[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by Normal

The issue seems to be entirely voted for through political interest, not necessarily the will of the people. If the issue were placed as a public vote, STRs would be voted against hands down. No one wants to live next to one, congrats on catering to your campaign donors Florida House, Senate and governor. Forget the people, go for the money.

Many of those people either own STRs or simply don’t want to lose property rights. Count me in the latter group. I will argue all day long for the STRs because I live with enough Govt already and don’t want more.

[CoachKandSportsguy]

Originally Posted by Shipping up to Boston

Unless I'm confused, this bill attempts to collect fees/taxes. By doing so you have contact info and thus can hold said party accountable via administrative/lien actions for non payment. It does not eradicate STR, if that is your wish. The hope, once again, is to make individual owners that choose to rent, accountable. If TV as an entity didn't want STR im sure the practice would disappear. It doesn't appear that is the case

Correct on all cases.

Airbnb has lots of issues. I have read where lawyers who owned an Airbnb tried to discontinue the service with Airbnb, and Airbnb just kept advertising the property, no regard for the owner's request, until he sued them.

FL also is that third world county, as a local lawyer told us straight out, FL has excessive amounts of fraud and its everywhere.

[Randall55]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

The problem is that The Villages is spread across three different counties, there are multiple quasi-municipal governments within the community, each in charge, of their own districts. To compound the complexity, it's a deed-restricted community, with rules and regulations supposedly MUCH more strict than the towns and counties in which they are built. They still have to abide by the zoning laws of the counties. And that's really the only place where you can address the matter of short-term rentals for *existing* properties.

New properties in new neighborhoods that haven't had their deed restrictions written yet - can absolutely forbid short-term rentals. But it's the developer who writes these deed restrictions. And they don't care who lives in the house after they've been paid the purchase price from the original sale. It's not in their best financial interest to restrict who is and is not allowed to buy the homes they build.

Fenney had a no rentals clause in their deed restrictions at one time. It has since been removed. The Developer has no desire to restrict them. Or, someone pursued legal action and he was forced to remove the clause from the deed restrictions.

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by Shipping up to Boston

Not to mix topics but all of this reminded me of another....

To the poster that wanted to eradicate AirBnb, good luck with that. Here’s why; Those of us that are from the north east remember when taxi cab operators had to go in front of the various licensing authorities (ie; city councils etc) and submit to extensive background checks, proof of workman’s comp insurance and police approvals amongst other check offs. In major cities, Hackney licenses used to be worth in some cases six figures....now the paper and metal used for medallions is worth more than the license. Municipalities had designated taxi cab parking spots in convenient areas. Then along come rideshares. Autonomous from city ordinances and permitting....stop short wherever they want to board/unboard....and in some cases assault women and passengers, to name a few. I watched a city council meeting recently in a community adjacent to Logan airport in Boston. They receive ten cents for every ride share and asked the council to approve the remittance.....91K. A pittance. So again, I’m in favor of this bill in spirit but as always, the devils in the details...and in its performance.

Someone I knew (Sid Pallin), was the largest private Taxi Medallion owner in Boston. Of the 1800+ Medallions in Boston, he owned about 500 of them. They were valued at $750,000 each. Medallions in NYC were over $1,000,000. They have virtual no value today and yours is a perfect analogy. Uber took over that business and AirBnB wants to take over the hotel & rental market ... & they will.

[Shipping up to Boston]

Was his initials ET?

[Normal]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Many of those people either own STRs or simply don’t want to lose property rights. Count me in the latter group. I will argue all day long for the STRs because I live with enough Govt already and don’t want more.

I certainly understand your view, but I also support the freedom of all the residents of Florida who are against STRs. Perhaps there is a happy medium. Maybe specified rental areas? If a resident bought a home for a residence, they should be able to enjoy it in safety, security and serenity without external destabilization of their neighborhood. I don’t think renters or landlords are bad, I just think a person should be able to enjoy their neighborhood they bought into if the perception is it would be strictly residential.

[BrianL99]

Every time the subject of STR's come up, the same folks seem to post their quasi-legal opinions and spout the delusion position, that STR's can or will be or should be, outlawed.

