[margaretmattson]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

They also work to the benefit of the renters.

The vast majority of those who feel affected by STRs admire Gladys Kravitz.

That unruly group that rented the place down the street last week? They left last week. That neighbor with the noisy habits? He's been there five years now and isn't going anywhere soon. I know which I would prefer but that just shows I'm delusional.

I lived in a CYV with several rentals on my street. During the winter months, there were few problems. The homes were rented for the entire month to individuals who cared about our community.

When high season was over, owners would rent their homes to ANYONE for one day, two days, a week, whatever! Any amount of time to anyone willing to give them money. It was unnerving because deed restrictions were broken and we were told nothing could be done about it because the parties involved were renters. They did not agree to the deed restrictions and therefore they do not apply to them.

When a resident breaks a deed restriction, you can report it. Hopefully, a resolution will be made to satisfy both of you. Believe me! You would rather have the option of reporting instead of no options.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by margaretmattson

I lived in a CYV with several rentals on my street. During the winter months, there were few problems. The homes were rented for the entire month to individuals who cared about our community.

When high season was over, owners would rent their homes to ANYONE for one day, two days, a week, whatever! Any amount of time to anyone willing to give them money. It was unnerving because deed restrictions were broken and we were told nothing could be done about it because the parties involved were renters. They did not agree to the deed restrictions and therefore they do not apply to them.

When a resident breaks a deed restriction, you can report it. Hopefully, a resolution will be made to satisfy both of you. Believe me! You would rather have the option of reporting instead of no options.

The occupant of the home is not bound by the deed restrictions, the owner of the home is. Whether the occupant is a two-day renter, two-month renter, or two-year renter, the deed restrictions still apply to the person whose name is on the deed.

If there are deed restriction violations, report them and let the process work. There are limitations to the process and some may be good at finding all the loopholes but I bet most can't. Your case may be the exception but I am willing to bet that most of those against STR have spent far more time complaining about perceived problems here than they have spent documenting and reporting actual violations.

[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.

[margaretmattson]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

The occupant of the home is not bound by the deed restrictions, the owner of the home is. Whether the occupant is a two-day renter, two-month renter, or two-year renter, the deed restrictions still apply to the person whose name is on the deed.

If there are deed restriction violations, report them and let the process work. There are limitations to the process and some may be good at finding all the loopholes but I bet most can't. Your case may be the exception but I am willing to bet that most of those against STR have spent far more time complaining about perceived problems here than they have spent documenting and reporting actual violations.

I am not going to argue with you. I lived it! Each time, as in your response, I was blamed for what others were doing. You have no idea if I documented the violations or what I was told. Yet, you are willing to throw the blame my way. This happened to us over and over until we gave up and moved.

My story has a happy ending. We now live in a wonderful neighborhood were there are no STRS. Life is good! I can now see why others believe STRS are not a problem. Out of sight, out of mind.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

So - presently, there's nothing stopping some incredibly wealthy person, or developer, from buying an entire block of a neighborhood's homes. And then, renting them out for a 3-day minimum, 10-day maximum, and calling it a resort area within the community. You could easily have transients take over the entire neighborhood, and there'd be nothing you could do about it, because - there's no rule saying someone can't, and there are rules saying that they can.

Because of the advent of internet-based rentals, which didn't exist when The Villages was first created, I think new zoning laws need to be implemented to preserve the integrity of a neighborhood's function. And that is - to be strictly a residential community, and not a short term rental resort community.

New deed restrictions on new construction could be implemented to restrict short-term rentals to a 10-day MINIMUM stay, with leases required, no sub-leases allowed, and the property must be overseen by a property management company when the owners aren't occupying the property.

These new restrictions could even be made to new ownership, rather than new construction. If you buy a home starting next Thursday, these rules apply to you. Whether it's a new home or pre-owned home. People think that deed restrictions can't be changed. They can. It's very difficult and involves a lot of paperwork and hoop-jumping, but they can absolutely be changed. It's also more likely to be changeable when it's imposed only on new construction, or new ownership, because current homeowners are less likely to object to what new owners must/must not do after the current owners have relinquished their property to someone else.

[margaretmattson]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

So - presently, there's nothing stopping some incredibly wealthy person, or developer, from buying an entire block of a neighborhood's homes. And then, renting them out for a 3-day minimum, 10-day maximum, and calling it a resort area within the community. You could easily have transients take over the entire neighborhood, and there'd be nothing you could do about it, because - there's no rule saying someone can't, and there are rules saying that they can.

Because of the advent of internet-based rentals, which didn't exist when The Villages was first created, I think new zoning laws need to be implemented to preserve the integrity of a neighborhood's function. And that is - to be strictly a residential community, and not a short term rental resort community.

New deed restrictions on new construction could be implemented to restrict short-term rentals to a 10-day MINIMUM stay, with leases required, no sub-leases allowed, and the property must be overseen by a property management company when the owners aren't occupying the property.

These new restrictions could even be made to new ownership, rather than new construction. If you buy a home starting next Thursday, these rules apply to you. Whether it's a new home or pre-owned home. People think that deed restrictions can't be changed. They can. It's very difficult and involves a lot of paperwork and hoop-jumping, but they can absolutely be changed. It's also more likely to be changeable when it's imposed only on new construction, or new ownership, because current homeowners are less likely to object to what new owners must/must not do after the current owners have relinquished their property to someone else.

It seems you have described a Lifestyle Visit. It will be interesting to see what the Developer does once this bill has passed. The lifestyle visits are no longer in neighborhood CYVs with its own pool. They are now in patio villas. Perhaps, the Developer got a whiff of the new state laws.

In my prior neighborhood, STRs were not planned. They were born out of necessity and greed.

