As someone too familiar with that situation the answer is a simple one - You know what the requirements of the job are when you took it and accepted the money. If you have kids who must live elsewhere while you are deployed, you must make arrangements for that potential as part of your personal parental responsibilities. If you have become a single parent, you can opt out of the military due to family hardship, but if you continue to take the money, you take the responsiblities that go with it.

The Villages as an entity was not designed for children, and that's its attraction. TV does not have county school bus routes or other support systems for children. The 55+ is meant for good reason. The place was designed based on a specific population age group and its needs. That's why there's eight cardiologists and a slew of other physicians geared towards an older population, and only one pediatrician with The Villages Medical Center privileges.

If catastrophic family situations occur which require grandparents to take care of children, TV is not the place for the grandparents and grandchildren to reside. That's just the way it is, mainly because the absence of children support services makes such care totally impractical, the covenants notwithstanding.

We can dream up many scenarios where parents feel they have to take their kids' responsibilities as their own, but in each of those scenarios those folk bear the cost and inconvenience. We all knew that when we signed those covenants that TV was an environment that is age-restrictive, and that was and is its primary attraction.

Trying to make TV residents seem "unpatriotic" because kids can't live here is a cheap shot. There's a lot of us here with extensive service time and the scars that go with it, and we don't have to prove our patriotism by agreeing to watch our retirement community turn into just another town.

We came to TV knowing full well that the 55+ may very well impact the potential to be the family landlord, and that multigenerational households were totally counter to the TV structure.

I've got kids with kids (one in Korea with her child and Army husband right now), and we've had to face the fact that if something happened where a kid with kids came back and we were expected to solve the problem, that we'd have to make arrangements for them somewhere in Fruitland Park or elsewhere and suck in the costs and other headaches. The other alternative would be moving from TV completely because the family circumstances would no longer be conducive with the "retirement community" lifestyle.

Expecting the retirement community to morph itself into something other than what it is just is not realistic, nor is it reasonable.

[QUOTE=SteveZ;167029]

Trying to make TV residents seem "unpatriotic" because kids can't live here is a cheap shot. There's a lot of us here with extensive service time and the scars that go with it, and we don't have to prove our patriotism by agreeing to watch our retirement community turn into just another town.
QUOTE]

Steve...in no way did I make the residents of TV's seem unpatriotic. This was something I heard someone else ask and I too thought an interesting question. This question came from a resident and I know for sure that it was just a simple question. Not leaning one way or the other. Just wanted to know what folks on TOTV thought.

You have your opinion...and that is great that you are so loyal to TV's and the covenants that you would move out if you had to. This is your answer to the question. Bless your family for having you.

However...PLEASE do not make it sound as if I am exploiting a situation and making it seem unpatriotic. This was not a slam on anyone...it is a possible scenario that could happen to MANY residents and I was interested in thoughts...not making "cheap shots". :sad:

There were many other ways to have answered this question....perhaps saying something like "it is unfortunate situation and while we respect the work they are doing...rules are rules...." instead of insinuating that I was trying to make the residents look unpatriotic....not needed and nice try at spinning my SIMPLE question....but that is NOT in anyway the intent.

[QUOTE=Cassie325;167032]Not trying to spin anything. "I think it would be a very sad day....but it sounds like many of you would...thank your child for the service..but get out of TV's with those kids...." seemed pretty blunt to me. If the message was not interpreted in your intent, then we have a failure to communicate.

The "great that you are so loyal to TV's and the covenants that you would move out if you had to" is not a matter of choice, but a matter of contract. I don't have the unilateral authority to change my contract with TV, and I don't know of anyone else who does. It's better (and less expensive) to honor your deal than end up in the losing end of protracted litigation.

Also, if you can't be trusted to honor your contracts, then you just can't be trusted. As another TV property owner, don't you too agree that people should respect the covenants which bind us all?

Steve, well said.

[QUOTE=SteveZ;167070]Understood....perhaps this should be in the political forum though....

I respect the covenants very much...even though I own a home IN TV's....we do not live there....we visit....within the rules...and we barely use the amenties....ok maybe the cart paths to go to the square or to dinner...but we abide by the rules and respect them....

I am sorry you misunderstood me...I honestly felt it was a "different situation" this day in age and thought I would put it out there....I did not mean to hurt anyone's feelings...was just putting a different twist on the subject. Although in personal opinion...whether it had to happen or not....it would be VERY sad for a family to have to go through this....it would be very sad if you had to go through this....sad as in very unhappy and full of sadness...not sad in the respect of pathetic....

Again....the fact that you would not try to change, undermine or hide from, the rules is very respectable...not everyone would do that! I was honestly trying to convey my respect for you.....I am sorry if you misinterpreted it....personally I think very highly of you and your convictions and beliefs Steve....don't always agree:icon_wink:...but respect you for posting them and sticking to them.....the measure of a man...or a woman...should be this high....please know I am being very sincere....:(

I am sorry my posting did not portray this! Perhaps our admins should add voice capabilities to our threads.....:MOJE_whot: ....now I am in REAL trouble!!!:icon_wink:

[QUOTE=Cassie325;167119]Apology accepted.

Now we can get onto the really important things, like when and where can we set up a demolition derby track for golf carts? ? ? Perhaps the parking lot beside the Barnes & Noble @ LSL? ? ? ?

[QUOTE=SteveZ;167123]:1rotfl::1rotfl:

I would think perhaps you would like it better near the family Village....

OH....now I am in trouble!!!!

:icon_wink:

I can't believe this...........

The question was , what if ???

the answer is, no you can't !!!!

the reason is rules........... The rules were made for a reason and the reason is unimportant .........

Rule one.... Kids are limited in time in this restricted community....

Rule two.. You can't change rule one ......


I'M OUT OF THIS POST !!!

I Can See It Now
 

You have a 5 month old baby (does not even walk yet) being carried into a loving home ......... a couple of "lawyers" running up and down the street with a fistful of papers yelling, "Take her away, she can't be here, she's dangerous to our way of life". Man would I love to see this on a full blown news report.
It would make TV a front page story alright. Economics, stock market, politicos, the environment, gas prices and I could go on. Yet a 5 month old would absolutely kill your lifestyle.
Go on home, get a life and memorize the rest of your little shaft of papers. It makes you that much more "in touch with humanity".
I too will no longer post on this thread. Someone will find an insignificant
rule in their precious rule book about that.

That little shaft of papers is the difference between any one of the Villages and a five-block radius surrounding Jackson Middle School or the Black Hammock Fish Camp. It's why people buy in TV as opposed to retiring in Winter Springs or in Tuskawilla.

It does make me "more in touch with humanity" in that I must first respect the rights of others before I start looking for ways to make life easier and simpler for my kids. Isn't that the example the "elders" are supposed to portray?

I do agree that the rule is no kids under 19 living here and that it should be followed. However, we're talking about a 5-month-old baby who stays for a few hours a day a few times a week. If the baby were there 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, then I believe the covenants would be broken. I'm not convinced they are being broken in this instance.

As to the military family scenario: If this happens, they have my heartfelt thanks and sympathy. However, the kids don't belong here. They wouldn't be happy here on a day-to-day basis. The neighbors wouldn't be happy. TV itself would make the grandparents' lives miserable. Sadly, this is a case where the grandparents would have to move to help with their grandkids. They could rent their home on a long-term lease until their son or daughter comes home or they could sell it with the hope to re-buy at a later date. It may not be the kindest solution but it is the way it is. As was said, we agreed to these rules before we signed on the dotted line.