The Tourist trade contributed about $130 BILLION to Florida's economy in 2023.

Tourism generated $16 BILLION in state and local tax revenue.

The State of Florida has zero interest in curtailing STR's. It would bankrupt the state.

All of which contribute to the reason the state has adopted regulations that prohibit cities, towns & counties, from messing with the STR business. They can regulate (to an extent), but cannot prohibit, nor adopt regulations regarding "duration".

& for all you folks who say that occupancy can be regulated, by requiring the owner to be present, that just isn't factual. Some communities are trying that approach, but they're all getting dragged into court and the smart money says they're going to lose.

The folks (same ones all the time) that say the Developer could, would, should control STR's, don't understand the Developer's business model.

Folks keep saying, "the Developer is only interested in selling homes". That statement shows a lack of understanding of business and the Developer's business model.

Every square inch of commercial space in The Villages, is owned by the Developer. At its core, Commercial real estate demand is driven by one and only one factor. The amount of business a company can do, that's location driven. In this instance, "location driven", means (3) things. Location, demographic and population.

If the Developer woke up tomorrow and said ... "no more rentals in TV", what would happen? The value of his commercial holdings would tank over-night. 30-40% of the potential customers of the various businesses, would be gone.

The numbers are probably worst than I'm guessing, because renters/vacationers spend more money than residents. More dining out, more shopping, more golf, more of everything. Unless it was to the Developer's interests, why would he/she get involved in the quagmire of STR regulation?

The only possible change in in the rental/STR side of The Villages, would be if the CCD's took some tighter control over Guest Passes & (non)-Resident ID's. Considering the Developer essentially controls the CDD's, that's fairly unlikely. Then again, I've heard some people have been struck by lightening, twice.

[shaw8700@outlook.com]

Originally Posted by Normal

It is easy to fix the issue, just cut the price? Maybe whoever is selling, is asking more than what someone is willing to pay?

Prices are being cut all over, even mine. We’ve lowered it three times by about 50K. Nobody is buying!

[Randall55]

Originally Posted by shaw8700@outlook.com

Prices are being cut all over, even mine. We’ve lowered it three times by about 50K. Nobody is buying!

Very true. I am seeing this happen throughout the Villages. A few owners are hitting the jackpot but most can't even get a bite. Oddly, the Village of Moultrie Creek is selling like hot cakes. It is a strange market!

[shaw8700@outlook.com]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

Actually, I'd love to see houses sitting on the market for 6+ months. It's what all the dopes who are confused about why we buy homes, deserve.

In another life, some years back, I was a housing policy advisor to a Governor and have some strong opinions on the subject. That doesn't make me right, it only means that I've been forced to think about the subject from a different perspective than most. I probably have stronger opinions on the subject than most, but that's just the way it goes, you can disagree.

Homes are just that, "homes". The purpose of homes, is shelter for people and families. Nothing more, nothing less.

We [the age demographic in TV] are the first generation in American history, who have expected to "inherit wealth", primarily derived from home appreciation of our parents. Prior to our generation, home appreciation was barely a blip on the radar.

We have now become a nation, whose market for shelter (homes) is driven by the notion that homes are a method to accumulate wealth. That is an "amateur investor" driven fallacy. Home appreciation in most cases, generates Monopoly money. It only becomes real money, when someone is able to actualize that money by making a major change in their life [moving, typically].

If every home in your chosen neighborhood appreciated 50% over-night, what did you gain? NOTHING if you want to continue to live in your neighborhood. You may be able to actualize some of that appreciation, but you have to change your life to do it (move).

Now we have folks coming on here and pontificating about how STR's are raising home values and should continue. Amateur hour.

Yep, STR's can help drive home prices higher, but again ... you need to do something affirmative to actualize that money. There are only (2) ways to actualize your accumulated "Monopoly money". You can move to a new neighborhood that's cheaper (hasn't been infected by the inflation caused by STR's) or .... stay where you are and live in a neighborhood that's turned into a commercial district, Your choice.

