[Velvet]

Originally Posted by tophcfa

Bull$#@&! It appears as though both a STR landlord and a “legend in his own mind” has stepped forward. I guess the rest of us are merely a bunch of old and unsophisticated folks with no savvy or wisdom! Really?

This comment has me just laughing out loud. The poster you are talking about is making a pathetic attempt to justify his view point through ageism… lol.

[Randall55]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

No.

Villagers want it both ways.

They want to complain about "renters" & "snow birds", but can't wait to talk about their increasing property value/equity in their home. All of which is driven by the demand created by renters & snow birds.

Some brag about the equity in their home. Others know the home they are living in will be their forever home. They do not want an increase in property taxes and insurance. They do not want a burst in the real estate bubble similar to 2008. Living with strangers coming and going is not what they want because they understand crime will soon follow. And, they especially do not want to hear from those who rent out homes that " Hey! I am doing you and everyone here a favor." The only people who profit from STRs are those who have invested into them.

[Normal]

Originally Posted by Randall55

You keep stating over and over you have never seen or heard of a problem with STRs. You haven't been listening. If they were not a problem then why did NYC put an end to them? Why are cities across the world restricting them? Again, I tell you, it is you against the world. Where you do not see a problem, millions of people do.

He certainly is the anomaly. Anyone who thinks it’s cool to just change out neighbors weekly who have no responsibility to the premises they occupy, isn’t considering the negative impacts. Multiply the odds of negative impact by changing the occupants to a different group weekly and it’s not the matter of “if” it’s going to happen, but “when” and how often.

The number one thing buyers need to ask is, “Are there rentals on the street I’m considering to buy on?” If yes, understand it can lesson the value of the home you purchase. Most don’t want that and will look elsewhere.

[Randall55]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

I don't know about "lame excuses", but I'm sure there are people on this site who own STR's. After all, STR owners are likely younger, more sophisticated and see the wisdom in keeping up with TV issues.

The Villages demographic is fascinating, in it's consistency. The younger, more sophisticated and savvy folks seem to be the new comers down south. The middle of TV seems to have a lot of successful folks, fairly new to retirement. By the time you get to the Northern/Historic area, you have the much older folks who moved to TV when it wasn't much more than a trailer park. These people seem to want the world to return to the way it was in 70's and they rail against anything new, while they bemoan the passing of the "good old days", when Harold Schwartz roamed Spanish Springs.

Wow! I guess sophisticated and savvy are in the eyes of the beholder. Just wondering. At what age do you believe you will become one of the unsophisticated slugs?

[Randall55]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

I don't live in NYC and, frankly, I don't want TV to emulate NYC.

I don't know why cities across the world are restricting them. Again, I don't live in cities across the world and I don't want TV to emulate them.

I also never said I had not heard of a problem with STRs. I wrote that I have never personally experienced a problem with a renter and I (hopefully) implied that even though there have been several threads on ToTV claiming there were problems with STRs only a few have ever been identified.

Not everyone uses ToTV so perhaps many of those experiencing STR problems haven't posted here. Maybe those that have posted are holding back on all the problems they have experienced. That would not be typical ToTV behavior but it could happen.

I do not see a problem because, I have not seen a problem and I have not seen millions/thousands/hundreds/dozens/more than a few mention problems in ToTV. Let NYC, Orlando, St Augustine, and the world solve the problems they are having, I'm more concerned about the problems ToTV is having (or not).

Bottom line, we have enough laws restricting our rights (even here in the "Free" state of Florida). I don't want to see any more rights limited or taken away unless it is absolutely necessary. When I hear that the city of Wildwood refused to deal with the car parked across someone's driveway or Sumter County Sheriff would not break up the loud street party at 4AM then I might agree that more limitations are necessary. If that pits me against the world then so be it. However, with reports of thousands or STRs in TV, I believe there are others who don't want to see their rights limited either.

This is exactly where the world and you differ. You believe it is a right for people to rent their homes for short periods of time without worrying about the consequences.

The world has seen the consequences and are now placing restrictions on "the right" you claim to have.

[MartyW]

Timely post. I read on one of the FB groups today where a STR is actually being billed as a Bed & Breakfast. At some point this has got to run afoul of the "running a business" rule...

