[Randall55]

Originally Posted by ChrisTee

Two separate couples I know have chosen not to buy homes in TV because of the STR problems in TV. They do not want to live in a TRANSIENT community w/ nightly or weekly resident turnover - that is absolutely what many villages have become - home to transients who spend a few nights there and move on while another transient moves in. Without legal protection, any homeowners in TV are at risk of having a transient rental home next door. We will move to a community that provides legal protection /recourse from STR transient occupation of homes if this continues in TV. As much as we enjoy TV we will leave TV if TV doesn't get on board with legal protections for owners and not allowing STR - transient occupation of homes in TV) No way I'll live in my beautiful retirement home surrounded by transient, ST renters.

A few have sold their homes and have left in my area because of rentals. All bought villas and found approx 25% of them were used for rental income. The owners were Villagers and asked them to keep an eye on their properties and would call and ask for favors. That did not go over well! Why would a homeowner want to keep an eye on rental homes? Why should they be responsible for the clean up? And why would a Village landlord expect them to do so? Some just packed up and moved North.

[Randall55]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

District 12, unit 20

I am not familiar with the Fenney/MarshBend area. Is there a reason the Developer would prohibit rentals and then change the deed restriction to allow?

[Normal]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

NO. Being part of an HOA is key to classification as an HOA. There is no HOA agreement for the homes in the Villages.

The Villages operates as multiple Section 190 Community Development Districts. An HOA is a section 720 entity. Completely different things.

We shall see during litigating I’m sure.

Meanwhile, back at your ranch and mine. Also CCDs CAN regulate amenities (I.e ban non residents or set rules for amenities), CAN regulate residential requirements (ie. resident must be in home if guests are present) and CAN regulate hours for visitors.

There is no doubt on these points! They are CDDs.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by Randall55

I am not familiar with the Fenney/MarshBend area. Is there a reason the Developer would prohibit rentals and then change the deed restriction to allow?

I have no insight into the reasoning of the Developer.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

I have no insight into the reasoning of the Developer.

Exactly! And neither does anyone else posting on this thread.

A lot of people have posted something to the effect that "the greedy developer will never do anything to curtail STRs because it will hurt sales". I have to disagree with that reasoning, because:

There are about 70,000 homes in TV and growing, how many are rented out and how many were bought as investment property for the sole purpose of renting them out? And of them, how many are STRs? The only number I saw thrown out here is about 800 listings for rentals in TV, which would be about 1%. So, let's be generous and call it 3-4%. Do we really think that savvy businesspeople like the Morse family will cater their business to 3-4% while disgruntling the vast majority? Do they want their core business of a 55+ "friendly" retirement community to become a flop house haven? I don't think so. Besides, they have absolutely no problem selling everything they build without selling to slumlords. And why would they spend a ton of money on the new schools if they want STRs? My suspicion is that either STRs are a problem that is evolving and the developer hasn't addressed yet, or they have already had their lawyers look at it and are not ready to get involved yet.

[Randall55]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Exactly! And neither does anyone else posting on this thread.

A lot of people have posted something to the effect that "the greedy developer will never do anything to curtail STRs because it will hurt sales". I have to disagree with that reasoning, because:

There are about 70,000 homes in TV and growing, how many are rented out and how many were bought as investment property for the sole purpose of renting them out? And of them, how many are STRs? The only number I saw thrown out here is about 800 listings for rentals in TV, which would be about 1%. So, let's be generous and call it 3-4%. Do we really think that savvy businesspeople like the Morse family will cater their business to 3-4% while disgruntling the vast majority? Do they want their core business of a 55+ "friendly" retirement community to become a flop house haven? I don't think so. Besides, they have absolutely no problem selling everything they build without selling to slumlords. And why would they spend a ton of money on the new schools if they want STRs? My suspicion is that either STRs are a problem that is evolving and the developer hasn't addressed yet, or they have already had their lawyers look at it and are not ready to get involved yet.

In fairness, his response was to a post in which the Developer changed the deed restrictions. In the Fenney area, the deed restrictions stated no rentals allowed. They were then crossed out, and rentals are permitted.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Randall55

In fairness, his response was to a post in which the Developer changed the deed restrictions. In the Fenney area, the deed restrictions stated no rentals allowed. They were then crossed out, and rentals are permitted.

And yet my response was in general to the whole thread. No idea what happened in Fenney. Certainly I do see a problem with 2 "neighbors"---one a snowbird who rents out for a minimum of 1 month when they are not here, and the other who bought an investment to uses as a STR-----the "no rental" restriction would have to be a lot more specific

[Randall55]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

And yet my response was in general to the whole thread. No idea what happened in Fenney. Certainly I do see a problem with 2 "neighbors"---one a snowbird who rents out for a minimum of 1 month when they are not here, and the other who bought an investment to uses as a STR-----the "no rental" restriction would have to be a lot more specific

But, the Developer made a decision to change a deed restriction in Fenney that prohibited rental properties. He now allows them. Either he changed the deed restriction to have consistent rules throughout the Villages or he wants and believes in rentals.

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by Normal

We shall see during litigating I’m sure.