(The other option is to die and leave your appreciation to your children, who may or may not be able to actualize it.)

It seems to me, that people in their 60's and 70's should have seen enough of life by now, to realize living in a neighborhood they love, is more important than their home "appreciating" 10% per year. We should all be smart enough by now to realize, a "home" is shelter, not an investment.

Allowing professional investors and speculators to drive home prices in your neighborhood, is self-defeating if you want to live there. Allowing amateurs to do it, is even dumber.

As for the poster who said that STR's are no different than single-family homes and don't stress an infra-structure ... you need to wake up and smell the coffee.

STR's at a minimum, increase occupancy rates of "seasonal homes" that are now used year around. A 12 year old can see that.

STR's are invariably occupied (by definition) folks who are temporary and want to get maximum value for their rental money. Utilize amenities/events/conveniences to the max. Squeeze as much "vacation" into their vacation as they can. Who wouldn't?

Take a 6 month vacation home and rent it out for the 6 months you're not using it, nearly doubles the strain on an infrastructure ... simple, basic, 6th grade math.

STR's contribute nothing towards the purpose of what homes are intended for ... shelter.

STR's provide investment opportunities, for amateurs in most cases. For a price, folks get a temporary base of operations, to take part in the extraneous benefits of a location. Pools, restaurants, golf courses, tennis courts, walking paths, weather, etc. Sounds suspiciously like a hotel to me.

We're all sort of doing that in The Villages, but at least the folks who bought homes as year around or seasonal shelters, have made a significant investment. Allowing those investments to be de-valued by investors who now want to be in the hotel business on the cheap, is lunacy.

At a minimum, the new amendments to Florida legislation will allow the state to collect taxes due and increase the financial burden the amateur hotel owners will have to absorb.

I hear what you are saying. What you don’t realize is it keeps people from buying a house. I will go there and rent an STR until my house sells, something you are trying to prevent.

[Randall55]

Originally Posted by shaw8700@outlook.com

I hear what you are saying. What you don’t realize is it keeps people from buying a house. I will go there and rent an STR until my house sells, something you are trying to prevent.

No one is trying to stop STRS. It is illegal because we are a free enterprise state. With this bill, an owner must register their rental with their local government. It addresses how many can occupy the home (two per room) and someone must be available 24 hrs a day to address complaints. It imposes fines and possible suspensions for those who do not abide by the new law.

It is not an attempt to curtail but to regulate. The state has no dominion over private property. They do have power to regulate a business. Many legislators are making certain that line is not crossed with this bill.

Simply put, the state cannot tell a homeowner he/she cannot rent their property. However, they can regulate their decision to operate a business.

[mntlblok]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

The only possible change in in the rental/STR side of The Villages, would be if the CCD's took some tighter control over Guest Passes & (non)-Resident ID's. Considering the Developer essentially controls the CDD's, that's fairly unlikely. Then again, I've heard some people have been struck by lightening, twice.

"the Developer essentially controls the CDD's"

How does that work? TIA

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by mntlblok

"the Developer essentially controls the CDD's"

How does that work? TIA

Very well from the Developer's perspective.

Just Google Gary Search and/or Oren Miller.

[Shipping up to Boston]

Originally Posted by CoachKandSportsguy

Correct on all cases.

Airbnb has lots of issues. I have read where lawyers who owned an Airbnb tried to discontinue the service with Airbnb, and Airbnb just kept advertising the property, no regard for the owner's request, until he sued them.

FL also is that third world county, as a local lawyer told us straight out, FL has excessive amounts of fraud and its everywhere.

A litigious society!

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by shaw8700@outlook.com

Prices are being cut all over, even mine. We’ve lowered it three times by about 50K. Nobody is buying!

Home sales are up month over month for January 2024 and trending up, year over year, from 2023. United States Existing Home Sales

If you lowered your price by $50,000 and haven't sold, you were way over-priced to begin with.

Plenty of people are buying, some of the folks selling, seem to be unrealistic about their home's worth in the marketplace. Lower your price another $50,000 and you'll probably sell it tomorrow.