[Randall55]

Originally Posted by MartyW

Timely post. I read on one of the FB groups today where a STR is actually being billed as a Bed & Breakfast. At some point this has got to run afoul of the "running a business" rule...

How in the world is the homeowner providing breakfast to his renters? Just curious.

[JOERILLA]

Originally Posted by Randall55

How in the world is the homeowner providing breakfast to his renters? Just curious.

Pop tarts??

[tophcfa]

Originally Posted by MartyW

Timely post. I read on one of the FB groups today where a STR is actually being billed as a Bed & Breakfast. At some point this has got to run afoul of the "running a business" rule...

It already has run afoul. The problem is that the party with the authority to enforce the violation has the right of enforcement, not the responsibility. This selective enforcement totally discredits the whole deed restriction system.

[tophcfa]

Originally Posted by Randall55

How in the world is the homeowner providing breakfast to his renters? Just curious.

Toss a couple stale bagels on the table. Form over substance at its best.

[oldtimes]

Originally Posted by Maker

That time restriction would be against state law.
Prior posts have links to the law.

Anything people propose restricting STRs would directly impact Morse because the Lifestyle Visit is a STR program. That's not happening.

I don't think you can rent for an overnight. When we did it the minimum was a week.

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by rustyp

Out of perspective curiosity where do you live Brian ?

About in the middle.

Originally Posted by tophcfa

Bull$#@&! It appears as though both a STR landlord and a “legend in his own mind” has stepped forward. I guess the rest of us are merely a bunch of old and unsophisticated folks with no savvy or wisdom! Really?

You should have read my post in its entirety and perhaps you'd understand the context.

Originally Posted by Velvet

This comment has me just laughing out loud. The poster you are talking about is making a pathetic attempt to justify his view point through ageism… lol.

There's where you're wrong. You have no clue of my viewpoint. I just have a lot of experience in this particular subject and I'm not opposed to doing the research necessary to post accurate observations and/or information.

As for my viewpoint. I don't own any STR's in The Villages, nor anywhere else. I do have management responsibility for a few hotels, so I have some experience with that side of the industry.

That said, the reason I don't own any STR's are I think they are an abomination and undermine the basic principles and premises of Residential Zoning. IMO, people who buy a home in a Residentially Zoned area, have a right to expect it will continue to be a neighborhood were folks actually reside and not become a haven for transient renters.

To my continued dismay, I have yet to be appointed King for a Day, so STR's are an unfortunate reality and the Developer seems unwilling or uninterested in enforcing the existing Deed Restrictions. There seems to be a reasonable case made, that the current deed restrictions that prohibit "Business Use" of home in TV, would prohibit STR's.

The only way I know of to find out, is to mount a legal challenge and sue STR owners as 3rd Party Beneficiaries of the Deed Restrictions.

Just as an aside to the issues in TV, this "discussion" is going on in most every resort type community in the USA, particularly along the coast ... from Maine, around Florida and all the way to CA and Oregon.

There are *some* towns (& perhaps states) that have "beat the STR problem". It has to do with the way the community (or Zoning Authority) defines "Residential Use".

When the majority of Zoning Regulations were written, STR's didn't exist, so they typically weren't addressed in zoning schemes. Some zoning authorities (mostly by accident) decided to define "Transient Use" in their zoning scheme. Those communities (or states) have avoided the STR battles, because most don't allow "Transient Use" in their Residential Districts.

In other words, if a zoning scheme doesn't specifically define "transient use", most courts have concluded that STR's fall into the definition of "Residential". (BTW, some of the communities in FL that are "Grandfathered" with respect to their STR Regulations [I believe there are 75 of them], are Grandfathered because their zoning scheme defines "transient use" and prohibit that usage in a residentially zoned district.)

[Velvet]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

About in the middle.



You should have read my post in its entirety and perhaps you'd understand the context.



There's where you're wrong. You have no clue of my viewpoint. I just have a lot of experience in this particular subject and I'm not opposed to doing the research necessary to post accurate observations and/or information.

As for my viewpoint. I don't own any STR's in The Villages, nor anywhere else. I do have management responsibility for a few hotels, so I have some experience with that side of the industry.

