[thelegges]

Originally Posted by opinionist

What should we call people who are oblivious to the rules?
How about Obliviates? (I must credit Bill O'Reilly for that term)

Are you referring to those who are full time, and choose not follow rules, because they are special.

Or those who are new or vacationing and don’t know the rules

[Velvet]

Originally Posted by thelegges

Are you referring to those who are full time, and choose not follow rules, because they are special.

Or those who are new or vacationing and don’t know the rules

You are right, for the most part it is the behavior that is the problem. The people who stay here for a longer time are exposed to the basic good will of most Villagers and it takes a pretty hardened individual not to be eventually influenced by it. The transients are not here long enough for that to happen.

[Velvet]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Residential means areas with housing for people to live in as opposed to areas where items are manufactured or sold. Airbnbs are, by definition, residential properties where the owner allows others to stay in all or part of the property for a short period of time.

You are using the incorrect terms when referring to various types of residences. Hotels and Airbnbs are commercial properties when they are rented out. They generate income therefore, they are businesses. Residences are homes which are not commercial in nature. I don’t know of any Airbnbs that don’t charge any money for various people to stay at them, do you?

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by Velvet

You are using the incorrect terms when referring to various types of residences. Hotels and Airbnbs are commercial properties when they are rented out. They generate income therefore, they are businesses. Residences are homes which are not commercial in nature. I don’t know of any Airbnbs that don’t charge any money for various people to stay at them, do you?

Don’t take my word for it, look at the Florida statutes. Airbnbs are not hotels and are not commercial properties.

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by Velvet

You are using the incorrect terms when referring to various types of residences. Hotels and Airbnbs are commercial properties when they are rented out. They generate income therefore, they are businesses. Residences are homes which are not commercial in nature. I don’t know of any Airbnbs that don’t charge any money for various people to stay at them, do you?

I'm sorry, but you are incorrect.

Hotels are "businesses". Business is conducted within the 4 walls of the building.

Short Term Rental Units ("AirBnB" is a platform, it is not a housing unit), in most cases, are only used for 'residential use" ... people live in them for a day, a week or a month.

The "business" is the conducting of business. Dealing with customers, making payments, doing bookwork, etc.. Typically, that is NOT conducted in the housing unit that is rented, it is conducted elsewhere.

The "use" of the structure (home) continues to be 'residential'.

Most every court in the USA has agreed with that interpretation, which is why courts all over the USA have ruled in favor of allowing Short Term Rentals.

[Velvet]

Just curious, so how does the IRS define the income?

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by Velvet

Just curious, so how does the IRS define the income?

You might want to ask your CPA, but in my experience, "rental income" is not "business income", unless you are providing "services".

Rental of personal property is business income under most circumstances ... rental of real estate is not, unless you're determined to be in the real estate business in a meaningful and personal way and make a profit from it.

A CPA could give you a better answer.

[tophcfa]

Originally Posted by Velvet

You are using the incorrect terms when referring to various types of residences. Hotels and Airbnbs are commercial properties when they are rented out. They generate income therefore, they are businesses. Residences are homes which are not commercial in nature. I don’t know of any Airbnbs that don’t charge any money for various people to stay at them, do you?

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Don’t take my word for it, look at the Florida statutes. Airbnbs are not hotels and are not commercial properties.

Originally Posted by BrianL99

I'm sorry, but you are incorrect.

Hotels are "businesses". Business is conducted within the 4 walls of the building.

Short Term Rental Units ("AirBnB" is a platform, it is not a housing unit), in most cases, are only used for 'residential use" ... people live in them for a day, a week or a month.

The "business" is the conducting of business. Dealing with customers, making payments, doing bookwork, etc.. Typically, that is NOT conducted in the housing unit that is rented, it is conducted elsewhere.

The "use" of the structure (home) continues to be 'residential'.

Most every court in the USA has agreed with that interpretation, which is why courts all over the USA have ruled in favor of allowing Short Term Rentals.

Originally Posted by Velvet

Just curious, so how does the IRS define the income?

The reality is that the subject at hand is a grey area. Unfortunately, laws defining a rental property business are outdated and were written when AIRBnB’s didn’t exist. The laws never contemplated owners of residential properties advertising through an app on the internet to rent rooms in their homes by the night to transient tenants. In the world I have lived in for a long time, when a party charges an unrelated third party a fee to sleep in a bed with a roof over their head, they are running a business. And the IRS agrees with that opinion. Rental income from AIRBnB’s is considered taxable income. The deed restrictions in the district we live in clearly state two things. The homes are limited to single family residential usage, and businesses aren’t allowed be run out of the homes. In my opinion, homeowners renting long term to a single family, who are not concurrently living in the home, are definitely not violating those restrictions. On the other hand, homeowners who rent out rooms by the day to unrelated third parties, are definitely violating both deed restrictions.

