’m sure I’m not alone in that opinion.

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 2460626)

You most certainly are not!

Originally Posted by Aces4 (Post 2460627)

Yes, do get rid of those short-term rentals! And then watch the housing market in The Villages collapse.:crap2:

Originally Posted by Normal (Post 2460632)

I wouldn’t throw the baby out with the bath water yet. Nothing has been done and the market is already collapsing. The market is virtually frozen in the resale market.