Easy to check. Weekly rentals for next week in Indian Rocks Beach, Florida are available through airbnb.

There you go, with the amorphous "they". Who?

The CDD's control amenities. What are "they" going to do? Say people who are renting for less than 30 days can't go to the pool? That'll work well.

"They" who pass laws for taxes? "They" being the County? They don't have any involvement with the amenities.

"They" being the State of Florida? They've already emphatically demonstrated where they stand on STR's.

"They" can require a landlord be present? Show me just ONE city/town/county in Florida who has done that, other than one of the 75 "Grandfathered" jurisdictions. If it's been done in Florida, I certainly haven't been able to find any evidence of it.

& I can't wait to hear what possibly motivation "they" may have, to jump into this quagmire, which so far, seems to be nothing more than a few Villages complaining about transient neighbors they don't like.

Have you called "they" and asked them when they're going to fix this issue for you?

Conflation
 

You conflated everything and seem non cognizant of the overall view. Yes, the pronoun usage of “they” is overdone. The application of the law can be addressed.

Anyone who says nothing can be done is a flat out liar.

A lot can be done at different levels of government.

Sumter county can administer taxes and fines as it pleases.

CDDs can restrict usage of amenities whenever they want if a guest isn’t paying those fees.

And do note, the 2011 law says terms can’t be regulated, but it does go on to approve local governing bodies to regulate for the public good. Maybe people believe landlords should be present if they have “guests” for the good of public safety and control.

“Hosted rentals” are becoming an obvious fix for many. Rent till your heart’s content, but be responsible for the guests you invite in.

In 2011, cities were banned from adopting new short-term rental regulations. Due to strong opposition, however, a revision passed in 2014 placing the power back in the hands of local lawmakers so long as there was no attempt to completely ban vacation rental properties or impose limits on how often they could be rented out to guests or for how long.

Some continue to cite the 2011 law and omit the newer 2014 law that gave communities some power again.

"Administer taxes and fines"? Sumter County gets paid all their taxes, I'm sure. Fines? What are the going to assess "fines" for? Because someone put their trash out, a day early? Because they were playing loud music or dressed improperly? What regulations are they going to adopt & then fine folks, for violating?

Sure. the CDD can restrict access ... but who's not paying their fees? You pay your fees, you get to play.

I'm sure a lot of folks would like to see a regulation that says "landlords must be present". Everyone thinks that's a cute, back door approach to eliminating STR's. There is at least 1/2 BILLION dollars worth of STR's in TV. Presumably, all those STR owners are making profits from those 1000 rentals. If each STR owner (to protect their investment) contributes $500, that's 1/2 million dollars to fight the little ol' Sumter County. Do you think the STR owners are going to sit still and accept ridiculous regulations?

Do you really think Sumter County cares about a few disgruntled owners in TV? With the amount of tax revenue Sumter gets from TV, they're not going to rock the boat, what do they have to gain?

I get the general premise. As I've said before, I don't think STR's should be allowed in a Residential Zoning District, but that horse has left the barn.

The town I live in NH, is going through this exact issue and I've been heavily involved in trying to prevent the proliferation of STR's. Like the grandfathered counties in FL, our local zoning would appear to prohibit STR's in the Residential District. Despite the town's apparently ability to stop STR's, they have chosen to "regulate" them. By making that choice, they have acquiesced to the real estate & business lobby and the community will become 30% "investor owned rental properties", within the next 10 years. I can tell you, it's great for real estate values, but the community will never be the same.

The regulation is only "ridiculous" if you are an owner of a STR. If you are a neighbor, not so much.

So it's ok to turn your home in a "Rooming House", with 3 separate and distinct, un-related people, renting bedrooms by the night ... but you can't rent out your entire home?

I'm not sure that's an improvement on the situation that so many seem to be complaining about.

I know exactly how I'd handle that one. I'd buy the house in the name of a Corporation or Trust, pay someone with "free lodging" to "manage" things ... & make more money, because (3) single rooms will bring in more revenue than renting the house as a whole. & of course, all occupants will have cars or golf carts and a place to park them.

How does that solution work for you? Are you about to call your local Rep & Senator, to put that bill forth, in the Legislature's next session?

Next potential solution, please ?

From a post on another thread:

I love this post!! I've only been here a couple of years, but I think it's my all time favorite!

All that medical experience, I'm sure you know a 1000 times more than me about medicine. I'd never even consider commenting on a legitimate medical question. I'm not qualified and as you say, what I could learn from Google, would be just enough to mke me dangerous.

All that experience you have with Medicine? I have with Land Use, Zoning, and real estate in general.

... but you can keep on using Google to debate and question things I've posted on this subject.

