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.

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.

Anomaly
 

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.

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?

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.

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.

Pop tarts??

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.

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

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

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.

[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)
///

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.