Short Term Rental Idea. Needs Crowd Vetting

[BrianL99]

That was a mistake.

The prolific posters on this subject (in the other threads), obviously have no interest in a potential approach to their perceived problem, they apparently only want attention and an audience for their complaints.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Seems like a whole lot of work for a limited situation, that can easily be resolved by the Developer enforcing its own rules. Honestly, that is ALL that's necessary. There's really nothing wrong with the existence of tenants. The problem is with BAD tenants. And if they're bad, it's because they're breaking a rule. Enforce the rules, and the bad tenants cease to be a problem.

[Papa_lecki]

What happens when my kids or grandkids come down, they get a Guest pass, and I need to accompany them to the tennis court, pickleball court and family pool?

[Kelevision]

So I have a germ of an idea to help control STR's.

I don't agree they're even a problem, but some folks disagree.

I don't like 'em, but I'm looking at this like as personal challenge. If you knew me and read my LinkedIn, you'd see that I've never really had a "profession", other than "problem solver". Sometimes I've successful, sometimes not.

Here's my basic framework:

The ONLY way I know of (under current law) to exert some control over STR's, is via the CDD's.

As I understand them, CDD's only control Infrastructure and amenities. They have no control over the occupancy of homes.

So the challenge becomes, figuring out a way to control the amenities, that serves to address the issues raised by the STR opponents, yet protect the Investors (regardless of whether or not you think they should be protected, they have rights too).

I'm the first to argue for owner property rights and less government, but I also understand the need to provide reasonable parameters to protect the integrity of the neighborhoods. Any Investor who's not willing to abide by reasonable rules that protect residents ... screw him.

IF:

The CDD's were to re-imagine the Guest Pass program, this might work. The Developer would obviously be exempted.

Instead of (2) types of passes (Resident & Guest), they'd be (3) kinds of passes: Resident, Guest and UN-accompanied Guest.

Guest passes would REQUIRED to be accompanied by a Resident (with Resident ID) to be valid. In other words, it's not a valid pass on it's own, it needs a Resident Pass to be presented with it. Easy pass to get, no aggravation, no cost, no obligation (makes an assumption that actual owners are reasonable people and enjoy accompanying their guests).

An Unaccompanied Guest Pass would require the following (I'd like to say it had to be obtained "in person", but that's not practical. Staffing & costs would be through the roof):

1. An online application to be submitted by an Owner.

2. The initial online application by the owner, merely authorizes his/her prospective guest the right to apply for an Unaccompanied Guest Pass.

3. The application for the Unaccompanied Guest Pass, requires the applicant to complete an "online checklist/test" (simple stuff these days), which proves they're familiar with the applicable "rules" of The Villages and what rights (and obligations) the Unaccompanied Guest Pass gives them. (These could be easily changed to manage changing conditions.)

A. "Quiet Hours"
B. Parking requirements
C. Multi-Model Regs. (I thought of using MMP's as a "control", but not ready yet)
D. Trash Rules
E. Pool regulations
F. Pet Regulations
G. Public Safety
H. Roundabout etiquette
I. Golf rules & etiquette
J. I toyed with the idea of suggesting an "age restriction" on UG passes.
K. Maybe UG passes are only issued to adults and their kids get an "accompanied pass".?
L. Etc.

4. In order to authorize a guest to apply for an Un-accompanied Guest Pass (we used to call it an UG pass at my country club) the resident would have to provide the name, address and contact phone number, for someone who "manages" the property and lives within 5-10 miles of the address the UG pass is assigned to. UG passes would have to be "Photo ID" or they would have no value.

5. The Owner has to agree to insure his/her UG guest adheres to all rules & regulations, with significant penalties if they don't.

6. If the Owner sponsors someone for an UG Pass and the UG breaks the rules, the owner gets a Warning. 2nd Offense is $100 fine. 3rd Offense is $500. 4th Offense, no more UG passes for that owner, for 6 months.

7. UG passes can't be applied for, until 48 hours prior to occupancy and they take 4 more days for issuance (minimizes "weekend rentals"?). (Maybe an exception for immediate & close family)

8. UG passes are valid for a maximum of 30 days and must be renewed every month (has to be a fairly simple, online process).

9. UG passes have an associated cost, that keeps the CDD"s revenue neutral (or perhaps makes a little profit, to cut back on Amenity Fee creep.) Maybe $50-$100, with a $20/month fee upon renewal?

10. In order for an Owner to request an UG pass, he would have to produce a written Occupancy Agreement, that generally lists the major rules/standards guests must abide by.

