[Pairadocs]

1

Originally Posted by tophcfa

That would be great, but it’s not happening for two obvious reasons.

1) Making short term rentals less attractive would have a negative impact on the demand for new home sales.
2) A certain entity, that benefits greatly from new home sales, has a very heavy hand when it comes to local government.

BINGO and BINGO, you take home the grand prize today ! The whole idea is to encourage buying not one home, but several to pay for the initial investment. Had friends who did this very thing, bought a home here, continued to buy one or so a year, made mind boggling profits with their string of rentals, sold everything in year 15 and bought a live aboard boat to sail the world.... everyone has a dream, they saw an exceptional opportunity to make money easily. husband was skilled at doing any repairs and upkeep himself, and they really "cleaned up" as the old saying goes. It's win-win for everyone except those of us who live here full time and our dream was a stable, friendly, street/block/villages of same minded folks. Not going to happen ! Most of the in and outs don't even wave back to you, let alone bother to introduce themselves, chat a bit, etc.

[Pairadocs]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

The Developer may control the local elected officials, but not the voters.

I'm sure there are plenty of folks in The Villages who have experience with Voter Initiatives.
Curbing STR's & generating tax revenue from the ones that remain, seems like it would be a fairly easy sell to John Q. Public.

The difficulty is getting those experienced and fair minded individuals to be bullet proof once they get into the swamp ! That's the problem, many a fine, fair minded, sincere individual has gone to Tallahassee, or D.C. to selflessly "serve" his or her country... and stayed for 40, 50 years and became a multi millionaire.... and when the voters get fed up, finally elect another, same thing happens once the lure of the $$$ and the "high" of the high life is introduced.

[gail swanson]

In Fort Lauderdale there is. Bed tax on rentals. Good for the City

[TheDuke]

If you're Familiar with AirBNB, They don't display their addresses, nor their exact location. So, how would this be enforced? I very well know how AirBNB is disruptive, having run a legitimate B&B, they pretty much destroyed that industry.

[Normal]

Originally Posted by TheDuke

If you're Familiar with AirBNB, They don't display their addresses, nor their exact location. So, how would this be enforced? I very well know how AirBNB is disruptive, having run a legitimate B&B, they pretty much destroyed that industry.

It can be enforced with almost zero problems. Anytime a neighbor suspects an AirBNB operation they can call the municipal tax authorities. If the place is already registered, no problem. If they aren’t, hammer them with fines and permanent restrictions. You don’t need to patrol the issue. Complaining neighbors will be enough. Heck, even offer a stipend if you turn in someone who is in violation of registration.

[shaw8700@outlook.com]

Let me get this straight - the people who oppose STR’s are only upset at AirBnB’s? What about rent from a Villager or any of the Realtors who rent out homes?

Let me say right out that I am FOR STR’s. As I’ve said before, if you do get someone next to you that is a problem tenant, be glad they’re short term. They’ll be gone in a few days.

I rented here myself twice, as I expect other homeowners did, and I bought as soon as I found something. Think about residential real estate values.

[Normal]

Originally Posted by shaw8700@outlook.com

Let me get this straight - the people who oppose STR’s are only upset at AirBnB’s? What about rent from a Villager or any of the Realtors who rent out homes?

Let me say right out that I am FOR STR’s. As I’ve said before, if you do get someone next to you that is a problem tenant, be glad they’re short term. They’ll be gone in a few days.

I rented here myself twice, as I expect other homeowners did, and I bought as soon as I found something. Think about residential real estate values.

I prefer continuity myself. If a neighbor is doing something wrong we can confer and discuss long term solutions for both of us. Brevity in a neighborhood just means “Who cares, I won’t see you for the rest of my life. I’m on vacation.”

Besides, why should landlords benefit from the rest of us? While we all keep a tight ship and landscape etc, an STR tenant may not.

There is a solution, just require landlords to stay at the residence when they are renting their unit out. Make licensing expensive so not everyone will take the leap to decide they want to run a hotel next to all their neighbors.

Some like a stable cohesive neighborhood without the disruptions of renters. I would measure most over age 60 would. Besides, how many buying a home are hoping they neighbor with a rental?

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by Normal

I prefer continuity myself. If a neighbor is doing something wrong we can confer and discuss long term solutions for both of us. Brevity in a neighborhood just means “Who cares, I won’t see you for the rest of my life. I’m on vacation.”

Besides, why should landlords benefit from the rest of us? While we all keep a tight ship and landscape etc, an STR tenant may not.

There is a solution, just require landlords to stay at the residence when they are renting their unit out. Make licensing expensive so not everyone will take the leap to decide they want to run a hotel next to all their neighbors.

Here’s an idea - mind your own business and stop trying to take away my property rights.

STRs are bad, but what is a STR?
Short Term Rental? Okay but what is “short term?”
Is one year enough for continuity? One season? Is one month enough? Maybe one week? Who decides who gets to decide?

