Lifestyle is a short term rental. It is a rental, it is for less than a week, it is a short term rental. Are you really proposing a law that says something to the effect that the Developer has the right to rent out property in the area but no other homeowner does? Some would argue the Developer enjoys enough special treatment as it is.

*I* am only aware of the issues that have been raised on this forum. Since it doesn't seem like many are holding back on listing their grievances I can only assume that there are only a few actual issues.

I find it hard to believe that a particular homeowner is soliciting for renters with bad behavior such that everyone that rents that particular home causes a problem. I certainly *can* believe that occasionally a bad renter comes through. I wouldn't wish that on anyone but the concern that at some point in time someone in one of the several thousand homes might have a party or park in the street doesn't seem like a good reason to penalize all those who want to make some money off their property or who want to visit the area.

And again, if someone is violating the noise ordinance or parking ordinance or trespassing laws then by all means, get the police involved. It doesn't matter if it is a fulltime resident, snowbird, renter, child, grandchild, or guest.

Other posts have already noted that attempts to weaken the law are filed every year.

Yes, it is different. The Lifestyle is run well and monitored carefully - I did it before buying here. Do not try to confuse the issue by obfuscating the term Short Term Rental. They are not all alike.

It has become painfully obvious that there are a couple posters on this topic who are short term rental landlords who are making a lame attempt to justify their neighborhood disrupting actions.

How is the way it is run and monitored different than an airBnB or ****? I know what I was asked for before staying at any of the three and the airBnB required more documentation from me. In none of the three did I notice any minders standing outside making sure I was dressed properly before leaving the home. You can insist that it is different but the only real difference is the name on the business collecting the rents.

Sure, you've never seen or heard of a problem with one of the Lifestyle homes. I'll bet the same can be said of 90+% of the homes rented as airBnB. I'm honestly interested in how many people on here have personal experience with consistently bad renters in their neighborhood and how many are arguing over something they have never experienced.

I don't know about "lame excuses", but I'm sure there are people on this site who own STR's. After all, STR owners are likely younger, more sophisticated and see the wisdom in keeping up with TV issues.

The Villages demographic is fascinating, in it's consistency. The younger, more sophisticated and savvy folks seem to be the new comers down south. The middle of TV seems to have a lot of successful folks, fairly new to retirement. By the time you get to the Northern/Historic area, you have the much older folks who moved to TV when it wasn't much more than a trailer park. These people seem to want the world to return to the way it was in 70's and they rail against anything new, while they bemoan the passing of the "good old days", when Harold Schwartz roamed Spanish Springs.

Out of perspective curiosity where do you live Brian ?

Bull$#@&! It appears as though both a STR landlord and a “legend in his own mind” has stepped forward. I guess the rest of us are merely a bunch of old and unsophisticated folks with no savvy or wisdom! Really?

You keep stating over and over you have never seen or heard of a problem with STRs. You haven't been listening. If they were not a problem then why did NYC put an end to them? Why are cities across the world restricting them? Again, I tell you, it is you against the world. Where you do not see a problem, millions of people do.

I don't live in NYC and, frankly, I don't want TV to emulate NYC.

I don't know why cities across the world are restricting them. Again, I don't live in cities across the world and I don't want TV to emulate them.

I also never said I had not heard of a problem with STRs. I wrote that I have never personally experienced a problem with a renter and I (hopefully) implied that even though there have been several threads on ToTV claiming there were problems with STRs only a few have ever been identified.

Not everyone uses ToTV so perhaps many of those experiencing STR problems haven't posted here. Maybe those that have posted are holding back on all the problems they have experienced. That would not be typical ToTV behavior but it could happen.

I do not see a problem because, I have not seen a problem and I have not seen millions/thousands/hundreds/dozens/more than a few mention problems in ToTV. Let NYC, Orlando, St Augustine, and the world solve the problems they are having, I'm more concerned about the problems ToTV is having (or not).

Bottom line, we have enough laws restricting our rights (even here in the "Free" state of Florida). I don't want to see any more rights limited or taken away unless it is absolutely necessary. When I hear that the city of Wildwood refused to deal with the car parked across someone's driveway or Sumter County Sheriff would not break up the loud street party at 4AM then I might agree that more limitations are necessary. If that pits me against the world then so be it. However, with reports of thousands or STRs in TV, I believe there are others who don't want to see their rights limited either.

This comment has me just laughing out loud. The poster you are talking about is making a pathetic attempt to justify his view point through ageism… lol.

Some brag about the equity in their home. Others know the home they are living in will be their forever home. They do not want an increase in property taxes and insurance. They do not want a burst in the real estate bubble similar to 2008. Living with strangers coming and going is not what they want because they understand crime will soon follow. And, they especially do not want to hear from those who rent out homes that " Hey! I am doing you and everyone here a favor." The only people who profit from STRs are those who have invested into them.

Anomaly
 

He certainly is the anomaly. Anyone who thinks it’s cool to just change out neighbors weekly who have no responsibility to the premises they occupy, isn’t considering the negative impacts. Multiply the odds of negative impact by changing the occupants to a different group weekly and it’s not the matter of “if” it’s going to happen, but “when” and how often.

The number one thing buyers need to ask is, “Are there rentals on the street I’m considering to buy on?” If yes, understand it can lesson the value of the home you purchase. Most don’t want that and will look elsewhere.