11. After you've been issued your 10th UG pass in a year, you're now considered an "STR Operator" and you get hit with a fair Licensing Fee (which helps to offsets the CDD's cost to help run your business, etc.). [In the long run, knowing which units are in STR use will be helpful]


There are a lot of "IF's" here and this is my first run through. I don't use many of the amenities in TV, so there are folks that know way more about than I do and I'm sure will be happy to share them.

Would the CDD's do something like this? I think it's inevitable they change the Guest Pass program. There have been issues with Guest Passes for ages. It's currently a cumbersome and amateur process (& way too easy to get one IMO).

Would the CDD's get involved with a program, solely to address the perceived problem with STR's? I don't know. I guess it would depend on how much pressure they got from residents and saw some benefits for the CDD's.

What would be the Developer's reaction? Just a guess, but I think they'd be neutral on the subject. This approach would have minimal impact on the Developer's Commercial Real Estate business. It wouldn't significantly effect home occupancy in TV. The same # of people would still patronize the commercial business that are all held in the Developer's portfolio. Also, he would have the advantage that his real estate agents could address the concerns of perspective buyers, by explaining that STR's are allowed, but only under very strict guidelines. We all know that the Developer could change the Deed Restrictions in new neighborhoods (to prohibit or permit STR's), but that doesn't solve the issue of the existing homes.

As I said, this is a first run through. I have to play golf every day, I don't have that much time to devote to this, but I thought Crowd Vetting might work. At least it has potential, if posters opt to be reasonable and helpful and not take this as an opportunity to advertise their prejudices and highlight their naivety.

I understand this doesn't do anything to change "occupancy". I would posit that restricting amenities is merely a back-door way to get at the issue. I'm making an assumption that being in TV, without the use of the amenities, would cause the rental market to be self-limiting, without being oppressive.

Please keep in mind, I'm NOT "taking sides". I don't really have a horse in this race. I think the only solution that works, is a solution that is reasonable and accommodates both sides. I don't want to be pummeled by either side.. I'm just the middle man. I'd rather be a solution finder than a complainer.

PLEASE DO NOT QUOTE this post if you post a response, it's too cumbersome. I assume most folks know how to quote part of an original post if necessary? If not, ask and someone will explain.

If something like this ever comes to fruition, I want most of the credit!

Every Airbnb I’ve ever stayed in has an entire folder of rules etc. I believe that this is an isolated problem. If you rent from airbnb, you’re on profile, pictures, ratings, you get rated after your stay. If they were problematic, they wouldn’t be able to rent on airbnb for long. Perhaps other rental sites are less strict?

[Two Bills]

Personally I think your 'germ' of an idea, is a solution looking for a problem.

[BrianL99]

Personally I think your 'germ' of an idea, is a solution looking for a problem.

I agree!

& I guess I learned a lesson.

The same naive, uninformed, nonsense responders that have involved themselves on the other threads about teh subject, don't want a solution, they want attention and someone to listen to them complain.

[Bill14564]

The biggest issue I have with the proposal is the cost and inconvenience to residents hosting family members.

- I really don't want to accompany my mother in law to the yoga class she wants to attend
- I really don't want to pay $50 so that my nephew can go to the pool while I'm at another event
- My non-tech-savvy father in law will not be able to apply for his own which either leaves him without a pass or requires me to enter data as him

This would need Developer buy-in since the Developer (through the VCCDD and SLCDD boards) administers the amenities and guest passes.

This would require substantial IT support to create the new application pages.

This would probably not affect rentals of 30+ days since those guests are typically provided with temporary IDs (not passes) for their use. Unless, of course, the proposal would do away with the temporary IDs.

The proposal would be effective in making it prohibitively difficult to get a guest pass. It would make the Villages undesirable to renters who intended to use the pools but does that represent the majority of renters? Those that see the Villages as an inexpensive option for Disney lodging that also has nightly music might not be deterred at all.

Is this idea, or something similar, being effectively used elsewhere?

[Papa_lecki]

It also comes down to enforcement. The rec staff would need to enforce the ID system, which costs manpower and $$$.

[JMintzer]

What happens when my kids or grandkids come down, they get a Guest pass, and I need to accompany them to the tennis court, pickleball court and family pool?

Isn't that only if they are under a certain age? 19, right?

[BrianL99]

The biggest issue I have with the proposal is the cost and inconvenience to residents hosting family members.

