[doctorknow]

Originally Posted by Jayhawk

If they have no appeal, they will sit vacant. If they do have appeal, they will be leased. No harm, no foul to anyone so no big deal. Other than from those who are just anti-developer and anything they propose.

Personally I think they will go fast.

Hey I think making money is a good thing...keeps the local economy strong. Hoorah for the developer who has the ability and plans to do it. My issue is that apartments are "usually" for more of a transient population. Low income or working folks planning on moving or buying a house later. Why isn't the developer trying to sell condos instead. It would appeal to the older person who doesn't want the yard upkeep? Condos if priced right would still be an option for working class folks who work within the villages. Also condos also include a form of ownership or permanency to the resident which would give more of a sense of attachment to the villages community. A few apartments for the lower income workers in the villages may be fine but the trend is growing with more apartments being planned and built.
I have some concern... traffic is number one.

[tophcfa]

Originally Posted by doctorknow

Hey I think making money is a good thing...keeps the local economy strong. Hoorah for the developer who has the ability and plans to do it. My issue is that apartments are "usually" for more of a transient population. Low income or working folks planning on moving or buying a house later. Why isn't the developer trying to sell condos instead. It would appeal to the older person who doesn't want the yard upkeep? Condos if priced right would still be an option for working class folks who work within the villages. Also condos also include a form of ownership or permanency to the resident which would give more of a sense of attachment to the villages community. A few apartments for the lower income workers in the villages may be fine but the trend is growing with more apartments being planned and built.
I have some concern... traffic is number one.

I have gone on record as not being in favor of apartments when they are put in an inappropriate place, like an already well established single family residential neighborhood with pre-existing traffic congestion and overused amenities. That being said, apartments are not a bad thing if they are put in the right place and don't negatively effect existing homeowners.

The apartments the developers are planning are not being built for transient people as you state. They have a one year minimum lease term and can not be sub-letted. They are also age restricted (at least as much as the rest of the Villages is) and would most likely attract older people, many who lost their spouses, who can no longer maintain a home and yard. Apartments are not bad, they just need to be located in new developments where they are designed to not conflict with single family residences and the amenities being built have the high density living in mind.

If you are really concerned about transient renters, you should be much more worried about people who live in their homes and rent out rooms to transient renters through AIRBNB.

[maryl]

You are taking the villages and trying to make it like a city no thanks

[Jayhawk]

Originally Posted by doctorknow

My issue is that apartments are "usually" for more of a transient population. Low income or working folks planning on moving or buying a house later.

Like a smart poster wrote a day or so ago, most of the people renting at The Lofts could probably buy and sell most homeowners in The Villages. The 3 Bedroom apartments START at almost $3,200 per month, plus everything else (utilities, garages, etc). I don't think you need to worry about "low income working folks" but hey, if they can afford it, what's it to anyone?