I talk to two of my neighbors semi-annually, see another maybe monthly (we don’t talk, we just pass by and wave), and wouldn’t recognize the other four. I believe two are renters but really don’t know. I laugh at Gladys Kravitz, I don’t try to emulate her, perhaps more should do the same.

And yes, residents can be annoying. The one in my neighborhood has been here longer than me - I wish they were more short-term than that. We already have rules and laws and enforcement agencies to deal with problems. Perhaps we should use the tools that already exist before we demand new ones.

[tophcfa]

Originally Posted by shaw8700@outlook.com

Let me get this straight - the people who oppose STR’s are only upset at AirBnB’s? What about rent from a Villager or any of the Realtors who rent out homes?

Let me say right out that I am FOR STR’s. As I’ve said before, if you do get someone next to you that is a problem tenant, be glad they’re short term. They’ll be gone in a few days.

I rented here myself twice, as I expect other homeowners did, and I bought as soon as I found something. Think about residential real estate values.

Ok, I’ll answer all three of your arguments.

1) The big problem isn’t Villager’s renting out their home for a month or more when they aren’t using their homes. The issue is people living in their homes and renting out one or more rooms to third party strangers while they are concurrently living in the home. That is not in harmony with a single family residential neighborhood or not running a business out of your home. Granted, some Airbnb landlords run a decent operation, but some don’t. Without checks and balances on the industry, Villages residents are exposed to a crapshoot of good and bad landlords.

2) The problem is that bad landlords tent to have predominantly bad tenants. Biting your tongue while waiting for the bad tenants (business customers) to leave doesn’t solve the problem of a revolving door of bad tenants. More will be following.

3) As a resident who isn’t planning on selling I really don’t care about real estate values, I care about the quality of life in my neighborhood. In fact, lower real estate values might help limit increases in both property taxes and homeowners insurance, which is not a bad thing.

[Normal]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Here’s an idea - mind your own business and stop trying to take away my property rights.

No one wants to take anyone’s rights. Many just don't want their rights to live in a residential neighborhood removed for the sake of a couple of greedy landlord wannabes.

Why not have these landlords pay more for amenities, have higher upkeep standards, and live with what they chose?

[FloridaGuy66]

Originally Posted by MX rider

I would disagree. Most STR are not prospective buyers. That's what lifestyle visits are for.
Plus there are plenty of hotels close by, some actually in TV, like at LSL.
We lived in a neighborhood that had a couple of rental homes that took short term renters. Needless to say, I'm glad I didn't live nextdoor.

As a landlord, I would say that the majority of renters that are renting for 30 days or more are at least potential buyers. In the last 4 years we've had a total of 6 couples that rented our place for 1-2 months end up buying.

Many are aware of the lifestyle program, but they want to spend more than a week in TV and they want to stay in a particular area, not necessarily in the villas where the lifestyle people are. Also, people doing the lifestyle visit can't sign up for classes, or water aerobics or book their own golf tee off times.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by Normal

No one wants to take anyone’s rights. Many just don't want their rights to live in a residential neighborhood removed for the sake of a couple of greedy landlord wannabes.

Why not have these landlords pay more for amenities, have higher upkeep standards, and live with what they chose?

You most certainly are trying to take away other’s rights while no one is telling you that you cannot live in your residential neighborhood. (what is a non-residential neighborhood anyway?)

Why should any home be required to pay more for amenities? You agreed to the same deed restrictions they did, why should you be treated differently?

[Normal]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

You most certainly are trying to take away other’s rights while no one is telling you that you cannot live in your residential neighborhood. (what is a non-residential neighborhood anyway?)

Why should any home be required to pay more for amenities? You agreed to the same deed restrictions they did, why should you be treated differently?

Why should anyone accommodate…ACCOMMODATE a business entrepreneur’s choice to change a residential neighborhood into a revolving door of constant changes? There is quite a difference between assimilation of neighbors and consistently accommodating for someone else.

I hope they tax the snot out of all AirBNBs. Now if you want to rent out a home for long term, that brings less stress into the personal zone. In the meantime, don’t make others pay the depreciation on their homes because you decided you found a great place for a rental right next to their house.

[mikempp]

I moved here for less regulations and taxes, can't believe people here are all for it. Maybe we need to screen the new buyers? Amazing how people leave because of terrible conditions and move here to get away from them, then vote them in here. I know had I had a lot better and smarter neighbors in 2008 when I moved here than what I have now.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by FloridaGuy66

As a landlord, I would say that the majority of renters that are renting for 30 days or more are at least potential buyers. In the last 4 years we've had a total of 6 couples that rented our place for 1-2 months end up buying.

Many are aware of the lifestyle program, but they want to spend more than a week in TV and they want to stay in a particular area, not necessarily in the villas where the lifestyle people are. Also, people doing the lifestyle visit can't sign up for classes, or water aerobics or book their own golf tee off times.

I think the concern is not so much 1+ month renters who are 55+, but 2-7 day renters that are much younger---most Airbnb rentals are much shorter than a month