Does the Florida legislative branch have any authority to pass STR laws pertaining to retirement communities?

Great Question
 

Certainly retirement communities being built can write their own ordinances. The Villages has already and still does do this. They even wrote rules for no businesses, rentals etc all since 2011.

The Legislature can adopt Laws. They've adopted a Law that says communities/counties cannot pass regulations or ordinances that prohibit STR's.

Developers can write deed restrictions, covenants & rules. Some of which can be enforced, others that may be superseded by legislation at some point or certainly challenged as to their propriety.

I'm not sure there are any "No Rental" regulations, anywhere in TV, but different neighborhoods have different restrictions, so it's certainly possible. I know my Deed doesn't contain anything that would prevent rental use. My opinion for what it's worth, is that the "No Business" clause in my Deed, as well as the underlying Residential Zoning prohibits use an STR.

No Business
 

Yes, I’m sure anything that requires any contract is a business transaction. Many or most landlords use them.

We were visiting open houses today in Middleton and overheard TV realtor ( or whatever proper term is, RE professional, sales agent, etc) telling a young couple who asked about short term rentals in the area that minimum rental period was one year and that buyer could only purchase one house. So a real estate invested could not buy a bunch of houses and rent them out.

If only THAT were true….

Different areas, different restrictions. It could be true.

Yep. I overlooked that it was Middleton. Could be very different

And it may be that the Developer now recognizes there is a problem.

I've been told, that some of the homes in the new Southern areas have been marketed and sold, with the caveat that the owner can't sell for a year, can't buy more than 1 home and can't use the home as an STR. I don't really have any first hand knowledge, just relating what I've heard and seen posted.

Or houses in Middleton aren't selling fast enough.

Hard to enforce buying more than one house - you can just set up a new LLC for each house - so it’s a different buyer.

Don't allow LLCs to buy homes, other than necessary to transfer estates of the deceased to their families. Make a new deed restriction for new areas that they must be individual homeowners, buying the homes, and clarify that the district is intended to be a homeowners' residency district.

There in the business of selling homes not putting further restrictions on selling them.

Seems like Home insurance would be more costly for an ABB than for a residential home. Just saying......perhaps that person is not being totally honest with their home insurance company. Wonder what would happen if their insurance company received an anonymous call advising them of the situation.

You would need to know which company is insuring the property

Actually insurance for rental is less than homeowners, not by much, about 20-25% less

If you list with AirBnB or **** and most other STR rental sites, they provide supplemental Liability & Theft Insurance.

There has been chatter that word is traveling fast about the Airbnb issue and may have folks second-guessing about buying in TV.

If I was buying today I would hesitate to buy.

I don't see how the Developer has any interest nor benefit, to address the issue in the established parts of TV.

Existing TV could become the STR Capital of Central Florida and I suspect the Developer will smarten up in the new areas of the South and attempt to control STR usage there.

Because the existing areas still bear The Villages trademark. If they become "Trailer Trashville" or "Slumlord Heaven" it will reflect on the entire community. And that affects property values, and interest.

History has already proven that's not true.

The so-called "Historic Section" is already Trailer Trashville and that hasn't hurt sales in the Bridgeport area (or other areas) of TV.

Are TV business owners allowed to have familes in TV?

Honestly, as long as they are selling houses, I think it's reached the point of anything goes. You can just toss those deed restrictions right out the window. If I were buying today I'd be looking elsewhere.

I don’t believe there is any legal way to prevent them from buying. And, why would the Villages want to anyway?

Are we barking up the wrong tree?
 

Interesting take from the VN opinion page from an owner who appears to know what they are talking about.

I keep reading about the short-term rentals and complaints directed at the Developer and his lack of action. I would agree that this may be a deed restriction issue but more importantly is a legal issue in the State of Florida.
A simple search resulted in the following:
If you are starting an Airbnb business in Florida, you will need a license. The DBPR vacation rental license application is the first step. You have two options for applying: online or in person with a printed application. The DBPR advises using an online application.
Overall, all vacation rentals in Florida must be licensed unless the host remains on site throughout the entire stay. Florida has favorable regulations, but hosts must meet certain requirements. Awning is a nationwide property management company offering end-to-end services for Airbnb investors.
Residential Use Restrictions: Property must be devoted only to single-family residential use. Properties within the Subdivision are intended for residential use and no commercial, professional or similar activity requiring either maintaining an inventory, equipment or customer/client visit may be conducted in a Home or on a Homesite.
Conclusions:
It appears from the above that in the State of Florida, Airbnb is a regulated business under DBPR requiring a license. The complainants should be contacting the Department of Professional Regulations and not the Developer.
In addition, this is in direct violation of the Residential Use Restriction as stated in the Deed Restrictions in The Villages and his a Villages Issue. However, it also brings into question the legality of ownership and operation of rental property in general.