The reality is that at the end of the day, deed restrictions are completely worthless unless they are enforced. The deed restrictions in question fall under the definition on internal deed restrictions, which are enforced at the discretion of the developer. The other deed restrictions, which are considered external, are required to be enforced by the CDD’s. So a resident can put a little white cross in their garden, which won’t disrupt the quality of life in the neighborhood, but will result in daily fines because it’s an external restriction. But if a different neighbor is running a turnstile daily rental out of their home, that totally disrespects and distrusts the neighborhood, they are good to go because the developer has chosen to look the other way.

Clearly, something in this equation simply doesn’t add up.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by tophcfa

The reality is that the subject at hand is a grey area. Unfortunately, laws defining a rental property business are outdated and were written when AIRBnB’s didn’t exist. The laws never contemplated owners of residential properties advertising through an app on the internet to rent rooms in their homes by the night to transient tenants. In the world I have lived in for a long time, when a party charges an unrelated third party a fee to sleep in a bed with a roof over their head, they are running a business. And the IRS agrees with that opinion. Rental income from AIRBnB’s is considered taxable income. The deed restrictions in the district we live in clearly state two things. The homes are limited to single family residential usage, and businesses aren’t allowed be run out of the homes. In my opinion, homeowners renting long term to a single family, who are not concurrently living in the home, are definitely not violating those restrictions. On the other hand, homeowners who rent out rooms by the day to unrelated third parties, are definitely violating both deed restrictions.

The reality is that at the end of the day, deed restrictions are completely worthless unless they are enforced. The deed restrictions in question fall under the definition on internal deed restrictions, which are enforced at the discretion of the developer. The other deed restrictions, which are considered external, are required to be enforced by the CDD’s. So a resident can put a little white cross in their garden, which won’t disrupt the quality of life in the neighborhood, but will result in daily fines because it’s an external restriction. But if a different neighbor is running a turnstile daily rental out of their home, that totally disrespects and distrusts the neighborhood, they are good to go because the developer has chosen to look the other way.

Clearly, something in this equation simply doesn’t add up.

Go read them again, and don't stop in the middle of the sentence, read it to the end.

Like it or not, in most of the Villages short term rentals are not prohibited.

If you feel differently, exercise your rights (responsibility, actually) under the enforcement clause of the deed restrictions you signed and take the offenders to court. If you fail to do that, if you fail to perform your responsibility under that clause, are you not violating the restrictions yourself?

[tophcfa]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Go read them again, and don't stop in the middle of the sentence, read it to the end.

Like it or not, in most of the Villages short term rentals are not prohibited.

If you feel differently, exercise your rights (responsibility, actually) under the enforcement clause of the deed restrictions you signed and take the offenders to court. If you fail to do that, if you fail to perform your responsibility under that clause, are you not violating the restrictions yourself?

Have read the restrictions multiple times for our district, and never stopped in the middle of the sentence. It’s clear as the day is long, short term rentals, in a home where the homeowner are concurrently living and renting out a room, is clearly against two deed restrictions. I even talked with a representative of the developer, who recluctantly acknowledged that fact. Unfortunately, it is an internal deed restriction, and the enforcement of the restrictions are at the discretion of the developer. The excuses for reasons to not enforce the restrictions were clearly coming from a prepared damage control punch list. At the end of the day, the whole situation completely discredits the whole deed restriction concept. Selectively enforcement, based on the enforcing parties clear and obvious financial interests, is an absolute joke.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by tophcfa

Have read the restrictions multiple times for our district, and never stopped in the middle of the sentence. It’s clear as the day is long, short term rentals, in a home where the homeowner are concurrently living and renting out a room, is clearly against two deed restrictions. I even talked with a representative of the developer, who recluctantly acknowledged that fact. Unfortunately, it is an internal deed restriction, and the enforcement of the restrictions are at the discretion of the developer. The excuses for reasons to not enforce the restrictions were clearly coming from a prepared damage control punch list. At the end of the day, the whole situation completely discredits the whole deed restriction concept. Selectively enforcement, based on the enforcing parties clear and obvious financial interests, is an absolute joke.

