Are rentals new? Did no one on this thread ever rent for a week? Or did you just buy from a lifestyle visit?

BTW, I would hate to have a short term (a week or less) rental next to me.

One way to put a "damper" on some of these absentee landlords and short-term rental AirB&B situations is to alert the local tax office. Just let them know, that there is a property owner using their property as a short-term rental property, and possibly not paying their required tourism tax on the rental.

Long-term rentals are not subject to this tax. But short-term rentals absolutely are.

I understand both sides. We just purchased a home, but can not move to TV for 2 more years. Our plan is to rent it through the Villages Property Management for those two years. Then, we'll move down there full time and become wonderful neighbors! lol I believe their shortest term rental is 7 days non prime season. We used to own a condo at Treasure Island. We rented it out and noticed that 2-3 day rentals could be a problem but we loved the 30+ day rentals!! lol

Truly you jest, that is not true anywhere in the world. Renters, especially short term renters, have no interest in upkeep of the neighborhood, or being considerate etc. The only people who benefit from renters are the landlords everyone else suffers.

Very difficult for the County to take up an issue which is "one in a villa neighborhood" nuisance. Mostly since TV is less than 75% of Sumter County. Then you have to go to the other counties as well.

It would be interesting to see the facts on:

How much "Investor home buying" pushed up the value of homes in TV over the last few years.

How much "Investor owners" and their actions have decreased the value of homes in TV.


:popcorn::popcorn:

It's kind of cute seeing the newbies move in and want to change things that have been going on for decades.
Bless your heart.

See this is the problem, everyone likes to see their home value go up, but NOT at the cost of their Villages lifestyle - which is what The Villages Developer sells, which is what the short term renter especially, put in jeopardy. And if it was one villa out of the whole group, the neighborhood pool would not filled to the be brim with these people.

I as one have a patio villa which is a rental. As far as I know I have not been told by any of my neighbors of complaint. My place is rented in the season at least 2 to3 months if not more to the same people . In the summer months if there is any rental business are thru Airbnb or VBRO with a minimum of a week Also have at 3 to 4 neighbors who rent us from in the low season for their adult chidden to stay in if they do not have room at their place versus a hotel . I have not done any price compassion lately of rentals like mind but in the past I would see owners rent their places like $40-$45 dollars a night You can't get a best western or comfort inn for probably under a $100. a night So if that's the case I don't to put it this way but the less desirable renter will say why get a hotel room for 100 plus when I can get a house for way less. As for the point about absent landlord I take offense to that I personally come down 1 to 2 times a year to do a top to bottom maintenance of my property to keep close new condition because it is a investment . You overlook how many full residents let their property go done in care.

What I fail to understand is I thought I bought in a residential area, no commercial/business allowed. How is renting not considered a business?

Yes...this is the problem

I am talking about short term; like the recent law written for Clearwater. In essence renting for LESS than 31 days. In residential districts, the city doesn’t allow a property owner to lease or rent their property for short-term periods, which is anything less than 31 days or a calendar month. Residential property owners who wish to rent their property can advertise for monthly rentals; they cannot advertise for daily or weekly rentals.

A fixed inventory of houses and an increasing number of buyers leads to higher prices, even if those buyers are wannabe landlords.

That is probably not what your deed restrictions state. (some do, but not the majority that I have looked at)

Are you sure that is how your deed restrictions read? Mine absolutely do not, mine state the owners have the right and the duty while the developers have the right but NOT the duty to enforce the deed restrictions.

All Owners shall have the right and duty to prosecute in proceedings at law or in equity against any person or persons violating or attempting to violate any covenants, conditions or reservations, either to prevent him or them from so doing, or to recover damages or any property charges for such violation. The cost of such proceedings, includiog a reasonable attorney's fee, shall be paid by the party losing said suit. In addition, the Developer shall also have the right but not the duty to enforce any such covenants, conditions or reservations as though Developer were the Owner of the Homesite, including the right to recover reasonable attorney's fees and costs. Developer may assign its right to enforce these covenants, conditions or reservations and to recover reasonable attorney's fees and costs to a person, committee, or governmental entity.

In addition, *some* deed restrictions include the highlighted statement below while mine do not:

Properties within the Subdivision are intended for residential use and no commercial, professional or similar activity requiring either maintaining an inventory, equipment or customer/client visits may be conducted in a Home or on a Homesite. Renting and leasing of Homes within the Subdivision is prohibited without the prior written consent of the Developer. Owners of Homes within the Subdivision may not transfer their rights to those recreational facilities arising from payment of the Contractual Amenities Fee to any party, except to subsequent Owners of the Home, without the prior -written consent of the Developer.

So renting is prohibited in *some* areas but not all and if there is a violation, it is the duty of the homeowner to pursue a legal remedy but NOT the duty of the developer.