Originally Posted by senior citizen (Post 746513)

Very well said. Intelligent succinct post.

And, there are some who are much older than 55 (or the younger set in their 40's)

These elders are content with a simple existence, pursuing their own artistic endeavors and probably NOT interested in dancing in the squares or frequenting the pubs (nice word for bars)....or picking up dates.

Not everyone needs to have a "new lifestyle"......just enjoy the life they've already made for themselves and their families.

Plus, some with the million dollar budgets are actually frugal....or they never would have amassed the wealth they do have. Different strokes for different folks........some prefer the simple life. Would that mean they should not live in THE VILLAGES?

We found THE VILLAGES very very very attractive to look at and we enjoyed the way their "zoning" achieved that look of beauty, not to mention we truly appreciated all of the "services" which are convenient to every village location. Can't top the location of various daily "needs".

We are not used to the density, however, the way it was laid out, probably no need to even venture into other areas.........unless one wanted to.

Truly a great thanks should go to the developer........one of a kind community, that's for sure. However, as my other post of earlier does mention, there are larger homes on larger properties outside of The Villages.......so one has to weigh the apples vs. the oranges.

Originally Posted by buzzy (Post 746392)

I think this issue is a lot more complicated than people are seeing it, and the OP may be justifiably concerned. The differences between the old and new sections are not so much the quality of homes and amenities, but differences in demographics. Let’s assume, just for illustration, that most folks retire at around age 62. So the population north of 441 would be in their 90’s, north of 466 in their 80’s, between 466 and 466a would be in their 70’s, and south of 466a would be in their 60’s. Now, when all the new homes are bought, only resales will be available. As the oldest population expires, the bulk of the resales will be in the northern villages. On the other hand, the bulk of the new retirees will be baby boomers in their 60’s. So, are these new retirees, say over the next decade, going to be happy moving into older homes that are surrounded by people 20-30 years older? And, if they choose to pass on The Villages for that reason, what will happen to all those homes for sale in the older sections?

I have seen this, on a much smaller scale, in our south FL condo. When the last survivor passes on, the heirs dump the unit for half its value. The next owners are either young divorcees, or landlords, who do not give a hoot about maintaining the place. When we finally retired, we ended up being the youngest retirees, in our mid 60’s. Thank goodness that we discovered The Villages.

Now, you could argue that it can’t happen here, and I hope that it’s true. But elements of this scenario are almost unavoidable, over the long run.

Originally Posted by PennBF (Post 745295)

Has anyone considered when The Village's outgrow the population at some point in the future what will happen? How will the potential problems be handled when TV just gets too big? As an example the key government construction is based on the Developers appointments/controls. I don't think anyone questions this. There is little question that at some point there will be a greater demand for a more basic form of a Democratic government. You can see some of the problems starting to pop up. The historic entertainment practices have changed, (e.g. no support for a majority of parades, the entertainment at the squares has become less in talents.) It is also noted that landscaping is not as good as it was and there are a lot more weeds and uncut bushes, etc).It does not take a lot to observe these changes. This may mean there are problems with the current growth and it will just get worse. The question is has anyone thought about this and what if anything is being done to put together plans for the future. Not planning for the future is really outrages as we will get into a reactive mod as opposed to a "proactive mod". Does anyone really think you can act the same way when the growth goes from 10,000 to over 100,000 without a
real form of a democracy? Just think this is something that should be debated.:shrug:

Originally Posted by buzzy (Post 746392)

I think this issue is a lot more complicated than people are seeing it, and the OP may be justifiably concerned. The differences between the old and new sections are not so much the quality of homes and amenities, but differences in demographics. Let’s assume, just for illustration, that most folks retire at around age 62. So the population north of 441 would be in their 90’s, north of 466 in their 80’s, between 466 and 466a would be in their 70’s, and south of 466a would be in their 60’s. Now, when all the new homes are bought, only resales will be available. As the oldest population expires, the bulk of the resales will be in the northern villages. On the other hand, the bulk of the new retirees will be baby boomers in their 60’s. So, are these new retirees, say over the next decade, going to be happy moving into older homes that are surrounded by people 20-30 years older? And, if they choose to pass on The Villages for that reason, what will happen to all those homes for sale in the older sections?

I have seen this, on a much smaller scale, in our south FL condo. When the last survivor passes on, the heirs dump the unit for half its value. The next owners are either young divorcees, or landlords, who do not give a hoot about maintaining the place. When we finally retired, we ended up being the youngest retirees, in our mid 60’s. Thank goodness that we discovered The Villages.

Now, you could argue that it can’t happen here, and I hope that it’s true. But elements of this scenario are almost unavoidable, over the long run.

Originally Posted by Madelaine Amee (Post 746563)

I see things in a very black/white way, and I see no validity in your comments. You are comparing a community of this size to a condo in South Florida - cannot possibly be a viable comparison. IMHO you would be better off equating our situation here with the residential areas we probably all moved from, where people moved out of their homes to retire or downsize, or they passed on, and new younger people moved into the neighborhood. The new young people moving into our older homes brought modern ideas with them and updated our homes.

The first home we purchased right after getting married was in a suburb of Boston and needed updating, I had a very elderly neighbor on one side and a 60+ neighbor on the other, over time the older residents moved out and young people bought in, and when we were ready to retire a very young couple purchased our home. It's the continuation of life and community, without which communities would cease to exist.

Originally Posted by PennBF (Post 746613)

I can only state what I believe but I can't help you understand it. The biggest dangers are denial's and not caring. Historically that has always been the dangers of loss and failures. It is interesting how many go to denial or rationalize why it should just be ignored as someone else will handle it and/or it will go away. Most of us are 60+ and just want to kick back and
enjoy ourselves and let the next ones handle the potential problems. In the current responses you can see that attitude in the majority of them. With luck and a little care most may make it to the final call and not have to think or worry about it.
How do you look at some of the bushes that are now not trimmed until they look shabby, or look at the weeds growing where they never use to grow,I look at it as the fast growing season with all of the rain right now.
or take your chairs to the squares to see the parades only to find out they are not there, etc. There are only a few ways to psychologically handle this. We had a poll on here about parades and the posters on this forum who may or may not represent the populace did not miss the parades by a majority.
Either accept mediocrity, lower ones standards, denial, + others that don't
quickly come to mind. If you say none of this is true you may be in denial,
if you say it isn't that bad you may be accepting mediocrity or lowering standards. :thumbup:

Originally Posted by buzzy (Post 746596)

Perhaps I should have left out the condo example. Your example is equally unsuitable. Young people are not moving into over 55 retirement communities. I am only suggesting that there could be a subtle long-term shift in the population which could have a negative effect on the lifestyle.

Originally Posted by PennBF (Post 746645)

It is interesting to note acceptance of mediocrity, denial and so what. Pretty standard fare. Even in one case the person did not want a democracy. Now that is thinking out of the box. It appears that outside of the POA there is not much interest in protecting the status quo. I did the statistics and I think I have a good chance of beating the loss of services and values. :ho: