[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

...
Thing is - the developer is responsible for "internal" violations of deed restrictions and to date, there is no record of them EVER enforcing those restrictions. There ARE people with minor children living here. There ARE people whose houses have had walls knocked out to convert to illegal bedrooms which they then rent out to transients for less than the cost of a hotel room. There ARE homeowners who have more than the maximum capacity of residents living there. There ARE many people owning, and residing, in homes where no one is 55 or older, in violation of the legal 55+ community designation. The developer receives tax credits for this designation so it's in their best interest to -not- report it, and to -not- do anything about it. They profit more by ignoring it than they do addressing it. That is why they're vilified. They give lip service to the people who are trying to do things the right way, make it LOOK pretty, and then ignore it all once everyone moves in and signs their name to the deed.

- In my deed restrictions there is no mention of the internal design of my house - no mention of not remodeling to add or remove walls. Can you provide an example of the language in your restrictions that prohibit that?

- In my deed restrictions there is no mention of a maximum capacity of residents. Can you provide an example of the language in your restrictions that states a maximum capacity?

- The "legal 55+ community designation" does NOT require that every occupied home has a resident 55 or over. Who would even provide that designation anyway?

- My deed restrictions specifically state that NOT every occupied home must have a resident 55 or over. "...even though there is not a permanent resident in the Home who is fifty-five (55) years of age or over..." and "...it being the intent that at least 80% of the units shall at all times have at least one resident fifty-five (55) years of age or older."

- What tax credits does the developer receive for a 55+ designation? In another thread a poster contacted HUD and learned that this developer does not receive any tax credits.

Perhaps part of the problem is the lack of understanding of the law and the restrictions.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

We are seeing more people who are under 55, moving in - whether buying or renting - than previously. Is it more than 80%? I don't know. The Developer doesn't know either, because the Developer doesn't keep track of short-term tenants, UNLESS those tenants are getting guest/residence passes. If they're not getting passes, then the Developer has no way of knowing that they're there at all.

So sure - it's possible that no more than 20% of all homes are occupied by people who are under 55 (with no one 55 or over in those 20% properties), it's also possible that 30% are, at least some of the time. It's even possible that 40% are, at least some of the time. It's also possible that only 10% are. The law requires a 55+ Community to be consistent. At least 80% of all homes must be occupied by at least 1 person age 55 or older. The deed restriction (which is not the law) further requires that NO one under age 19 be allowed to live in the home.

We had one family up the street, elderly sisters we think - who had a grandson of one of them living with them. They didn't move in and then "get stuck" with the kid - I would totally understand that, even though it breaks the rule. They moved in, already having custody of that grandson. The grandson was grade-school age, most likely between 9-11 years old. They should not have been permitted to move in with that circumstance. But they lived there for a year. Whether they owned or rented, we never found out. The house was sold around the time they moved in so either could be true.

That is an "internal" deed restriction. It's something that never should have been allowed to happen in the first place. Clearly the Developer either a) has no control over these things or b) doesn't care and chooses not to enforce their own rules. If they had, it wouldn't have happened.

These kinds of things are happening more and more. Snowbird season, off-season, there are more minor children of all ages living in the Villages. Are they tenants or kids of homeowner-residents? No idea. All I know is - they're not supposed to be there for more than 30 days per YEAR and they are absolutely there longer than that.

[Dond1959]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

We are seeing more people who are under 55, moving in - whether buying or renting - than previously. Is it more than 80%? I don't know. The Developer doesn't know either, because the Developer doesn't keep track of short-term tenants, UNLESS those tenants are getting guest/residence passes. If they're not getting passes, then the Developer has no way of knowing that they're there at all.

So sure - it's possible that no more than 20% of all homes are occupied by people who are under 55 (with no one 55 or over in those 20% properties), it's also possible that 30% are, at least some of the time. It's even possible that 40% are, at least some of the time. It's also possible that only 10% are. The law requires a 55+ Community to be consistent. At least 80% of all homes must be occupied by at least 1 person age 55 or older. The deed restriction (which is not the law) further requires that NO one under age 19 be allowed to live in the home.

