Originally Posted by BrianL99 (Post 2255606)

Orlando has done the opposite.

They used to be prohibited in Residential Districts, now Orlando allows them.

I know it's sometime inconvenient to ascertain the facts, but facts matter.

Whether NYC has "taken steps to severely curtail their proliferation", is debatable. NYC now requires"Registration" if you operate an STR and requires you to pay the proper taxes. They didn't do anything that changes what properties can be used as an STR.

Facts matter.

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 2255547)

You're right---whether a full time owner or a 3 day renter, you can get stuck with a problem child.

However, I think I'll commit a politically incorrect faux pas (like I've never done it before:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:) and "profile" some of the neighbors one might encounter if the property next to you gets sold:

a) Year round owner.

Probably your best lottery draw, although there are exceptions. The down side: If they suck, you're stuck with them long term, or you move. But 99% of the time you should be fine

b) Snowbird/Snowflake, especially occupying 6+ months and vacant the rest of the year.

Should do fine, they have the pride of ownership and are part of "the hood" when they are here. Usually enlist neighbors help to watch out for their property.

c) Same as b), as well as those who bought for a retirement in the relatively near term, but rent the house out for no less than 1 month leases while they are away.

Again, not usually a problem. They usually have a management company vet prospective tenants and keep the place clean, and again feel invested in the neighborhood.

d) Property bought solely on speculation to rent out, but haven't excluded moving into at some future date. Also renting out for a minimum of 1 month

Getting a bit less desirable, but usually responsive to legitimate complaints

e) Property solely bought as an investment to run THE BUSINESS of STR/Airbnb. Motivated solely by income, will rent to anyone, couldn't care less about the neighborhood or the community. And what type of renter does such a place attract? Certainly not a nice 65 year old couple looking seriously at moving here. No, it attracts 20 somethings, young families with kids, especially teenagers, partiers who view TV as centrally located, bargain hunters, maybe someone with an RV looking to stay in one place for a little bit. Late night drunken parties?? why not? Kids run amok??? sure. Disrespect neighbor's property. Of course.

So, yes, there is no arbitrary time frame for getting a good or bad neighbor, but which scenario do you think is most likely to yield the proverbial rotten apple? And of course, if STRs were such a good thing, why are all these people on TOTV complaining. Why has Clearwater effectively banned them. Why has Orlando and now NYC taken steps to severely curtail their proliferation?

There are appropriate places for STR---they're called motels
If the identity of TV is a 55+ active lifestyle retirement community, then we should take steps to preserve our identity before we become a motel shantytown, with all the crime and other problems that come with that.

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 2255713)

I would think those restrictions would pretty much end STRs in private homes anywhere they are enacted.

So, THERE ARE YOUR FACTS

Originally Posted by BrianL99 (Post 2255755)

You missed the entire point.

Up until Orlando adopted the new regulations, STR's were completely banned in Residentially Zoned areas.

They didn't "further regulate STR's", they made STR's legal were they previously were prohibited..

Remember going to a Video Store and renting a video? Now almost all video is a "subscription service". Pay for what you need.

Remember "ripping" music off CD's? Now, music is a "subscription service". Pay for what you need.

Remember listening to FM radio when you were driving? No more.

Remember Taxis? They're all gone because a new business model made them obsolete.

Remember reserving a hotel for a vacation? AirBnB & **** have a better model.

Judges and State Legislature are weighing in on STR's, all over the USA. The big money is on the side of STR's, not on Joe Bag o' Donuts, homeowner.

I don't like STR's in Residential Districts. In my opinion, they de-stabilize and destroy the fabric of a community. Changing this dynamic in The Villages is all but impossible in my opinion, because the Developer has shown no interest in curtailing their proliferation. That wouldn't suit his financial interests.

(Just to provide one simple example of why the Developer would never support banning STR's: The Developer owns all the Commercial property in TV. His return on investment is directly related to how successful the businesses are. It is in the Developer's interest to have every single home in TV, occupied 365 days/year. More people, more money spent. Also, "vacationers" spend more money than "residents". The more Short Term Rental vacationers in TV, the more successful the businesses are ... ergo, higher rents for the Developer.)

The Developer controls the CDD's, so they're not going to step in.

What's left? Villagers could get together and file a court action, that the "no business" clauses in the various Deed Restrictions prohibit STR use. I think it's a fairly good argument.

Alternatively, it could be argued that the underlying zoning prohibits STR use (a less compelling argument in my opinion.)

I figure a War Chest of about $3,000,000 would be needed to fight the Developer's opposition. If you want to setup the GoFundMe page to get started, I'll be the first one to write a check.

As proven over & over again, online bitchin' and complaining, seldom produces results or change..

Originally Posted by BrianL99 (Post 2255755)

You missed the entire point.

Up until Orlando adopted the new regulations, STR's were completely banned in Residentially Zoned areas.

They didn't "further regulate STR's", they made STR's legal were they previously were prohibited..

Remember Taxis? They're all gone because a new business model made them obsolete.

Remember reserving a hotel for a vacation? AirBnB & **** have a better model.

Judges and State Legislature are weighing in on STR's, all over the USA. The big money is on the side of STR's, not on Joe Bag o' Donuts, homeowner.

I don't like STR's in Residential Districts. In my opinion, they de-stabilize and destroy the fabric of a community. Changing this dynamic in The Villages is all but impossible in my opinion, because the Developer has shown no interest in curtailing their proliferation. That wouldn't suit his financial interests.

(Just to provide one simple example of why the Developer would never support banning STR's: The Developer owns all the Commercial property in TV. His return on investment is directly related to how successful the businesses are. It is in the Developer's interest to have every single home in TV, occupied 365 days/year. More people, more money spent. Also, "vacationers" spend more money than "residents". The more Short Term Rental vacationers in TV, the more successful the businesses are ... ergo, higher rents for the Developer.)