Wow! I guess sophisticated and savvy are in the eyes of the beholder. Just wondering. At what age do you believe you will become one of the unsophisticated slugs?

This is exactly where the world and you differ. You believe it is a right for people to rent their homes for short periods of time without worrying about the consequences.

The world has seen the consequences and are now placing restrictions on "the right" you claim to have.

Timely post. I read on one of the FB groups today where a STR is actually being billed as a Bed & Breakfast. At some point this has got to run afoul of the "running a business" rule...

How in the world is the homeowner providing breakfast to his renters? Just curious.

Pop tarts??

It already has run afoul. The problem is that the party with the authority to enforce the violation has the right of enforcement, not the responsibility. This selective enforcement totally discredits the whole deed restriction system.

Toss a couple stale bagels on the table. Form over substance at its best.

I don't think you can rent for an overnight. When we did it the minimum was a week.

About in the middle.

You should have read my post in its entirety and perhaps you'd understand the context.

There's where you're wrong. You have no clue of my viewpoint. I just have a lot of experience in this particular subject and I'm not opposed to doing the research necessary to post accurate observations and/or information.

As for my viewpoint. I don't own any STR's in The Villages, nor anywhere else. I do have management responsibility for a few hotels, so I have some experience with that side of the industry.

That said, the reason I don't own any STR's are I think they are an abomination and undermine the basic principles and premises of Residential Zoning. IMO, people who buy a home in a Residentially Zoned area, have a right to expect it will continue to be a neighborhood were folks actually reside and not become a haven for transient renters.

To my continued dismay, I have yet to be appointed King for a Day, so STR's are an unfortunate reality and the Developer seems unwilling or uninterested in enforcing the existing Deed Restrictions. There seems to be a reasonable case made, that the current deed restrictions that prohibit "Business Use" of home in TV, would prohibit STR's.

The only way I know of to find out, is to mount a legal challenge and sue STR owners as 3rd Party Beneficiaries of the Deed Restrictions.

Just as an aside to the issues in TV, this "discussion" is going on in most every resort type community in the USA, particularly along the coast ... from Maine, around Florida and all the way to CA and Oregon.

There are *some* towns (& perhaps states) that have "beat the STR problem". It has to do with the way the community (or Zoning Authority) defines "Residential Use".

When the majority of Zoning Regulations were written, STR's didn't exist, so they typically weren't addressed in zoning schemes. Some zoning authorities (mostly by accident) decided to define "Transient Use" in their zoning scheme. Those communities (or states) have avoided the STR battles, because most don't allow "Transient Use" in their Residential Districts.

In other words, if a zoning scheme doesn't specifically define "transient use", most courts have concluded that STR's fall into the definition of "Residential". (BTW, some of the communities in FL that are "Grandfathered" with respect to their STR Regulations [I believe there are 75 of them], are Grandfathered because their zoning scheme defines "transient use" and prohibit that usage in a residentially zoned district.)

I appreciate your clarifications.

[QUOTE=BrianL99;2253804]About in the middle.



You should have read my post in its entirety and perhaps you'd understand the context.



There's where you're wrong. You have no clue of my viewpoint. I just have a lot of experience in this particular subject and I'm not opposed to doing the research necessary to post accurate observations and/or information.

As for my viewpoint. I don't own any STR's in The Villages, nor anywhere else. I do have management responsibility for a few hotels, so I have some experience with that side of the industry.

That said, the reason I don't own any STR's are I think they are an abomination and undermine the basic principles and premises of Residential Zoning. IMO, people who buy a home in a Residentially Zoned area, have a right to expect it will continue to be a neighborhood were folks actually reside and not become a haven for transient renters.

To my continued dismay, I have yet to be appointed King for a Day, so STR's are an unfortunate reality and the Developer seems unwilling or uninterested in enforcing the existing Deed Restrictions. There seems to be a reasonable case made, that the current deed restrictions that prohibit "Business Use" of home in TV, would prohibit STR's.

The only way I know of to find out, is to mount a legal challenge and sue STR owners as 3rd Party Beneficiaries of the Deed Restrictions.

Just as an aside to the issues in TV, this "discussion" is going on in most every resort type community in the USA, particularly along the coast ... from Maine, around Florida and all the way to CA and Oregon.

There are *some* towns (& perhaps states) that have "beat the STR problem". It has to do with the way the community (or Zoning Authority) defines "Residential Use".

When the majority of Zoning Regulations were written, STR's didn't exist, so they typically weren't addressed in zoning schemes. Some zoning authorities (mostly by accident) decided to define "Transient Use" in their zoning scheme. Those communities (or states) have avoided the STR battles, because most don't allow "Transient Use" in their Residential Districts.

In other words, if a zoning scheme doesn't specifically define "transient use", most courts have concluded that STR's fall into the definition of "Residential". (BTW, some of the communities in FL that are "Grandfathered" with respect to their STR Regulations [I believe there are 75 of them], are Grandfathered because their zoning scheme defines "transient use" and prohibit that usage in a residentially zoned district.)[/QUOTE)
///

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.

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.

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

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.

Seriously
 

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.

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.

The developer stopped caring about the residents 2 generations ago.

???

(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.

True
 

Correct,”violation” of a deed restriction.

Right on

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....

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.

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