Originally Posted by BrianL99 (Post 2257746)

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!

Originally Posted by Two Bills (Post 2257792)

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

Originally Posted by Papa_lecki (Post 2257762)

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?

Originally Posted by Bill14564 (Post 2257826)

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?

Originally Posted by JMintzer (Post 2257869)

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

Originally Posted by Marathon Man (Post 2257922)

Your idea was bad. No need to attack those who told you so.

Originally Posted by margaretmattson (Post 2257952)

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.