[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by Normal

I wouldn’t throw the baby out with the bath water yet. Nothing has been done and the market is already collapsing. The market is virtually frozen in the resale market.

4 houses in my neighborhood sold in less than two months, one didn’t last week. Houses are selling just market flooded with new and resales and interests rates are high.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Yet everyone knows IT IS a business being run out of a home. What else would one call it?????

IS IT?

When I look up Avis locations in Alaska I don’t see Homer, Seward, or Talkeetna yet I will be in my Avis car there. Does the location of the rented property define the location of the business or is the location of the business defined by where the actual transaction is conducted?

[Velvet]

Originally Posted by Aces4

All this feels to me like a big reason not to buy in The Villages. Pay all that money for amenity fees and one can't even enjoy time here with family and friends without a big surcharge. Ah, the joy of living with miserly old people day after day. What's not to love?������

If you are buying to “live off “ other people, yeah, then please DON’T BUY in The Villages. See if there is anywhere (in the world) where one can do that. As far as old miserly people… so how many retirement homes (with all our amenities, or even without) are free?

[Happydaz]

Originally Posted by Aces4

That is what I'm talking about, I don't think Villagers have any idea how much their market is propped up by rental income for owners. Ban all rentals and see what happens.

Maybe just ban short term rentals? You still could allow long term rentals. Just no motel type renting for 2 or 3 nights. One wonders what percentage of these short term rentals are being reported to Florida tax authorities and paying the sales tax for STR’s? I believe after three years of continuing to not pay the sales tax on these rentals it can result in a serious charge under Florida law. Maybe someone else has more knowledge on this subject.

[tophcfa]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Nothing to report.

A STR is probably not considered to be “running a business out of the home” but clearly is not one of the two business types explicitly prohibited by the deer restrictions.

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Yet everyone knows IT IS a business being run out of a home. What else would one call it?????

From the mouth of the developer, running a STR out of one’s home is definitely considered running a business out of the home, if the landlord is concurrently living in the home. Renting out one’s home, WHILE NOT CONCURRENCY LIVING THERE, whether it be by the night, week, month, year, or longer, is not considered running a business out of the home. Whether or not it violates a deed restriction apparently depends on which CDD the home is located in. It violates deed restrictions in the older districts but over time the deed restriction language has changed. It’s highly unlikely the likes of AIRBNB’s were even considered when CDD1 was being developed.

Again, from the mouth of the developer to my ears, in my District (CDD1), renting out one or more rooms in a home, while concurrently living there, violates not one, but two deed restrictions. First, it is considered running a business out of the home, and second, it violates the deed restriction that homes are to be used as single family residential units. Unfortunately, enforcement of internal deed restrictions falls on the developer, and is not required but instead is optional at their discretion, and they have chosen not to enforce STR’s.

[Aces4]

Originally Posted by Velvet

If you are buying to “live off “ other people, yeah, then please DON’T BUY in The Villages. See if there is anywhere (in the world) where one can do that. As far as old miserly people… so how many retirement homes (with all our amenities, or even without) are free?

Uh, the amenities here aren't free. I'm just telling you what the powers that be know, the sales here are very much propped by investors.

[Heytubes]

I don’t have a rental, but since the fee is being paid by the homeowner, what’s the difference if the home is occupied year round or a couple times a month? If it’s a full time resident they would use the amenities year round verses a renter using them whenever the home is a short term rental. If charging an extra fee for a short term renter why is the rental property owner paying a monthly fee?

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Heytubes

I don’t have a rental, but since the fee is being paid by the homeowner, what’s the difference if the home is occupied year round or a couple times a month? If it’s a full time resident they would use the amenities year round verses a renter using them whenever the home is a short term rental. If charging an extra fee for a short term renter why is the rental property owner paying a monthly fee?

It's not about a "fee". It's about the identity of our community. Are we a 55+ retirement community or a weekend vacation resort for 20 somethings that want to party all night and trash their neighbor's property???? Yes, that's hyperbole, but it is the experience of some, not all, that live next to an Airbnb.

[Velvet]

Originally Posted by Aces4

Uh, the amenities here aren't free. I'm just telling you what the powers that be know, the sales here are very much propped by investors.

I agree, but I think that they should be paid for by everyone who uses them. Like, don’t “advertise” on my dime type of thing. And don’t lower my life style so others can benefit. Like some college kids on their break etc.The problem is not their age, but their behavior. They have a lot of energy, no manners, noisy, and they don’t give a damn. Not all, my neighbor has her kids and their friends over regularly. We are talking about a large number all at once. Some stay over at grandpa’s place too. When they come they go house to house on the street, to see if any one needs help with something. They were just brought up that way.

[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

IS IT?

