[jmaccallum]

Originally Posted by Speedie

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

It also protects the ability to get a mortgage on a home. As the % of rentals increases in a community, mortgage companies are less likely to lend. They worry they will lose their 80% Loan- to- Value advantage that protects them in case of default. Rentals properties tend to decrease all property values.

Some buyers in TV do pay cash, but many get a mortgage, whether to maintain cash reserves or investment, or they don’t have the cash but do have qualifying retirement income.

[manaboutown]

Another problem can arise If folks buy a new home using a typical residential mortgage restricted to owner occupancy. They breach the terms of the mortgage if they rent the home out.

[Jbbest]

It is true. I just spoke to my real estate (Villages agent) last week. The house cannot be purchased for speculation, rented out, etc. You must buy for your own use & live there, even if just part time.

[vintageogauge]

Originally Posted by Jbbest

It is true. I just spoke to my real estate (Villages agent) last week. The house cannot be purchased for speculation, rented out, etc. You must buy for your own use & live there, even if just part time.

If that's true for all new homes being built down here it should push up the prices of re-sales that can be used as rentals as they would not be subject to that particular restriction.

[defrey12]

Originally Posted by DALEPQ

I really wonder why there are some really "Snarky" comments that seem to indicate
that if you are a renter you are really bad.
We have a property that we are renting long term to a retired lady that treats it as if it is her
own home. She just wants to pay a fixed amount, thus, not having to deal with ownership.
She does not create any problems at all, that we are aware of.
So how about keeping this "The Land of The Free"!!

Never said renters were bad. RENTALS, over time, bring down values. Period. It’s a fact. Great you’ve got a good tenant, but she is an exception. “That you are aware of” was an interesting statement. In one of our condos, we were only recently made aware of the unacceptable behavior of one our tenants…behavior that’s been going on for months. Owners don’t know because you’re not there. Nature of the beast. In RE, once a neighborhood reaches a certain percentage of rentals, owner-occupied sales plummet. It’s a wholly different dynamic that, generally speaking, owners don’t want. The land of the free is alive and well (mostly), and I could not agree more when it comes to preserving one’s property rights. However, when one signs a document one is presumed to have read it. Here at TV, you GIVE UP your right to rent for a year when you sign your Sales & Purchase Agreement. At least in here in Fenney.

[asianthree]

Originally Posted by vintageogauge

If that's true for all new homes being built down here it should push up the prices of re-sales that can be used as rentals as they would not be subject to that particular restriction.

Yes, new rule has pushed preowned prices. We had 3 homes in TV, one for a vaca home for us few months a year.

The other two we bought for parents to use, during high season, with no money out of their pocket, when 3 of 4 passed, we rented out the homes long term.

Our agent called with 4 buyers, before we had thought of selling. He explained that due to housing shortage, new builds had a clause in paperwork that home could not be investment property. We Sold above ask in less than 48 hours. Both buyers not ready to retire, so win win all around.

We wanted to invest in a larger home, with the profit, but as of today, It will have to be a preowned

[Vermilion Villager]

Originally Posted by Jbbest

It is true. I just spoke to my real estate (Villages agent) last week. The house cannot be purchased for speculation, rented out, etc. You must buy for your own use & live there, even if just part time.

BEST NEWS I'VE HEARD ALL DAY!!!!!!!

[stan the man]

The renter only maintains their property enough to rent it out again next year. Adds nothing to the neighborhoods. Permits for renters, money goes to amenities. This is a retirement community, not Disney World

[Laker14]

Originally Posted by DAVES

I do not understand why people ask this sort of question here. I would call the villages offices and ask. My logo DAVES. But, DAVES said is well just gossip.

I think this conversation has provided a lot more insight than I would have garnered from a conversation with a sales rep of the developer.

Whaddya know?

[JMintzer]

I find it interesting that so many recommend that people rent prior to buying, then complain that there are too many renters...

[Laker14]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

I find it interesting that so many recommend that people rent prior to buying, then complain that there are too many renters...

I rented for 3 years. Halfway through the third year we made a purchase. Renting worked out for us because it gave us time to be sure this is where we wanted to be, and it gave us some valuable information about what we wanted, and what we wanted to avoid.
I can say that while our rental unit was maintained "well enough", it certainly wasn't maintained exteriorly as well as the other homes on the street, or as well as our owner's place was. Yes, they had their own place in TV, and our rental was an investment property for them.
I can see both sides of the debate, but as someone who found their way slowly via renting, I feel badly that there is so much enmity pointed towards renters.
My next door neighbor is a rental unit, very well maintained.

[Topspinmo]

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.

If true? Good, got enough slumlord.

[joelfmi]

Originally Posted by mulligan

That's the way it should have been in all the homes right from the beginning. Allowing rentals always creates some problems. Between absentee landlords, and tenants who are not invested in the community, issues abound.

It's never a wise idea to by a home were they allow renter.

[Laker14]

Just as an aside, to this subject, one of the things that I didn't realize about TV, until I rented for the January-March "high season" is that it really is a lifestyle, not a resort destination. What I mean by that is that many of the activities are set up, if not for "year-rounders", at least for long term residents, who are here for 6 or 7 months. It's hard to impossible to get into many of the clubs, leagues, and other activities if you are just here for 3 months.
That's not a criticism, that's just an observation, and it makes sense once you see it. As a short term renter you aren't surrounded by other vacationers, you are surrounded by people who LIVE here. Being on the outside of that, and wanting to be on the inside of it, was a big part of the reason we made the move to buy here and be here 7 to 8 months a year rather than just three. That and the weather where we live up north is still pretty nasty in November, December, April and early May.
Also, as a renter, it is a constant challenge to find short term rentals, as owners retire and want to use their places for themselves. In fact, our owner of the place we rented for 2 years sold her place and we'd have been on the hunt for a new place to rent.

[Marathon Man]

Originally Posted by Laker14

Just as an aside, to this subject, one of the things that I didn't realize about TV, until I rented for the January-March "high season" is that it really is a lifestyle, not a resort destination. What I mean by that is that many of the activities are set up, if not for "year-rounders", at least for long term residents, who are here for 6 or 7 months. It's hard to impossible to get into many of the clubs, leagues, and other activities if you are just here for 3 months.
That's not a criticism, that's just an observation, and it makes sense once you see it. As a short term renter you aren't surrounded by other vacationers, you are surrounded by people who LIVE here. Being on the outside of that, and wanting to be on the inside of it, was a big part of the reason we made the move to buy here and be here 7 to 8 months a year rather than just three. That and the weather where we live up north is still pretty nasty in November, December, April and early May.
Also, as a renter, it is a constant challenge to find short term rentals, as owners retire and want to use their places for themselves. In fact, our owner of the place we rented for 2 years sold her place and we'd have been on the hunt for a new place to rent.

That is a well stated insight.