We had one family up the street, elderly sisters we think - who had a grandson of one of them living with them. They didn't move in and then "get stuck" with the kid - I would totally understand that, even though it breaks the rule. They moved in, already having custody of that grandson. The grandson was grade-school age, most likely between 9-11 years old. They should not have been permitted to move in with that circumstance. But they lived there for a year. Whether they owned or rented, we never found out. The house was sold around the time they moved in so either could be true.

That is an "internal" deed restriction. It's something that never should have been allowed to happen in the first place. Clearly the Developer either a) has no control over these things or b) doesn't care and chooses not to enforce their own rules. If they had, it wouldn't have happened.

These kinds of things are happening more and more. Snowbird season, off-season, there are more minor children of all ages living in the Villages. Are they tenants or kids of homeowner-residents? No idea. All I know is - they're not supposed to be there for more than 30 days per YEAR and they are absolutely there longer than that.

The above is just complete speculation. How do you know? Did you go house to house and inspect drivers license of everyone living there? The developer turns the neighborhoods over to the CDDs who are responsible for any enforcement of deed restrictions. You have lived here how long and don’t know that?

[Bogie Shooter]

Originally Posted by Dond1959

The above is just complete speculation. How do you know? Did you go house to house and inspect drivers license of everyone living there? The developer turns the neighborhoods over to the CDDs who are responsible for any enforcement of deed restrictions. You have lived here how long and don’t know that?

Not “any”.
Look it up!

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Dond1959

The above is just complete speculation. How do you know? Did you go house to house and inspect drivers license of everyone living there? The developer turns the neighborhoods over to the CDDs who are responsible for any enforcement of deed restrictions. You have lived here how long and don’t know that?

Check the driver's license of a 9 year old?????? You should read OBB's post again.

[shut the front door]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Check the driver's license of a 9 year old?????? You should read OBB's post again.

He's referring to the assertion that more than 20% of homes are occupied by people under 55. Somehow, OBB thinks the authorities should go door to door and check ages of people.

[margaretmattson]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

We are seeing more people who are under 55, moving in - whether buying or renting - than previously. Is it more than 80%? I don't know. The Developer doesn't know either, because the Developer doesn't keep track of short-term tenants, UNLESS those tenants are getting guest/residence passes. If they're not getting passes, then the Developer has no way of knowing that they're there at all.

So sure - it's possible that no more than 20% of all homes are occupied by people who are under 55 (with no one 55 or over in those 20% properties), it's also possible that 30% are, at least some of the time. It's even possible that 40% are, at least some of the time. It's also possible that only 10% are. The law requires a 55+ Community to be consistent. At least 80% of all homes must be occupied by at least 1 person age 55 or older. The deed restriction (which is not the law) further requires that NO one under age 19 be allowed to live in the home.

We had one family up the street, elderly sisters we think - who had a grandson of one of them living with them. They didn't move in and then "get stuck" with the kid - I would totally understand that, even though it breaks the rule. They moved in, already having custody of that grandson. The grandson was grade-school age, most likely between 9-11 years old. They should not have been permitted to move in with that circumstance. But they lived there for a year. Whether they owned or rented, we never found out. The house was sold around the time they moved in so either could be true.

That is an "internal" deed restriction. It's something that never should have been allowed to happen in the first place. Clearly the Developer either a) has no control over these things or b) doesn't care and chooses not to enforce their own rules. If they had, it wouldn't have happened.

These kinds of things are happening more and more. Snowbird season, off-season, there are more minor children of all ages living in the Villages. Are they tenants or kids of homeowner-residents? No idea. All I know is - they're not supposed to be there for more than 30 days per YEAR and they are absolutely there longer than that.

Under Florida Law, It is the developers responsibility to make certain that the 80/20 rule is maintained at ALL TIMES. Great post! Residents should start demanding to see the periodic counts that are required by Florida Law. Why just sit back and believe them?

Not certain how they are counting investor properties they do not even know about. But, it ABSOLUTELY is their responsibility to supply ACCURATE counts. No just looking at the age of the owners on the deeds.