That would be just fine because if it were up to me, I'd introduce criminal charges for those who try to circumvent this law. So feel free to set up your shell game and dummy corporations, so you can try to make a profit at the expense of a peaceful neighborhood.

Thank you for proving my point. I appreciate it.

I'm sorry , I seem to be missing your point.

Have I misinterpreted those posts to suggest you are in favor of STRs when you are not?

Am I wrong in suggesting that it is just possible you own STRs?

Did I wrongly infer that you would attempt to circumvent restrictions on STRs

Please, elucidate us, what is your point?

Just received an email from realtor dot com entitled "See what you could earn with Airbnb". By the house and by the room. oh boy!

Pardon Our Interruption

Most people are suggesting solutions to a very real and significant problem. A small few are searching long and hard for reasons to shoot down every possible solution. A reasonable person can easily draw the obvious conclusion that those people ARE THE PROBLEM.

I do not own any STR's. I do not support STR's. I believe they de-stabilize neighborhoods and should be prohibited in Residentially zoned areas.

What I personally like and believe, if irrelevant to the discussion. They are in fact a reality in TV and elsewhere. Legislatures and Courts all over the United States, have supported STR's and have almost universally ruled in favor of them. That's the reality. Not what I'd like to see, but it is what it is.

Personally, I think the problem in TV is vastly over-stated. Not only do I believe it's over-stated, I think it was naive of anyone to buy a home in TV and not anticipate it would become a haven for Investors (I can understand not anticipating STR's, as they essentially didn't exist 10 years ago.)

From what I've learned on this thread, there are apparently only about 1000 TV homes, in STR service? That's not a "general problem", it's a localized problem for the folks who live near the poorly managed ones.

If there are 1000 STR's in TV, at least 1/2 of them must be reasonably well managed. In theory, most investors are professionals.

STR's in TV probably average about 50% occupancy. Higher in the winter, lower in the summer.

So now we have 500 "poorly managed STR's", that are vacant 50% of the time. At worst, we have 6-8 homes effected by each "poorly managed" STR ... & only 1/2 the time.

About 3% of the population of TV, has the possibility of being effected ... and only once in a while.

If you're one of the 3%, it's a pain. A lot like having a bad neighbor, but now you get to use a label and have a target.

I just don't see it as a huge problem. The #'s don't support that conclusion.

If 10% of TV was in STR usage, that might be a different story from a livability point of view, but still the same regulatory problem ... there's not much that can done about it.

Here are ALL the homes available for Short Term Rental on AirBnB, for the dates indicated.

I guess the #'s posted in this thread, weren't very accurate. The most units available, in a myriad of random dates, was 102 out of how many? About 70,000 homes in TV?

Obvioiusly, this doesn't show rentals that are already booked, but the dates are random and always in the "middle of a week" (no weekends).

AirBnB represents about 30% of ALL vacation rentals across the USA (including hotels, motels, etc.). In the "rent a home" portion of that market, AirBnb represents somewhere around 60%-70%.

Lots of strong opinions here. How many of you are willing to turn those opinions into some kind of action?

I've said this repeatedly. If someone would like to start a GoFundMe page or the like, to raise money to launch a credible challenge to STR's in TV, I'll be the first to write a check.

Ft.Pierce
 

Fort Pierce Florida in 2021 saw a growing problem with STRs. They passed their first law curtailing the problem and addressing community needs by mandating “hosted” rentals. Since it’s passage, they have permitted someone other than the owner host if they were at the rental premises full time.

See my post here: https://www.talkofthevillages.com/fo...3-post199.html

I believe that may be incorrect.

I believe the requirement is the "Host" must live in the COUNTY, not necessarily at the rented property, nor be present at the property. (I haven't yet taken the time to re-read the ordinance to see if I missed something.)

Also, the St. Pierce ordinance only addresses rentals for 30 days or more. Again, I haven't read St. Pierce Zoning Regulations in their entirety, but it appears that Ft. Pierce may have been grandfathered, as the newest Ordinance does not address true short term rentals (under 30 days).

Here is the Ordinance: https://stlucievillagefl.gov/wp-cont...rce-21-019.pdf

. Note that it defines "Short Term Rentals" as rental for a period of 1 month or more.

This regulation does not require hosting. The requirement is in Section 22-509.2 that the responsible person shall officially reside in dwelling unit located within St. Lucie County.

The ordinance defines Vacation Rentals as any unit that is also a transient public lodging establishment but is not a timeshare and defines Short Term Rentals as greater than on month but less than six months.

You are right
 

The 2002 amendment changed things up.

But still true is the fact these were all made without grandfathering

I assume you mean the 2022 amendment. The only information I can find from 2022 clarifies the 2021 ordinance and still does not require hosting.

These do not prohibit vacation rentals or dictate the duration or frequency of those rentals so they do not require grandfathering.