Meanwhile, back at your ranch and mine. Also CCDs CAN regulate amenities (I.e ban non residents or set rules for amenities), CAN regulate residential requirements (ie. resident must be in home if guests are present) and CAN regulate hours for visitors.

There is no doubt on these points! They are CDDs.

What is a CCD?

If you're talking CDD's, you're 1/2 right. They can manage amenities and make rules regarding their use. There's a cloud of doubt hanging over your other assertions, that would rival the cloud from the Canadian forest fires.

They have no zoning power and it would be a gigantic leap for them to try to exercise any control over individual homes, other than as they relate to the infrastructure.

Folks keep confusing TV CDD's with local governments. CDD's only function as a local government, with respect to infrastructure. Lady Lake, Oxford and the towns that make up TV, still maintain jurisdiction over the homes/land within their town borders.

Community Development Districts – What you should know! | CFM Community Development District

Community Development Districts in Florida - Cobb & Gonzalez, P.A.

[Randall55]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

What is a CCD?

If you're talking CDD's, you're 1/2 right. They can manage amenities and make rules regarding their use. There's a cloud of doubt hanging over your other assertions, that would rival the cloud from the Canadian forest fires.

They have no zoning power and it would be a gigantic leap for them to try to exercise some control over individual homes, other than as they relate to the infrastructure.

Folks keep confusing TV CDD's with local governments. CDD's only function as a local government, with respect to infrastructure. Lady Lake, Oxford and the towns that make up TV, still maintain jurisdiction over the homes/land within their town borders.

Community Development Districts – What you should know! | CFM Community Development District

Community Development Districts in Florida - Cobb & Gonzalez, P.A.

Interesting to know but has nothing to do with the post you responded to.

The post said: CDD can regulate amenities, make certain homeowners are present when there are guests, and set hours for guests. What in his statement has to do with local government and zoning?

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by Randall55

Interesting to know but has nothing to do with the post you responded to.

The post said: CDD can regulate amenities, make certain homeowners are present when there are guests, and set hours for guests. What in his statement has to do with local government and zoning?

The post said:

Originally Posted by Normal

... CAN regulate residential requirements (ie. resident must be in home if guests are present) and CAN regulate hours for visitors.


There is no doubt on these points! They are CDDs.

I don't have a Master's Degree in Political Science like some folks on here, but I do understand Zoning and Land Use fairly well. I also know that CDD"s have no zoning powers.

Perhaps if you read Post #116 & Post #118 and then acquaint yourself with Euclid v Ambler Realty Co., you'll see the nexus.

[Randall55]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

The post said:



I don't have a Master's Degree in Political Science like some folks on here, but I do understand Zoning and Land Use fairly well. I also know that CDD"s have no zoning powers.

Perhaps if you read Post #116 & Post #118 and then acquaint yourself with Euclid v Ambler Realty Co., you'll see the nexus.

Not interested in reading Euclid v Amber Realty Co. Why? it has no relevance to this thread nor do your posts #116 and #118.

f you understand zoning and land use fairly well then answer the question. What does controlling use of amenities, requiring a homeowner to be present when there are guests, and setting hours for guests have to do with zoning and land use?

Let me help you out. Nothing! But, I get it! You just want to confuse the readers on this thread. Yet, AGAIN. Perhaps, you are an STR owner? Why not go back to the gun owner facts you input into this thread? At least that irrelevant information was a little more interesting.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by Randall55

Not interested in reading Euclid v Amber Realty Co. Why? it has no relevance to this thread nor do your posts #116 and #118.

f you understand zoning and land use fairly well then answer the question. What does controlling use of amenities, requiring a homeowner to be present when there are guests, and setting hours for guests have to do with zoning and land use?

Let me help you out. Nothing! But, I get it! You just want to confuse the readers on this thread. Yet, AGAIN. Perhaps, you are an STR owner? Why not go back to the gun owner facts you input into this thread? At least that irrelevant information was a little more interesting.

What does it mean to set hours for guests? Are you asserting that the CDD has the authority to literally roll up the streets and force non-residents out of the area?

The requirement that a homeowner be present was based on the zoning of where the home was located.

CDDs can control amenities though in our case that would be VCCDD and SLCDD rather than our numbered CDDs. CDDs do not have control over zoning or how you use your home.

The Developer *might* have some control with their ability to amend the deed restrictions. Still, there must be some limitation to what those amendments can be.

[margaretmattson]

Originally Posted by Randall55

A few have sold their homes and have left in my area because of rentals. All bought villas and found approx 25% of them were used for rental income. The owners were Villagers and asked them to keep an eye on their properties and would call and ask for favors. That did not go over well! Why would a homeowner want to keep an eye on rental homes? Why should they be responsible for the clean up? And why would a Village landlord expect them to do so? Some just packed up and moved North.

In the past three years, my CYV neighborhood went from zero rentals on my street to 10. I am constantly bombarded by investors who want to purchase my villa. I live walking distance to a square and they see potential for high rent. When Eastport is built, I think investors are going to try and snatch up as many villas as they can.

[margaretmattson]

Originally Posted by Randall55

But, the Developer made a decision to change a deed restriction in Fenney that prohibited rental properties. He now allows them. Either he changed the deed restriction to have consistent rules throughout the Villages or he wants and believes in rentals.

Interesting