[Djean1981]

Originally Posted by petsetc

It would be very helpful (and maybe solve this issue) if someone who has recently closed could post a picture or .pdf of the covenant/addendum where the are not allowed to rent.

I think people are mistakenly referring to the restriction of selling within one year.

[ckcapaul]

If you have a mortgage there is a restriction that it will be your residence and not bought for the purpose of a rental. Unless you go with a commercial mortgage.

[Waltdisney4life]

After reading these replies obviously no one knows the truth just opinions not facts!!

[chenault55]

Just curious why you would sign an agreement with that stipulation and then immediately question what you signed. The time for that would of been before you signed. So many do this and want to change it. If that was a covenant and you disagreed with it perhaps selling and moving to a more agreeable retirement area might cause you less anxiety. We moved here because of the restrictions that keep our community beautiful. Some I don’t care for but I do honor my agreements.
I do not mean to be rude, really. I wish you the best and hope you just enjoy your retirement.

[Laker14]

Originally Posted by chenault55

Just curious why you would sign an agreement with that stipulation and then immediately question what you signed. The time for that would of been before you signed. So many do this and want to change it. If that was a covenant and you disagreed with it perhaps selling and moving to a more agreeable retirement area might cause you less anxiety. We moved here because of the restrictions that keep our community beautiful. Some I don’t care for but I do honor my agreements.
I do not mean to be rude, really. I wish you the best and hope you just enjoy your retirement.

Can you quote the post you read on this thread where someone said they signed an agreement and immediately questioned what they signed? I can't find that post.

[diva1]

I don't really understand all this. The Villages sells homes all the time to people not yet ready to retire and move, and they tell them they will take the house into their rental program until the buyers are ready to come down for good.

[cherylncliff]

Originally Posted by Laker14

On another thread a poster mentioned that when he/she bought a new property from the developer in one of the newer sections, they had to sign a contract that explained that the property could not be rented out.

I didn't want to hijack that thread with questions, so here goes.

1. Is that accurate?

2. When did they start that practice?

3. What would the developer's likely motivations be for such a covenant? Wouldn't it make the market for their homes more desirable if folks wanting to buy as an investment were also able to buy the new homes?

I'm not understanding this at all.

I reviewed several of the deed compliance documents for areas 12 and 13 and there is no mention about restricting rental of the properties. Unless it was a separate document, then this appears to be misinformation.

[Laker14]

Originally Posted by Sandellew

It’s accurate - I bought a home in Fenney in 2018 and signed an addendum to my contract that my home would never be rented. My understanding is that the developer keeps a certain number of zones rent free for owners who prefer to live in an established neighborhood versus a transient one.

Originally Posted by Waltdisney4life

After reading these replies obviously no one knows the truth just opinions not facts!!

Or, maybe you didn't read all of the posts.

[Hillery12]

We bought a home in Fenney South, unit 12 in 2018. We are in a section where we cannot rent our home. Yes, we had to sign a paper when we bought our home.

[DaisyDE]

I heard from a realtor that TV was not selling new constructions to investors. There is such a great demand for homes for folks who wish to occupy the home and TV wants the homes to go to them.

I think its an awful practice. If someone buys, then say they need to leave for a period of time to help family, go out of state for medical treatment (my cousin goes to Baltimore for months at a time) then these folks could get in trouble I suppose.

I think the bottom line is they don't want investors buying multiple properties. There may be a work around for one property.

Originally Posted by Laker14

On another thread a poster mentioned that when he/she bought a new property from the developer in one of the newer sections, they had to sign a contract that explained that the property could not be rented out.

I didn't want to hijack that thread with questions, so here goes.

1. Is that accurate?

2. When did they start that practice?

3. What would the developer's likely motivations be for such a covenant? Wouldn't it make the market for their homes more desirable if folks wanting to buy as an investment were also able to buy the new homes?

I'm not understanding this at all.

[KaySpruill]

An option that may be worth considering is to charge an amenity fee for renters. $500 a month to have access to all the activities and use the golf cart trails. In other words, your amenity fees only apply to the owners. This would mean that people who are serious about potentially buying and those who are serious about long-term rentals would actually contribute to the maintenance and upkeep of our community. Renters should also be limited on use of guest passes. At any given time particularly during season we are at capacity and many bring multiple guest
down which also impacts availabilities of activities and wear and tear on the community

Originally Posted by Laker14

On another thread a poster mentioned that when he/she bought a new property from the developer in one of the newer sections, they had to sign a contract that explained that the property could not be rented out.

I didn't want to hijack that thread with questions, so here goes.

1. Is that accurate?

2. When did they start that practice?

3. What would the developer's likely motivations be for such a covenant? Wouldn't it make the market for their homes more desirable if folks wanting to buy as an investment were also able to buy the new homes?

I'm not understanding this at all.

[RealJudy]

There are a limited number of units that do not allow rentals.

[asiebel]

Ask the developer if you want the truth!

[Larchap49]

Originally Posted by MrFlorida

I think it's a good idea, otherwise speculators would buy up houses and rent them out to people who have no stake in our community. That would drive our property values down, and ruin our hometown feel.

What I have heard is investment companies are buying homes, renting them for a year to avoid the price increase limit and then selling at a good profit

[Speedie]

Originally Posted by Laker14

On another thread a poster mentioned that when he/she bought a new property from the developer in one of the newer sections, they had to sign a contract that explained that the property could not be rented out.

I didn't want to hijack that thread with questions, so here goes.

1. Is that accurate?

2. When did they start that practice?

3. What would the developer's likely motivations be for such a covenant? Wouldn't it make the market for their homes more desirable if folks wanting to buy as an investment were also able to buy the new homes?

I'm not understanding this at all.

1. Yes it is true
2 as of last fall restrictions were put in place on specific neighborhoods
3 i asked the sales team and was told that once a neighborhood has exceeded a number of new owners that are immediately leasing, then the developer triggers this clause. Intent to maintain TV as a retirement home community vs a transient rental community

The restriction is for 1 year from purchase date. Much like the similar 1 year resale restriction to minimize house flipping