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.

All,Great Points
 

Great Points. Spot on!

You KNOW I'd love to argue with you, but since you didn't state it as fact, I would probably agree with your assessment. I have been unlucky enough to get a full time problem neighbor (not huge problem), but then again, ask them about me :22yikes:

I think I already got the idea 😂😂😂

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.

And Clearwater? So you’re arguing STRs are good?

Not at all. Merely pointing out that the information you posted about Orlando & NYC isn't factual.

As for Clearwater, if you take the time to read my Post #102, it explains exactly how Clearwater was able to be Grandfathered and have the power to regulate STR's.

People on this thread don't seem to want to deal with the facts.

The land in The Villages is subject to the underlying zoning of the town/county it's located in. The CDD's don't have zoning power, nor can the CDD's ban STR's, pursuant to Florida Law.

The only possible way to significantly change the STR situation in TV that I can think of, is to get a Judge to rule that either the underlying zoning prohibits them and did prior to 2011, or the "business use" language in the Deed Restrictions prohibits them.

I wish some would stop posting their outdated information. 0n this thread, they were corrected. (See above) Corrected again, and now again. What is the purpose of posting old information over, and over, and, over? Turn the page! CURRENT information would be appreciated. This is 2023 not 2003!

For Example: In April 2023, Florida Senate Passed Short Term Rental Bill

You think TV is one of the highest percentage of gun owners in the USA? You need to get out of your cocoon. If you own a gun, take it to Texas or any rural area in the USA and see how you will fare.

Great post. You forgot to mention one group of people. YouTubers who come to the Villages, stay at an STR, and film what a great time they are having. On their videos they are seen playing tennis, swimming, pickleball, shooting pool, etc. The biggest perk, our dear fans, they ask. You get to drive around in a provided golf cart! The cost of all this? You are not going to believe this, dear fans, it's all free! That's right! Rent a home and all of this is free!

My stomach churns when I watch these videos. Free advertisement for the STR owners that goes out to the masses.

On another note: While looking at preowned homes for sale, one listing caught my attention. It is described as a ready-to-go STR/AIRbnb. 4338 Zeppelin Road. (Listings on MLS are not private. I am doing no harm by posting the address) Is this a new way to sell homes??

OK, facts matter-----so here are THE FACTS, not your assertions:

Yes, Orlando allows STR in residential zones, but with the following , rather severe restrictions (from the Orlando City Website):

In the City of Orlando, a short term rental (STR) is a rental period of fewer than 30 days. Hosts can Apply Online for Home Sharing Registration.

The Home Sharing Ordinance has the following requirements:

During all guest stays, the host must be present. A resident does not have to be the property owner, but they must prove that it is their primary residence. To operate as a short term rental, they must also acquire notarized permission from the landlord or owner.
Hosts can offer only a part of the property for rent. While STR operators are not permitted to rent out their entire house, they can rent up to half of the home’s total number of bedrooms. Owners of duplexes are permitted to rent out the complete second unit provided it is of equal or smaller size and situated on the same development site.
Only a single STR booking at a time. The STR ordinance restricts hosts to just one booking at a time. They can have a maximum of two guests per room and no more than four non-family members at one time in a short term rental.
Home Owners Association’s approval is required. If applicable, hosts may also require approval from the HOA. If the property is a part of an HOA, the rental registration must be accompanied by a permission letter.
Proof of registration should be linked to any online advertising. Hosts must ensure that home-sharing registration proof is included with an online advertisement. The property’s online advertisement must reflect the ordinance’s criteria, such as one bedroom available for home sharing in a three-bedroom house.

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

So, THERE ARE YOUR FACTS

STRs are only a money making opportunity nothing else.. they do nothing for an area you might think it raises your values but it will come back to bite you..

It think this sums it up …. Pretty spot-on analysis.

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..

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.

Regardless, if we had those restrictions in TV, it would stop STRs dead in their tracks

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

To say that citizens don't need to pass a law, the lawmakers do, is 100% accurate at the face, but kind of non-sensical in principal. Lawmakers rarely pass laws just because. They pass laws because the citizens (lots of them or wealthy few) pressure them into doing it. If no citizen said or did anything, the chance of a new law would be somewhere close to 0%.

To say that the developer has no domain over the government is extremely naive in my opinion. In classrooms we can be taught that the will of the people is what prevails when in reality, we know that money and influence talk much louder.

I am confident that the legislators are weighing going against the developer and the loss of who knows how much tourist money with going against a very vocal community demanding action. I won't try to predict which way it will go, but I think to deny that reality may be foolish.

Hope your recovery is going well!

Here we go again! An agonizing post of what happened decades ago. We are in the here and now! The developer building a bridge over the turnpike has to do with City Development. You have no idea on how Ron Desantis will vote, and even if he did vote no, he is not the one and only deciding factor.

Oh, here's a new one from your arsenal. The US Conference of Mayors in 2012. Well, I guess the mayor of NYC didn't get the memo.

I am not a government expert. But, I am almost certain if the state of Florida passes new laws for STRS, the developer will be forced to follow them or get fined. Are you really unaware that there are cities throughout Florida who are demanding change? But, I get it! Let's call the Developer of the Villages and see what he thinks. I do not understand your rationale. Unless, of course, you are an STR owner who wants to use scare-tactics.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

I was replying to a post that stated the Florida Senate passed a Short Term Rental Bill in April. I said, if NYC can get a bill passed, most likely ours will follow.

I am not an expert in government. But I assume if one wanted to get a bill passed on STRS they would refer to others, NYC included, who have done it.

There is no relevance in Clearwater. They were grandfathered-in. That is not going to happen to the remaining cities in Florida. So why bring it up?

Read about the Senate Passing a Short Term Rental Bill. I know it is just a bill. But, I believe they are going to keep working on it until it is passed into law. Hoping- with fingers crossed.

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.