When I look up Avis locations in Alaska I don’t see Homer, Seward, or Talkeetna yet I will be in my Avis car there. Does the location of the rented property define the location of the business or is the location of the business defined by where the actual transaction is conducted?

In what world does that make sense? Bizorio world?

[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Usage costs are evenly distributed now and, as I wrote above, the cost of amenities does not currently impact your amenity fee.

20 people was YOUR cutoff to define “abuse” and to begin adding an additional charge. IF the 300,000 number is accurate, how many of those represent guests in excess of your limit of 20? My guess is very, very few. I know my guests account for 12 of those and there a heck of a lot of grandchildren in that number as well.

If each of those passes was for a one week stay (remember, you are tackling the short-term renter problem) then that would be equivalent to fewer than 6,000 permanent residents. Compared to a population of nearly 150,000 that is about 4%. So ALL guest passes add about 4% BUT, not all those are the “abuser” so divide 4% accordingly to get a very small impact.

And again, the number of guests does not affect the largest budget lines. A fraction of 4% might affect a small portion of the budget but has no affect on the amount of your amenity fee anyway.

Well I think any over 4 abuse, see how that works we all have opinions but we don’t get to decide.

[jimhoward]

If I were going to rent a place for a wild weekend of partying (as if I did that), the Villages would be the last place that would occur to me to go. Do people actually do that? They must based on the comments I read here. Why don't they pick someplace more interesting or fun? Okay gang, lets have a party, where should we go? Vegas, nah, the Keys, nah, Myrtle beach nah, how about the Villages retirement community.....alright lets go!

[Velvet]

Originally Posted by jimhoward

If I were going to rent a place for a wild weekend of partying (as if I did that), the Villages would be the last place that would occur to me to go. Do people actually do that? They must based on the comments I read here. Why don't they pick someplace more interesting or fun? Okay gang, lets have a party, where should we go? Vegas, nah, the Keys, nah, Myrtle beach nah, how about the Villages retirement community.....alright lets go!

Easy, it is CHEAP, especially if you are a friend of a friend, sleep 6 on the floor, close to Disney, only one hour drive from the beach etc etc. Lots of people, little money and if you have any, it goes on booze and drugs. I know it’s party time when I see the barrel of chips and truck load of pizzas arriving.

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Yet everyone knows IT IS a business being run out of a home. What else would one call it?????

Courts all over the United States have come to a different conclusion and interpretation.

Most courts have ruled that STR's (on their face) is not "running a business out of the home", they have essentially ruled that the business is run somewhere else and the "renting out of the home", is mere the product the business (which is run elsewhere) sells/rents.

They have generally maintained the "house/home" is still being used for "residential purposes" (people are sleeping & cooking there.)

I don't agree with the interpretation, but apparently I'm not allowed to make the rules. The communities who have lucked out and been able to significantly reduce STR's, had zoning regulations that specifically defined daily rentals or STR's as prohibited use.

STR's are one of the best examples of an entirely new business model, that caught regulators flat-footed and they could never catch up. The early adopters had to much invested and were willing to spend big money, to maintain that business.

Think about File Sharing with music. We woke up one day and you could get a digital copy of any bit of music you wanted, for free. (i.e. Napster & other P2P apps). A great example of technology out-pacing regulation and it changed things forever.

I hadn't seen the below post, when I wrote the above, but what Tophcfa was told by the Developer, is exactly what most courts have ruled.

Originally Posted by tophcfa

From the mouth of the developer, running a STR out of one’s home is definitely considered running a business out of the home, if the landlord is concurrently living in the home. Renting out one’s home, WHILE NOT CONCURRENCY LIVING THERE, whether it be by the night, week, month, year, or longer, is not considered running a business out of the home.
.

[VAtoFLA]

Originally Posted by tophcfa

I’d be totally in favor of restrictions that hit my wallet, as long as they are severe enough to prevent short term rentals. I’m sure I’m not alone in that opinion.

That's the thing. This entire thread really is about the STR Landlord Boogeyman and it was disguised initially as a wear and tear issue on the amenities.

But to your point, this will have almost no impact on STR. Landlords will just pass the cost on to the renter. It would have to be a hard count restriction and then that's going to impact the community itself more than it does the landlords

I personally don't see hoards of young people coming in and renting for a day or two and throwing wild parties. I hear 3rd hand legends of them and fears of them, but I don't see it happening. Still, if what people want is a restriction on STR, which it is clear that is what the folks in this thread want more than guest pass restrictions, then your efforts should be put into pursuing that and limiting rental terms less than X days, X weeks, or X months.

Of course, people will violate it and then it becomes an enforcement issue, but then at least the local residents will have some ability to impact the homeowner.