The Developer controls the CDD's, so they're not going to step in.

What's left? Villagers could get together and file a court action, arguing the "no business" clauses in the various Deed Restrictions prohibit STR use. I think that's a reasonable argument.

Alternatively, it could be argued that the underlying zoning prohibits STR use (a less compelling argument in my opinion.)

I figure a War Chest of about $3,000,000 would be needed to fight the Developer's opposition. If you want to setup the GoFundMe page to get started, I'll be the first one to write a check.

As proven over & over again, online bitchin' and complaining, seldom produces results or change..

Originally Posted by Randall55 (Post 2255772)

Save your 3 million! The idea that citizens must change the laws is wrong. New laws for Short Term Rentals need to come from government officials. The latest I read was a proposed bill that the Florida Senate had passed in April, 2023. The bill is backed by city officials who are demanding a change. Much sooner than later, there will be new laws enacted by the state. (Just like laws were passed in NYC.) The developer has no domain over the government. If he chooses, he can fight the legality of the STR changes in a court of law.

Originally Posted by Randall55 (Post 2255772)

Save your 3 million! The idea that citizens must change the laws is wrong. New laws for Short Term Rentals need to come from government officials. The latest I read was a proposed bill that the Florida Senate had passed in April, 2023. The bill is backed by city officials who are demanding a change. Much sooner than later, there will be new laws enacted by the state. (Just like laws were passed in NYC.) The developer has no domain over the government. If he chooses, he can fight the legality of the STR changes in a court of law.

Originally Posted by BrianL99 (Post 2255803)

That bill (or similar bills) has been introduced in the Florida Legislature, every year for the last 15 years. It's never made it through the Legislature ... which is sort of irrelevant, as the Governor would veto it, anyway.

"The U.S. Conference of Mayors in 2012 voted unanimously in favor of a resolution that supports allowing short-term rentals in America’s cities as an economic development opportunity and proposed treating short-term rental tenants the same as long-term rental tenants" (| Libertas Institute)

The Developer has "no domain over the government"? The Morse family has no political power in Florida??? They built a damn bridge over the Florida Turnpike, solely for their convenience and the accompanying financial windfall.

"We the people" is a quaint notion. "We have the money" is the operative phrase.

Originally Posted by margaretmattson (Post 2255797)

Finally! Someone who wants to talk about CURRENT STR information. Hopefully, the talk of Clearwater being grandfathered-in back in 2003 will stop. That information was never relevant to the discussion.

Sometimes, I believe STR owners on this thread are attempting to confuse people - Acting like no laws can be made to stop STRs. I guess they have no reason to believe the state will create laws to reduce STRs. If NYC was able to do it, our new laws can't be that far behind. Here's hoping the state legislature passes a bill soon.

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 2255809)

Wow, the Morse family must cross that bridge A LOT to have built it for "their own convenience". Silly me, I thought it benefitted all of us Villagers.

Originally Posted by Randall55 (Post 2255772)

Save your 3 million! The idea that citizens must change the laws is wrong. New laws for Short Term Rentals need to come from government officials. The latest I read was a proposed bill that the Florida Senate had passed in April, 2023. The bill is backed by city officials who are demanding a change. Much sooner than later, there will be new laws enacted by the state. (Just like laws were passed in NYC.) The developer has no domain over the government. If he chooses, he can fight the legality of the STR changes in a court of law.

Originally Posted by BrianL99 (Post 2255803)

That bill (or similar bills) has been introduced in the Florida Legislature, every year for the last 15 years. It's never made it through the Legislature ... which is sort of irrelevant, as the Governor would veto it, anyway.

"The U.S. Conference of Mayors in 2012 voted unanimously in favor of a resolution that supports allowing short-term rentals in America’s cities as an economic development opportunity and proposed treating short-term rental tenants the same as long-term rental tenants" (| Libertas Institute)

The Developer has "no domain over the government"? The Morse family has no political power in Florida??? They built a damn bridge over the Florida Turnpike, solely for their convenience and the accompanying financial windfall.

"We the people" is a quaint notion. "We have the money" is the operative phrase.

Originally Posted by Cybersprings (Post 2255811)

Now you sound like me, nitpicking words when the primary point was 100 correct. You know that he did not mean so they can ride over the bridge in their golf carts but for the convenience of increasing the size of the villages and still providing the amenity of "you can get anywhere by golf cart".

Originally Posted by Cybersprings (Post 2255810)

1. The relevance of Clearwater and Orlando is that they have been offered up as examples of how new regulations limiting STRs can and are being done. Certain people have correctly pointed out that, those are NOT cases of increased restriction, but rather cases of lessened restriction since they STRs were originally forbidden and are now "allowed" albeit under conditions that no reasonable person would rent their home to a stranger.

2. To assert that since NYC passed a law, Florida will surely follow ignores the reality of the differences in voter patterns between the 2 locations. Not that it can't happen, but the amount of tourist dollars that are brought into this state via STRs should not be discounted since money talks so loudly.

3. Not arguing with your main point that you want new law(s) and recognize that it must happen at the state level. I am ambivalent. I have never experienced the harm of STRs, I personally know of no one who has, I know that my sister and her family greatly enjoy their stays at AirBnBs and are very respectful of the places they stay and would hate for her to lose that opportunity, and I have permanent neighbors who are not respectful of neighbors, so I don't think the only or major problem of the villages is STRs. But I also do not want to ignore or minimize the concerns of those who truly have been harmed by STRs in their neighborhood.