- I really don't want to accompany my mother in law to the yoga class she wants to attend
- I really don't want to pay $50 so that my nephew can go to the pool while I'm at another event
- My non-tech-savvy father in law will not be able to apply for his own which either leaves him without a pass or requires me to enter data as him

This would need Developer buy-in since the Developer (through the VCCDD and SLCDD boards) administers the amenities and guest passes.

This would require substantial IT support to create the new application pages.

This would probably not affect rentals of 30+ days since those guests are typically provided with temporary IDs (not passes) for their use. Unless, of course, the proposal would do away with the temporary IDs.

The proposal would be effective in making it prohibitively difficult to get a guest pass. It would make the Villages undesirable to renters who intended to use the pools but does that represent the majority of renters? Those that see the Villages as an inexpensive option for Disney lodging that also has nightly music might not be deterred at all.

Is this idea, or something similar, being effectively used elsewhere?


You're right on all counts, other than it's not a "proposal". It was meant to be a starting point of a framework that could potentially provide a structure that might address the issues raised. I readily admitted I hardly use any TV amenities, so I have a lack of familiarity with them and their use.

Many communities use a similar system, that revolves around "access". Unfortunately, they're aren't many un-controlled (no HOA) communities of the size, scope and complexity as TV.

Given that there were over 500 posts on "controlling STR's", without a single realistic and substantive suggestion on how to do it, I just looked outside the box, for a way to get at it from the back-door. If you can control part of the attraction (amenities), you garner some measure of control over the inconveniences. As I posted before, in my other community, we took the "beach rights" away from renters. Didn't "solve" anything, but addressed one significant problem.

There is no practical way to control "occupancy" in the existing parts TV, that horse has left the barn. Besides, no one cares "who" is in a unit, they only care about their behavior. We can't directly control behavior either, but it's possible behavior can be managed with education and regulatory compliance.

A panacea? Nope. Easy? Nope. Process intensive? Yep. Fair? Depends on your perspective. Opponents of STR's want them to disappear, won't happen. Investors have rights too. Investors, tenants, residents, snowbirds, yankees and bubbas, all have to co-exist. TV (or anyplace in the world) doesn't belong to any particular group. Either live with the inconveniences or deal with trying to manage the prejudices of disparate constituencies.

The solution Villagers want for every problem, is for someone to wave a magic wand and make it go away. Lousy conditions at the golf courses? Poof! The Developer should just dump $50,000,000 at the problem. Won't happen.

People speeding on the MMP's? Poof! It goes away because folks complain on the internet!

Too many Snowbirds show up in January? Poof! Maybe there should be rules that stagger when Snowbirds are allowed to stay in their homes and spread them out through the calendar?

All those "outsiders" taking up parking spaces and personal space in the Squares? Why should Villagers have to accept that? That's like saying, screw those Indians, what did they ever do for our USA.

The best possible thing that could happen for The Villages, is to prohibit Internet service and internet forums. If folks had to vent their frustrations face to face, there'd be whole lot less complaining about nonsense.

[Papa_lecki]

Isn't that only if they are under a certain age? 19, right?

JM. I’m talking the proposal that was set forth, not how it is now
The proposal was that all guests need to be accompanied.

[Normal]

If you own in The Villages and you want to rent your place out, be in place when your guests arrive. Hosted rentals would be the best fix. You are then totally responsible for those you have invited in.

You take care of the trash
You take care of problem noise
You address improper parking
You take care of poor pet habits

Lastly, you would do a much better job of vetting YOUR GUESTS you invited in!

Don’t depend on your neighbors to repetitively do YOUR job.

[vintageogauge]

Bad tenants are short term, be thankful if you have good full time neighbors as if you don't then you have something to complain about. Tenants come and go and most of them are not a nuisance.

[margaretmattson]

Your idea was bad. No need to attack those who told you so.The OP idea is really bad. No homeowner should be responsible for babysitting and reporting renters in their neighborhoods. Some of the OP insults were directed at me. I am not going to engage. We all have our bad days.

[Bill14564]

The OP idea is really bad. No homeowner should be responsible for babysitting and reporting renters in their neighborhoods. Some of the OP insults were directed at me. I am not going to engage. We all have our bad days.

Did you read the idea? There were 11 specific steps/points to the idea, which one of those 11 mentioned a homeowner babysitting or reporting renters?

If you are referring to filing a complaint against a deed or ordinance violation, that's the way things work in the Villages (and most non-police-state countries), rental or not.

[Moderator]

Entirely too much sniping going on here.