If homes are rented out, the 80/20 is in question. The rule states 80% of homes must be OCCUPIED by someone over 55+. Homes that are sitting UNOCCUPIED waiting to rent go against this law and should be counted in the 20%.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Here's the actual text of the law, from the government's own website:

Federal Register 24 CFR Part 100; section 760.24-760.37 (4a), Florida Statutes

For a community to be considered "housing for older persons" as a 55+ community, the housing must be intended and operated for occupancy by persons 55 years of age or older and meet the following requirements:

At least 80% of the occupied units are occupied by at least one person 55 years of age or older.

The facility or community publishes and adheres to policies and procedures that demonstrate its intent to in fact be a provider of housing for older persons.

The facility or community complies with rules established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for verification of occupancy.

So Margaret is incorrect. The unoccupied units don't count in regards to the 80/20 restriction.

80% of OCCUPIED units - have to be occupied by at least 1 person 55 or older.

Until and unless the Developer - who is responsible for enforcing that restriction, chooses to maintain data and report it on a regular basis, no one will know whether it is being enforced or not.

[margaretmattson]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

Here's the actual text of the law, from the government's own website:


So Margaret is incorrect. The unoccupied units don't count in regards to the 80/20 restriction.

80% of OCCUPIED units - have to be occupied by at least 1 person 55 or older.

Until and unless the Developer - who is responsible for enforcing that restriction, chooses to maintain data and report it on a regular basis, no one will know whether it is being enforced or not.

I believe that is what I said. The unoccupied units DO NOT count. I said they should be counted in the 20% not the 80%. Either way, we are saying the exact same thing. Data needs to be ACCURATELY recorded on a regular basis and IT IS REQUIRED BY FLORIDA LAW. I am consulting a lawyer about this. I would rather KNOW my rights than guess. You are on the right track. Start questioning the actual numbers. A community can not call themselves a 55+ community without adhering CONSTANTLY to the 80/20 rule. That is just simple common sense. If it smells fishy, it probably is!

I believe anyone who posts the contrary is probably an investor. What resident wouldn't want to see an accurate count that is required by Florida Law? Scary for an investor though.

[margaretmattson]

Originally Posted by Dond1959

The above is just complete speculation. How do you know? Did you go house to house and inspect drivers license of everyone living there? The developer turns the neighborhoods over to the CDDs who are responsible for any enforcement of deed restrictions. You have lived here how long and don’t know that?

It is simple common sense that a 55+ community must constantly adhere to the 80/20 rule. If there is even a slight variable, it cannot be called a 55+ community. 79/21? Even for one month? No good!

We as homeowners can speculate as much as we want on the numbers. It is the responsibility of the CDD and/or the developer to keep accurate counts and to find fixes when the 80/20 numbers are off. They are the ones who can not speculate. Which is the point of OBB post.

[TillyBear]

Subscribe




Edit/Delete



Reply





Quick Reply










Reply
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2


Tags

squares, neighborhood, folks, developer, villagers


Quick Reply

Message:


















Options
Quote message in reply?





«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»



You are viewing a new design of the TOTV site. Click here to revert to the old version.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:10 AM.

Footer



Your complete guide to The Villages Florida including real estate, relocation guides, golf courses, town squares and everything about life in The Villages Florida.















© Talk Of The Villages, Copyright 2020. All rights reserved. Content, Design and Layout may not be reproduced
This site is owned and operated by TalkofTheVillages.com and is not affliated with the The Villages or The Villages development company.
Home


Forums


Classifieds


Advertise


Contact Us


Privacy Policy


Website Rules






Search Engine Optimisation provided by
DragonByte SEO v2.0.32 (Pro) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2023 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

[margaretmattson]

///

[margaretmattson]

/////

[margaretmattson]

Originally Posted by margaretmattson

It is simple common sense that a 55+ community must constantly adhere to the 80/20 rule. If there is even a slight variable, it cannot be called a 55+ community. 79/21? Even for one month? No good!

We as homeowners can speculate as much as we want on the numbers. It is the responsibility of the CDD and/or the developer to keep accurate counts and to find fixes when the 80/20 numbers are off. They are the ones who can not speculate. Which is the point of OBB post.

///

[MidWestIA]

There is NOWHERE with so may activities and peers to do them with