You may have pointed to your particular deed restrictions in the past but I don't recall the specifics. My restrictions prohibit businesses that maintain inventory or require customer visits, neither of which apply to short term rentals. (I'm sure I've written this before)

As to the concurrently living and renting... I suspect your reading of the restrictions would prohibit me from having my non-family friends from MD visit and stay at my home. That is an unacceptable reading of the restrictions.

Perhaps yours is different but if I remember correctly, every version of deed restrictions I have read includes the words, "All Owners shall have the right and duty to prosecute in proceedings at law or in equity against any person or persons violating or attempting to violate any covenants, conditions or reservations, either to prevent him or them from so doing, or to recover damages or any property charges for such violation." It seems beyond time for you to perform your duty per the deed restrictions you agreed to and prosecute those who you believe are violating the restrictions. Otherwise, who is it that is ignoring the restrictions and exercising selective enforcement?

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by tophcfa

The reality is that the subject at hand is a grey area. Unfortunately, laws defining a rental property business are outdated and were written when AIRBnB’s didn’t exist. The laws never contemplated owners of residential properties advertising through an app on the internet to rent rooms in their homes by the night to transient tenants.

Technology almost always out-paces regulation. You need to look no further than the issue of gun control. Some folks claim the US Constitution gives us the right to own weapons, others will argue that framers of the Constitution didn't envision an AK47 in everyone's closet.

"Privacy laws" are the same. The framers didn't anticipate drones, nor the recording of text messages and phone calls.

Originally Posted by tophcfa

when a party charges an unrelated third party a fee to sleep in a bed with a roof over their head, they are running a business. And the IRS agrees with that opinion. Rental income from AIRBnB’s is considered taxable income.

It's taxable income, but not "business income". Same as it's been since the IRS began. Look no further than the recent proposal to "tax unrealized capital gains". Income, but not necessarily "business income".

Originally Posted by tophcfa

On the other hand, homeowners who rent out rooms by the day to unrelated third parties, are definitely violating both deed restrictions.

There was a time when I would agree, but the courts have consistently ruled to the contrary, to say nothing of the fact, it's been an accepted practice for generations. Most every person reading this post, has a relative who lived as a "boarder", when they first came to this country.

Just for the heck of it, define "unrelated 3rd parties". Can you not allow your step-parents to live in your house? Can you not rent a room to your old college roommate, you've been friends with for 50 years? What about your Army buddy who's down on his luck and saved your life in the Vietnam war ... he can't stay in your extra bedroom?

Originally Posted by tophcfa

So a resident can put a little white cross in their garden, which won’t disrupt the quality of life in the neighborhood, but will result in daily fines because it’s an external restriction.

There are plenty of folks who are offended by the "white crosses", but don't feel their quality of life is harmed by rentals. We don't get to pick & choose which regulations we like or don't like.

The fact of the matter is, white crosses are unequivocally prohibited, STR's are not.

Just as an aside, I live directly across the street from a STR and another home, that is rented long-term, by a high-level TV employee who's under 55. The STR is far less disruptive in my opinion.

[DarrenandKathy]

Originally Posted by Regorp

People who rent short term are what I refer to as "Invaders". Most seem ok with bending the rules to suit their needs. Renting should be by the month and to over 55 only, since we are a over 55 community. TV is a for retirement not vacation.

I think a lot of isolated folks rather enjoy when their loved ones and family come down here for a short visit.
That’s where the largest volume of short term renters come from.

[jimkerr]

Originally Posted by charlie1

Maybe we should come up with a word for people that are the root of what full time Villages think is the problem during the busy season.

Let me start out by saying I am a full time resident of the Villages and have been for 6 years. I love "part time residence" They pay their way just like us but only use the facilities part time. Sure they come during the winter but they could be here all year. I really enjoy the lack of crowds during the summer so this is all good to me! After the first year, I am sure they pretty much understand the way the Villages works and know how to navigate not only the roads, multimodel paths, and activities. They blend in easily having resident friends, etc.

Where I think the problem lies is the people that rent for a day, week, month, etc. This is not their home and they seem to treat the Villages that way. They do not understand, for the most part, the concept of the multimodel paths, the traffic circles, the activities, etc. In a way, I totally can't blame them because there is really no good way to learn without experience in the Villages or through some resident programs that are available.

What would be a good name to give this group of people. I do not like that they are grouped with Snow Birds! What would your suggestion be to call this group!

Why do people think we have to have a label for everyone/ everything?

[Nancy@Pinellas]

We have an AirBB on our street and have no problems. We’ve met some very nice people from all over the country.