That said, the reason I don't own any STR's are I think they are an abomination and undermine the basic principles and premises of Residential Zoning. IMO, people who buy a home in a Residentially Zoned area, have a right to expect it will continue to be a neighborhood were folks actually reside and not become a haven for transient renters.

To my continued dismay, I have yet to be appointed King for a Day, so STR's are an unfortunate reality and the Developer seems unwilling or uninterested in enforcing the existing Deed Restrictions. There seems to be a reasonable case made, that the current deed restrictions that prohibit "Business Use" of home in TV, would prohibit STR's.

The only way I know of to find out, is to mount a legal challenge and sue STR owners as 3rd Party Beneficiaries of the Deed Restrictions.

Just as an aside to the issues in TV, this "discussion" is going on in most every resort type community in the USA, particularly along the coast ... from Maine, around Florida and all the way to CA and Oregon.

There are *some* towns (& perhaps states) that have "beat the STR problem". It has to do with the way the community (or Zoning Authority) defines "Residential Use".

When the majority of Zoning Regulations were written, STR's didn't exist, so they typically weren't addressed in zoning schemes. Some zoning authorities (mostly by accident) decided to define "Transient Use" in their zoning scheme. Those communities (or states) have avoided the STR battles, because most don't allow "Transient Use" in their Residential Districts.

In other words, if a zoning scheme doesn't specifically define "transient use", most courts have concluded that STR's fall into the definition of "Residential". (BTW, some of the communities in FL that are "Grandfathered" with respect to their STR Regulations [I believe there are 75 of them], are Grandfathered because their zoning scheme defines "transient use" and prohibit that usage in a residentially zoned district.)

I appreciate your clarifications.

[Randall55]

[QUOTE=BrianL99;2253804]About in the middle.



You should have read my post in its entirety and perhaps you'd understand the context.



There's where you're wrong. You have no clue of my viewpoint. I just have a lot of experience in this particular subject and I'm not opposed to doing the research necessary to post accurate observations and/or information.

As for my viewpoint. I don't own any STR's in The Villages, nor anywhere else. I do have management responsibility for a few hotels, so I have some experience with that side of the industry.

That said, the reason I don't own any STR's are I think they are an abomination and undermine the basic principles and premises of Residential Zoning. IMO, people who buy a home in a Residentially Zoned area, have a right to expect it will continue to be a neighborhood were folks actually reside and not become a haven for transient renters.

To my continued dismay, I have yet to be appointed King for a Day, so STR's are an unfortunate reality and the Developer seems unwilling or uninterested in enforcing the existing Deed Restrictions. There seems to be a reasonable case made, that the current deed restrictions that prohibit "Business Use" of home in TV, would prohibit STR's.

The only way I know of to find out, is to mount a legal challenge and sue STR owners as 3rd Party Beneficiaries of the Deed Restrictions.

Just as an aside to the issues in TV, this "discussion" is going on in most every resort type community in the USA, particularly along the coast ... from Maine, around Florida and all the way to CA and Oregon.

There are *some* towns (& perhaps states) that have "beat the STR problem". It has to do with the way the community (or Zoning Authority) defines "Residential Use".

When the majority of Zoning Regulations were written, STR's didn't exist, so they typically weren't addressed in zoning schemes. Some zoning authorities (mostly by accident) decided to define "Transient Use" in their zoning scheme. Those communities (or states) have avoided the STR battles, because most don't allow "Transient Use" in their Residential Districts.

In other words, if a zoning scheme doesn't specifically define "transient use", most courts have concluded that STR's fall into the definition of "Residential". (BTW, some of the communities in FL that are "Grandfathered" with respect to their STR Regulations [I believe there are 75 of them], are Grandfathered because their zoning scheme defines "transient use" and prohibit that usage in a residentially zoned district.)[/QUOTE)
///

[Maker]

Originally Posted by oldtimes

I don't think you can rent for an overnight. When we did it the minimum was a week.

That 1 week minimum was the choice made by the property owner. It's their personal preference. Their choice is likely related to other factors, such as the amount of work needed for every new renter - their time involved with managing each rental, cleaning, inspections, conducting background checks, etc.
There is no law in TV about minimum duration. They could have picked 1 night if they wanted.