Andre A Langlais
Village of Summerhill

Judge has upheld Nyc ban on Airbnb. Wildwood could do the same. Start a campaign at council meetings

Airbnb lawsuit to block NYC law on short-term rentals is dismissed | Reuters

Seems to be a law requiring registration and possibly requiring "hosted" rentals like Orlando.

It seems Florida already requires registrations of short term rental properties.

The idea of a hosted rental is strange to me. I understand the meaning, that the owner must be living in the home at the time of the rental. What is odd is I wouldn't think of stopping on the road to give a stranger a ride yet with a hosted rental I'm inviting them into my home where I will be sleeping. Probably just me, but being on either side of that would make me uncomfortable.

Folks should perhaps read the entire thread, prior to rehashing untrue/unproven/questionable legal opinions.

NY has nothing to do with Florida and the laws are significantly different. Wildwood CANNOT ban STR's, as the Florida Legislature has passed a law that specifically prohibits towns/counties from prohibiting STR's.

The question of whether STR's are prohibited by the Deed Restrictions, is a multi-faceted question, complicated by the fact that not all the units in The Villages have the same restrictions or underlying zoning.

Simply having a requirement that a use must be "residential", isn't sufficient to unequivocally say STR's aren't allowed.

To my knowledge, there's not a single home in TV, with a deed restriction that says: "If you need a Business License", you cannot conduct that "business" in a TV home. As a matter of fact, most of the TV restrictions complicate that even further, by specifying the type of business that's prohibited.

Further, the TV restrictions and covenants do not (to my knowledge) define the word "Residential Use".

In a court battle to determine if STR's are allowed in The Villages, a litigant faces a number of challenges. For example ...

A) That the moving party has a right to bring the action (standing).
B) That STR's are not a "residential use" or alternatively, that STR use is a "business".
C) That the specific "business" is prohibited, given the specifics of the deed restrictions.

All of which also involve the underlining Zoning in the various municipalities, in which TV is located. All the communities have underlying zoning and may or may not specifically define "residential use".

The basic, underlying problem in TV, as well as communities throughout the USA, is STR's essentially didn't exist when their zoning regulations were written. Now the zoning issue comes down to (2) issues.

1. Ascertaining if the underlying zoning is "permissive" or "prohibitory".
2. Determining the definition of "residential" and/or "business".

In a permissive Zoning scheme, regulations prohibit any use that is not specifically allowed (remember, STR's didn't exist when most zoning regulations were written). Therefore, in general, permissive zoning regulation prohibit STR usage, provided the litigant can convince a court there's a difference between residential use and STR use.

In a prohibitory zoning scheme, the opposite approach is taken. The underlying zoning allows all uses that are not expressly prohibited.. Again, one would have to differentiate between STR use and residential use. We then get back to the definition situation. Is their definition of "residential use" specific enough to preclude STR use (or, is their definition of "hotel", encompassing enough to include STR's).

In the case of STR's, people are living in the home. Isn't that "residential use"? Perhaps only for a day, but they're still living there, are they not?

The best definition of residential use I've seen, said something like: "a person or persons, living as a family unit and meaning and intending to make the residence their home for an extended period of time". Not perfect, but not bad.

Anyone who tells you that STR's are prohibited by the Deed Restrictions, are over-simplifying a very complicated question. I believe they are, but I'm not willing to gamble the $500,000 in litigation costs, it would take to get a judge to agree.

Those who say the city/town/county can just pass a law to ban them, just haven't bothered to look at the applicable laws and regulations.

All of which is colored by the fact that many states, including Florida, have passed state laws in support of STR's. They bring in tax revenue.

If all that isn't enough to convince you it's complicated, how about this?

When Uber started, they put taxis companies, almost out of business. Taxi companies fought Uber and lost most everywhere.

Most every person who rents an STR, is taking money away from a hotel. Why do you think the major hotel chains haven't got together, to ban STR's? Food for thought..

They can and have
 

A number of communities IN FLORIDA have passed laws to chain up STRs since 2011. Communities are allowed to choose how to enforce a state law. Orlando’s post 2011 implementation is the best fix.

Accomplishing rigorous inspections
Asserting high local taxes
Requiring the landlord to be on the premises when renting
Limiting the number of guests per rental

Additional regulations we need are:
Buildings must be constructed in accordance with high volume use codes
Exits must be clearly identified and a lighted sign posted
Sprinkler systems in case of fire must be installed
Boarding laws must be posted in plain sight

These are all a great start and have generated revenue! Hotels have backed the move.