1. The original owner passed and the child wishes to keep the home but is not ready to retire. Brilliant! I'll rent it out until I am ready to occupy it.

2. One of the owners has a serious medical condition and the bills are getting out of hand. Solution? Rent our property for added income.

3. Seasonal residents cannot find a responsible person to look after their homes while they are away. Why pay someone to take our money and not do as promised? Rent the home while we are away and those occupants can take care of the home. What a great idea! Someone PAYS US and does the job. Win, win!

4. Someone near retirement purchases a home to safeguard themselves from soaring home prices. They now own two homes and see no problem with renting until they are comfortable. They could care less if this makes their future neighbors uncomfortable. It's all about me!

There are more scenarios, but you get the picture.

We did have one man who owned several investment properties. He was the worst! With him, everything was about money.

[Greatlawn]

Maybe this is an attempt to enforce collection and payment of the 9% state tax on short term rentals. It could also make rental income visible to the IRS.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by shaw8700@outlook.com

I’ve got no problem with local jurisdictions collecting taxes. Actually, I would have thought they already did. But I do have a problem with cracking down on STR’s. It’s been shown in areas that have put rules in place, like saying that you can only do monthly rentals, that it drags down valuations of houses.

I would think that it would take the value of houses UP if there were LESS rentals in any given area. Home owners take care of their homes. People renting may or may NOT care about that property.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by CoachKandSportsguy

hoping for / looking for increasing house prices isn't the goal you really want to have.

substantial increases greater than general inflation brings its own issues, including increases in insurance rates greater than inflation, potential increases in tax rates, inability for support/service labor to live here, and you can't spend it to pay for bills. . .

Colorado Ski Town Can't Fill $167,000 Salary Job Due to Housing Costs

I don't get the goal for increasing one's economic shelter costs or illiquid asset value unless you can monetize it easily and cheaply. excessive Increases in house value is just an ego massage, as its expensive to monetize it to pay bigger bills.

I guess you could monetize a home that was up significantly in value by SELLING and moving to a cheaper area. But, most Florida retirees would NOT like the cold weather in western Maine or some such place.

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by Proveone

Who Cares!

I care! You should to. Unless you don't live here.

[merrymini]

STRs do not belong in this community. The renters simply do not care and neither do the owners or they would allow their house to be leased that way. They especially do not care about YOU, their neighbor. File a complaint? The renters are long gone before anything can be done. Rules can be enacted that restrict that behavior and they should be, restricted STRs would benefit our communities not hurt them. What are hotels for but STRs? Let them go the Waterfront Inn, the Brownwood Hotel or any of the other nearby hotels but keep them out of our communities.

[Shipping up to Boston]

Originally Posted by merrymini

STRs do not belong in this community. The renters simply do not care and neither do the owners or they would allow their house to be leased that way. They especially do not care about YOU, their neighbor. File a complaint? The renters are long gone before anything can be done. Rules can be enacted that restrict that behavior and they should be, restricted STRs would benefit our communities not hurt them. What are hotels for but STRs? Let them go the Waterfront Inn, the Brownwood Hotel or any of the other nearby hotels but keep them out of our communities.

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

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by margaretmattson

It seems you have described a Lifestyle Visit. It will be interesting to see what the Developer does once this bill has passed. The lifestyle visits are no longer in neighborhood CYVs with its own pool. They are now in patio villas. Perhaps, the Developer got a whiff of the new state laws.

In my prior neighborhood, STRs were not planned. They were born out of necessity and greed.

1. The original owner passed and the child wishes to keep the home but is not ready to retire. Brilliant! I'll rent it out until I am ready to occupy it.

2. One of the owners has a serious medical condition and the bills are getting out of hand. Solution? Rent our property for added income.

3. Seasonal residents cannot find a responsible person to look after their homes while they are away. Why pay someone to take our money and not do as promised? Rent the home while we are away and those occupants can take care of the home. What a great idea! Someone PAYS US and does the job. Win, win!

4. Someone near retirement purchases a home to safeguard themselves from soaring home prices. They now own two homes and see no problem with renting until they are comfortable. They could care less if this makes their future neighbors uncomfortable. It's all about me!

There are more scenarios, but you get the picture.

We did have one man who owned several investment properties. He was the worst! With him, everything was about money.

My response is general -

All other than the "buying another home as an investment property" can be totally fine with my previous suggestion, because they can ALL happen with an imposed 10-day minimum stay with leases, and property managers to take care of the property when the owners aren't occupying it.

Hometown Property Management does a bang-up job of helping homeowners find tenants for their properties, and taking care of the properties when the homeowners are away. They offer weekly and monthly rentals and the rates vary between $600/week to $7000/month depending on time of year and type of home being rented.

They're not the only property management company but they are the most known, the most respected, and the ones who have the most investment in the community to ensure that the property is properly maintained - Tom Conklin, the principal of the company, is a project manager for the developer.

As for multiple investments - the developer doesn't care how many properties you buy. But the zoning officer of a municipality might care. It'd be up to the city/county zoning department to declare that anyone who buys a single-family house but doesn't occupy that house at least 2 months out of the year (or has a designated family member occupy it at least 2 months out of the year), must pay a penalty. Of course they also don't get homestead tax benefits, but this could become a deterrent to investment ownership rather than occupant-ownership. Another option would be to allow only one pair of IDs per owner, rather than per property. If you own 6 houses, you still only get 2 IDs, and only 2 gate passes (which only matters if you're going to Walmart on 441 but it's the principal of the thing).

So yes- you COULD buy a second property here. But unless you're playing musical living rooms with your own family, it'll cost you extra, and will be made intentionally less convenient.

[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.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

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.

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.