[Sandy and Ed]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

No.

Villagers want it both ways.

They want to complain about "renters" & "snow birds", but can't wait to talk about their increasing property value/equity in their home. All of which is driven by the demand created by renters & snow birds.

A monthly rental or snow bird is not a STR. I refer to the long weekend or weekly rentals. A month (I.e., minimum 30 days) is ok.

[oldtimes]

Originally Posted by Maker

That 1 week minimum was the choice made by the property owner. It's their personal preference. Their choice is likely related to other factors, such as the amount of work needed for every new renter - their time involved with managing each rental, cleaning, inspections, conducting background checks, etc.
There is no law in TV about minimum duration. They could have picked 1 night if they wanted.

I was talking about the lifestyle preview. I googled further and found it was 4 to 7 days.

[defrey12]

Originally Posted by Normal

Seems fairly straightforward…thanks. The measure could be placed before voters, funding for enforcement could easily be a surplus in the budget through licensing/fines, and if there were issues with landlords having to reside during their “guests” stay, then many would decide not to rent. It’s a win/ win.

Sorry, but I think this is the WRONG discussion. What y’all are proposing is nothing short of violating constitutional property rights. Yes, there may be an issue. But wholesale limits on what a person can or cannot do with their property via government intrusion is UNCONSTITUTIONAL! PERIOD! If I (or you) want to rent our property NO ONE can tell us not to. Should there be SENSIBLE rules? Sure. But to put outright prohibitions on such activities is AGAINST THE LAW! Then the discussion turned to financing enforcement of these nonsensical edicts…the county can’t even figure out how to pay for fire protection, so do you think they’ll actually entertain such a notion?

[Velvet]

Originally Posted by defrey12

Sorry, but I think this is the WRONG discussion. What y’all are proposing is nothing short of violating constitutional property rights. Yes, there may be an issue. But wholesale limits on what a person can or cannot do with their property via government intrusion is UNCONSTITUTIONAL! PERIOD! If I (or you) want to rent our property NO ONE can tell us not to. Should there be SENSIBLE rules? Sure. But to put outright prohibitions on such activities is AGAINST THE LAW! Then the discussion turned to financing enforcement of these nonsensical edicts…the county can’t even figure out how to pay for fire protection, so do you think they’ll actually entertain such a notion?

Of course they can tell you what you can do on your property. You are not in a cave or in the middle of the dessert. What you do affects your neighbors and you do not have a right to compromise their well-being. For example, you can’t burn leaves etc in a barrel on your lawn in most cities. Why do you think one person’s right supersedes a whole group of others? If you don’t like to comply, go find your cave.

As far as TV Lifestyle promotion goes, it is never billed as a vacation etc. party time or etc. It is a sample of living with the intent that if you like it then you buy a home in TV. It is part of the sales advertising. The STR renters almost never intend to buy a home here. They just come for the facilities, usually not giving much care about their negative impact on the people around them.

[Normal]

All is answered through a single question about the illegality of AirBnBs.

Do you own more than one home in the Villages?

If you answered “yes”, you are owning for profit. In several instances actual companies own houses. More than one house indicates a business is operating.

[Velvet]

Another way might be to limit issue of visitor’s ID to a time period. I am not looking forward to another season of being swarmed by STRs at the pool to the point where there was no room for me like last year. Over and over again.

[oldtimes]

Originally Posted by Velvet

Another way might be to limit issue of visitor’s ID to a time period. I am not looking forwards to another season of being swarmed by STRs at the pool like last year. Over and over again.

The developer stopped caring about the residents 2 generations ago.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by Normal

All is answered through a single question about the illegality of AirBnBs.

Do you own more than one home in the Villages?

If you answered “yes”, you are owning for profit. In several instances actual companies own houses. More than one house indicates a business is operating.

???

(Note: take "illegal" to mean "illegal or in violation of a deed restriction")
It is not illegal to own more than one home.
It is not illegal for a business to own a home.
It is not illegal to own a home for profit.
It is not illegal to own a business.
Except in specific cases, it is not illegal to conduct commercial activities in a home.
Rentals, regardless of duration, are not illegal and do not constitute a commercial activity in a home.

[Normal]

Correct,”violation” of a deed restriction.

[ahrens fox]

Right on

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by defrey12

Sorry, but I think this is the WRONG discussion. What y’all are proposing is nothing short of violating constitutional property rights. Yes, there may be an issue. But wholesale limits on what a person can or cannot do with their property via government intrusion is UNCONSTITUTIONAL! PERIOD! If I (or you) want to rent our property NO ONE can tell us not to. Should there be SENSIBLE rules? Sure. But to put outright prohibitions on such activities is AGAINST THE LAW! Then the discussion turned to financing enforcement of these nonsensical edicts…the county can’t even figure out how to pay for fire protection, so do you think they’ll actually entertain such a notion?

I assume somewhere in your legal career, you've heard of "Zoning Laws" ?

Not to put to fine of a point on it, but when you buy property, what you are really buying is not the "dirt", you're buying a "Bundle of Rights".

Those rights are whatever rights the prior owner had and has agreed to sell you, along with the rights (& restrictions) endowed by other stake holders ... which include governments, local, state and federal. Unfortunately perhaps, but governments have the right to alter the rights you may or may not have purchased.

