I just researched the bill that passed the Senate.
1. The bill is in response to city officials who are demanding change, but many feel that the new bill actually removes some of the tools they have to regulated STRs.
2. I did not find the bill text, but the article claims that it does not in any way prevent short term rentals but rather requires registration of landlords and penalties to landlords for rentors who violate certain standards i.e. cause problems for the neighbors.
3. In my mind this bill (as I understand it when not finding the actual text) is the proper balance. It aims to address the problems of STRs rather than outlawing them. Of course, if it becomes law, the proof is in the effectiveness of enforcement. It does not address the fact that different people will always be at the house (stable group of neighbors) but I don't think anyone is owed stable group of neighbors.

Correct. But, I believe this is just the stepping stones and the reason the bill has not passed into law. I could be wrong, but I see more add-ons.

I completely understood your post about if NYC can pass a bill most likely our will follow. I just disagree with that assertion. If you look at many NYC laws, you would find that they would stand almost no chance of passing in Florida (example, sanctuary city)

I read about the bill that passed and posted on it before I read this. I won't rehash my post, but I think you will find that the bill that passed would not come close to satisfying you (based on I think you want them prohibited but the bill does not do that. I may be wrong on your desires though).

OK, I will admit that Clearwater has no relevance. It was the people who support your position (as I understand it) that brought it up. But the people you (seemed) to be disagreeing with were actually of the same mind that Clearwater and Orlando are irrelevant so don't bring them up as examples of how new regulations are being passed increasing restrictions on STRs, therefore we can get increased restrictions in the villages.

Yep---Nobody would want that in "America's Friendliest Home Town" :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

I started my post with save your 3 million dollars. I would assume intelligent people like you would realize why collecting 3 million dollars to fight the developer is unnecessary. Thank you for proving you have intelligence to understand. Thanks, I am doing well.

Fair enough. I have no basis to argue your point on this being a stepping stone. I have no basis to dispute more add-ons. But I do think that moving from addressing the problems of STRs to outlawing them in residential areas is a huge leap that I think would be a very long way away. But I have nothing to back up my opinion, it is just a sense I have.

I think there is a monumental difference between wanting something and being owed something. Do you disagree?

How many weeks a year do you think your neighbors should be allowed to go on vacation in order to provide you with a stable group of neighbors. Should we set up a neighborhood vacation schedule so that too many people are not gone at the same time making you feel like you don't have enough neighbors? What should the limit on the number of guests you can have and how often so won't feel overwhelmed by new people? What exactly is it that you are OWED?

I am an optimist. But, I know it is a big battle.

Do you disagree that money influences (most) politicians?
Do you think that the developer might use some money with contributions or otherwise to attempt to influcence legislators (not bashing the developer) from banning short term rentals for many of the reasons the poster outlined?.
Do you think that creating and organizing a grass roots effort to create a groundswell of people to (counter)influence legislators would take money?

If so, ok. But I would disgree with you 100%.
And I think the jist of his post was accurate but I have no basis to estimate whether it would be $10,000, $100,000, or $3 million to organize the effort.

The post I responded to stated that the residents of the Villages must collect $3 million dollars to fight the developer in court. He felt the developer would fight tooth and nail to keep STRS

I responded keep your $3 million. Fighting should be at the government level. No sense or reason to fight the developer. Or collect $3 million dollars to do it. Especially when there is a bill floating around the state capital that city officials are backing.

The rest you know. Thank you for understanding that the most citizens have to do is alert their state representative. No money needed! Especially in the Villages where our population carries weight. Do us dirty, we will not vote for you in the next election. Lobbying has been curtailed. I do not believe money carries weight like it once did. Even if the Developer donated money, will it be enough to ignore the wants of several cities?

About the $3 million, I just went back and reread the post you responded to. You are 100% right and I stand (sit) corrected.

Multiple citizens contact their representative. Some in favor of banning STRs. Some pushing their representative to vote against any prohibition because they want them. They all "notified" their representative. Not all will get what they want. The developer may be strongly in favor of STRs because of the reasons stated by the person whose post you responded to. He contacts the same representatives (and others) and provides potentially large contributions to their election war chests. What is your prediction on how it will go? How many people do you think will vote opposite their political leanings to oust a representative soley over their position (or lack thereof) on STRs?

At least two bills were submitted this past session.

CS/HB 1417: Residential Tenancies was signed into law. This bill preempts more local regulation of certain aspects of rental relationships.

CS/CS/HB 833: Vacation Rentals was laid on the table (died). This is the bill mentioned in the article where "local officials remain wary."

It looks like the state is moving further away from local control of vacation rentals. When they even consider allowing local control, the local officials aren't sure the state is really helping them.

Thank you very much for the clarification/correction. I should have put more effort into my search.

The bill at the State Capital is backed by city officials. I doubt one person can donate enough money to curtail the wants of large cities. I also can not think of a city or individual who has enough interest in the revenue to keep STRS going. Hotels/motels can easily provide the needed revenue as they have done in the past.

Seeing that city officials are giving their voice to the present bill, I would assume the majority of residents want STRs to end or at least limit them. I have heard more voices opposing than for. Will they not vote for their representative if the STR bill does not pass? I'm skeptical. How many people know of the current bill? It is anyone's guess what will happen. I would just be thankful for laws that restrict STRS.

I knew that site existed from previous searches - you just need the bill number and the year it was introduced.