Rentals not allowed in newer areas?
 

On another thread a poster mentioned that when he/she bought a new property from the developer in one of the newer sections, they had to sign a contract that explained that the property could not be rented out.

I didn't want to hijack that thread with questions, so here goes.

1. Is that accurate?

2. When did they start that practice?

3. What would the developer's likely motivations be for such a covenant? Wouldn't it make the market for their homes more desirable if folks wanting to buy as an investment were also able to buy the new homes?

I'm not understanding this at all.

I’ve seen plenty of brand new houses that were immediately put up for rent in areas like Chitty Chatti, not sure about other places.

That's the way it should have been in all the homes right from the beginning. Allowing rentals always creates some problems. Between absentee landlords, and tenants who are not invested in the community, issues abound.

I can understand why an established resident would not want rental properties on their street, what I am trying to understand is why the developer would be motivated to exclude those interested in buying their product as an investment property from the equation.

I think it's a good idea, otherwise speculators would buy up houses and rent them out to people who have no stake in our community. That would drive our property values down, and ruin our hometown feel.

I don’t know it that is true or not, i think the post in the other thread said it started last fall (October 2021). So there would be plenty of rentals available.

It is interesting that there is a desire to limit rentals when you own a home, but it was Great when you rented for several years before deciding to buy. I keep reading threads in this forum about people saying how hard it is to find a rental. I, for one, rented for a few years before I decided that this place was for me and we bought. I sure am glad there were rentals available back then. Now if you are talking about airbnb or short term rentals less than a month, I might agree with you.

This surprises me.

I would agree with no Airbnb/short term rentals.

We did the same thing, rented for a week at a time, in multiple areas, before we bought
Rentals must help- drive purchases

actually the investor does have a stake and a large one at times
 

As long as the investor maintains the quality of the investment then "why Not" It gives people the opportunity to rent before buying and to get the feel of an area and home. The Lifestyle deal is not enough time. Seems there is always people who want to stop people from doing something that they personally don't or won't accept. Life is to short and we are all getting close to the end of the ruler. Enjoy the sunrise the sunsets and a cold beer or smooth Martini
El Bombero

I think it becomes an issue when people own 5-10 homes to rent out. Once you own a house I am not sure they have a right to stop you from renting it.

if what I read on the other thread is true, and the person who posted was talking about their own personal experience, one signs a restrictive covenant with the purchase documents stating that they will not be allowed to rent the place out.

As I said in a previous post, I get why an existing owner might prefer not to have rentals in their vicinity, but what I really want to know is:

Is this true? Do we have anybody out there who has recently bought and can verify this restriction?
and secondly,
Why would the developer want to include this restriction? It seems to me to reduce the pool of potential buyers.

I do not understand why people ask this sort of question here. I would call the villages offices and ask. My logo DAVES. But, DAVES said is well just gossip.

Well, OK..I might get an answer to #1 and #2, but I doubt I'd get a straight answer for #3.
I just might follow your advice and report back.

Doubt if you would get a straight answer to #3 on here. How can anyone know what the Developer is thinking?