[Randall55]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

I assume somewhere in your legal career, you've heard of "Zoning Laws" ?

Not to put to fine of a point on it, but when you buy property, what you are really buying is not the "dirt", you're buying a "Bundle of Rights".

Those rights are whatever rights the prior owner had and has agreed to sell you, along with the rights (& restrictions) endowed by other stake holders ... which include governments, local, state and federal. Unfortunately perhaps, but governments have the right to alter the rights you may or may not have purchased.

?????? I would never buy dirt/bundle of rights, as you call it, without having everything clearly in writing. Here in the Villages, your rights are limited to the deed restrictions. When you sign in ink, you agree to these restrictions. Some argue the meaning/legality of certain sections, but if needed, you have the right to resolve it in court. The same goes for governing bodies. They cannot change a law or your rights without a legal cause to do so. What you have stated is a dictatorship. We abolished that thinking with a document that begins with these famous words:

We hold these truths to be self evident. That all men are created equal. That they are endowed by the creator with certain inalienable rights. That among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness....

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by Randall55

?????? I would never buy dirt, as you call it, without having everything clearly in writing. Here in the Villages, your rights are limited to the deed restrictions. When you sign in ink, you agree to these restrictions. Some argue the meaning/legality of certain sections, but if needed, you have the right to resolve it in court. The same goes for governing bodies. They cannot change a law or your rights without a legal cause to do so. What you have stated is a dictatorship. We abolished that thinking with a document that begins with these famous words:

We hold these truths to be self evident. That all men are created equal. That they are endowed by the creator with certain inalienable rights. That among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness....

The Villages is a perfect example of the concept that when buying property, you are buying a "Bundle of Rights" (Bundle of Rights Definition in Real Estate and What's Included).

When TV bought the land that comprises TV, they bought a "Bundle of Rights". When they sold the land/houses to residents, that bundle became different. TV reserved certain rights (took them out of the bundle and kept them). One of those "rights" they took away before selling the home/lot was everything included in the Deed Restrictions and Covenants.

A simple way to look at it (in reverse), is someone selling the mineral rights to their property, to an exploration company. The deal is, "I keep my land and home, but you Mr. Exploration company, have the right to harvest any diamonds buried under my dirt".

The same thing can happens in reverse. You can sell your land and retain the mineral rights. Just take it out of the "bundle" as TV did with their restrictions.

As for the "Dictatorship", cities, towns and states have an over-riding right and/or obligation to provide for the public good and can implement laws and regulations toward that end. You cannot dump a gallon of used motor oil in you backyard, that would violate the law. You could certainly sue when the state environmental agency stepped in and fined you, but you'd be fighting a losing battle.

Every Congress for the last 40 years, has faced gun control issues. Even the staunchest gun owners and defenders of the 2nd Amendment, have acquiesced to the implementation of *some* gun control laws.

The erosion of personal/individual rights, is well honored tradition of governments everywhere ... that's why we have governments. We make a trade. We give up certain rights to the government and in exchange, they do things for us (like build roads & defend our country).

[Randall55]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

The Villages is a perfect example of the concept that when buying property, you are buying a "Bundle of Rights" (Bundle of Rights Definition in Real Estate and What's Included).

When TV bought the land that comprises TV, they bought a "Bundle of Rights". When they sold the land/houses to residents, that bundle became different. TV reserved certain rights (took them out of the bundle and kept them). One of those "rights" they took away before selling the home/lot was everything included in the Deed Restrictions and Covenants.

A simple way to look at it (in reverse), is someone selling the mineral rights to their property, to an exploration company. The deal is, "I keep my land and home, but you Mr. Exploration company, have the right to harvest any diamonds buried under my dirt".

The same thing can happens in reverse. You can sell your land and retain the mineral rights. Just take it out of the "bundle" as TV did with their restrictions.

As for the "Dictatorship", cities, towns and states have an over-riding right and/or obligation to provide for the public good and can implement laws and regulations toward that end. You cannot dump a gallon of used motor oil in you backyard, that would violate the law. You could certainly sue when the state environmental agency stepped in and fined you, but you'd be fighting a losing battle.

Every Congress for the last 40 years, has faced gun control issues. Even the staunchest gun owners and defenders of the 2nd Amendment, have acquiesced to the implementation of *some* gun control laws.

The erosion of personal/individual rights, is well honored tradition of governments everywhere ... that's why we have governments. We make a trade. We give up certain rights to the government and in exchange, they do things for us (like build roads & defend our country).

I think you are confused. No where, no way, no how, does any governing body have a right to impose laws without a legal cause to do so. The items you stated are legal because they are defined in laws. Our country is a democracy. People who live here are never stripped of their rights. Again, that would be a dictatorship. NYC changed the rules of STRs according to the law. They didn't just wake up one day and decide to rob their citizens. Although, to many, it appears that way. Good news Is anyone who disagrees with the new limitations has the right to fight in a court room. If they win, it is because NYC violated the law not because they were stripping anyone of their rights.You seem to believe the government has powers to do as they wish. That is completely wrong.

[margaretmattson]

Ugh! Sometimes these types of threads give me a headache. Anyone have an aspirin?