[margaretmattson]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

I'd hate to see anyone go blind, from reading my nonsense.

Perhaps a more logical solution would be to simply block my posts?

That's probably a better solution, as you'd be able to maintain your eyesight and avoid those pesky warnings and suspensions from TOTV..

You post most villagers do not have common sense. You post villagers are the most intolerant people you know. You request two posters to get off of their computers and get out and about insinuating they need help because of their internet use. You post, now I know the name of the king in the emperors new clothes. You post a giant picture of a man laughing at another poster's response,. You insult a poster who wants to sell his home FSBO. And, I can go on.

Yet, when someone throws a jab at you; you need to report them!

[margaretmattson]

Originally Posted by oldtimes

A google search for airbnb The Villages bring up over 1000, v r b o The Villages brings up 1179. That is only 2 sites, there are several more. More and more people are being affected but as long as it is not you it is fine.

This is from an article by Dave Ramsey:

"Maintaining an Airbnb is essentially like operating a small business, Ramsey says. Much like running a hotel, Airbnbs demand intense involvement: you’re responsible for keeping the place clean, making repairs and being available to renters for emergencies or questions.

On top of that, you’re generally dealing with new tenants every few days. And short-term tenants can be more careless with property than long-term renters.

"They'll destroy your property," Ramsey says. And while you’re stuck doing the clean up, you may have to contend with angry neighbors complaining about noise.

Finally, there’s a growing backlash in certain cities against short-term rental properties — especially in downtown cores or high-tourism areas. Some cities are starting to restrict the type of eligible dwellings, require costly licenses, impose additional taxes and only allow you to rent out your primary residence.

Even if your area doesn’t currently have restrictions on rentals, the laws could change — leaving you on the hook for a home you suddenly can’t rent out."

This is the slippery slope we are on. STRs ruining the quaint and quiet lifestyle homeowners expect. If rules are enacted, investors must sell their rental properties and now there is a flood of homes on the market.

[margaretmattson]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Please try to understand the words that I used.

Asking the neighbors to let you know if you are doing something that bothers them is neighborly and responsible.

Asking the neighbors to keep tabs on the rental properties is a bridge too far - there are management companies for that.

Driving by the property at least three times each day is ridiculous and could be considered stalking by some.

Asking a neighbor to let you know if a renter is doing something to bother them is not neighborly. An investor should make certain it never happens before it gets to that point.

[Randall55]

Originally Posted by Cybersprings

So the data shows 1%. We multiply that by 3 or 4 "to be generous," yet the claim (not necessarily by you) is that the villages is becoming overrun with STR's to the point that our lifestyle is being completely ruined. No wonder I posted that I have never personally experienced the issues with STRs. By those percentages, not many have.

But those who have are experiencing problems. If strs
are allowed to continue, it won't be long that some are in your neighborhood. Where there is smoke; there will be fire.

[Randall55]

Originally Posted by Normal

We shall see during litigating I’m sure.

Meanwhile, back at your ranch and mine. Also CCDs CAN regulate amenities (I.e ban non residents or set rules for amenities), CAN regulate residential requirements (ie. resident must be in home if guests are present) and CAN regulate hours for visitors.

There is no doubt on these points! They are CDDs.

Hopefully, we will see some action on these points soon.

[Randall55]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Please try to understand the words that I used.

Asking the neighbors to let you know if you are doing something that bothers them is neighborly and responsible.

Asking the neighbors to keep tabs on the rental properties is a bridge too far - there are management companies for that.

Driving by the property at least three times each day is ridiculous and could be considered stalking by some.

How can one be accused of stalking a property they own for investment purposes? I see it as a responsibility to monitor. Asking a permanent neighbor to keep tabs is not a responsible way to conduct business. It is a way to make profit while someone else does your dirty work.

[DrMack]

We are new, but we don’t like what we hear from this thread on Short-Term-Rental control. I didn’t even know they had rentals in the villages. If they do, that isn’t good. How does a resident insure they aren’t around these type of property devaluations? Are there spots where this isn’t permitted?

[Cybersprings]

Originally Posted by margaretmattson

Asking a permanent homeowner to keep tabs on the rental properties in their neighborhood is not the right thing to do. That is the responsibility of the investor. He/she should drive past the home to see if everything is fine. At least, 3 times a day! I don't help the investors in my neighborhood. If something happens it is their responsibility not mine.

Pretty awesome response. State something in reponse to a post that the post did not say, then say how wrong that statement is. Sounds logical to me. Is there anything else the person didn't say that you would like to point out is wrong????
The homeowner should drive by the home 3 times per day to make sure everything is ok. Nope. Don't understand how anyone could argue with that. Or why not 2 times per hour? Or just continually drive around the block?

[Cybersprings]

Originally Posted by DrMack

We are new, but we don’t like what we hear from this thread on Short-Term-Rental control. I didn’t even know they had rentals in the villages. If they do, that isn’t good. How does a resident insure they aren’t around these type of property devaluations? Are there spots where this isn’t permitted?

Rentals in the villages is not good. You didn't even know they existed, but yet somehow they are bad. It would seem that if they were that bad you would have noticed that they existed.
Rentals in the villages cause property devaluations in the villages. Would you care to share a single iota of evidence of this "fact"

[Cybersprings]

Originally Posted by margaretmattson

It seems investors are interested in patio villas and CYV. These types of homes are usually cheaper than others. Lower bonds and less property taxes. I can speak from experience that they definitely have a high interest in villas near town squares. My neighborhood is becoming the Comfort Inn. I will have to move to escape it.

Maybe we should ban patio villas and CYVs? They apparently attract the undesireables, they don't pay their "fair share" in taxes and bonds, and they bring down the average property values in the villages.

[DrMack]

Originally Posted by Cybersprings

Rentals in the villages is not good. You didn't even know they existed, but yet somehow they are bad. It would seem that if they were that bad you would have noticed that they existed.
Rentals in the villages cause property devaluations in the villages. Would you care to share a single iota of evidence of this "fact"

We just don’t care to have some Short-Term-Rental being in a new neighborhood we are purchasing in. We can always back out and lose our deposit, it almost isn’t worth it to us. We are just now noticing as our feet are beginning to get wet. We had a home near ours in Henderson and dowish a repeat of that adventure on us, or anyone. I apologize for my awareness evolving on the issue and problem in the Villages.

[Cybersprings]

Originally Posted by margaretmattson

And reading your many posts that are irrelevant to this thread is like putting a metal stake in my eye and hoping it doesn't bleed.

I have been following along diligently. Could you please point to one post by Brian, not in response to someone else's irrelevant post, that was irrelevant? But leave out his post telling us to pull a gun in texas to see what happens on a thread about STRs....oh wait. My bad.

[Cybersprings]

Originally Posted by oldtimes

So you are assuming that only one person will be affected by one of these undesirable properties in a neighbor hood when in actuality the entire neighbor will be affected especially in the villa neighborhoods.

Huh??? Can you show the math on that assumption please? I don't get it at all.

[Cybersprings]

Originally Posted by margaretmattson

Asking a neighbor to let you know if a renter is doing something to bother them is not neighborly. An investor should make certain it never happens before it gets to that point.

Can you please explain how an investor would do that? Should I re-watch the movie Minority Report? We should apply this to the government. They need to prevent people from committing crimes before they do it. Then we wouldn't have to pay for criminal prosecutions or jails, and we would have no victims of crime. I don't know why no one has suggested this before. (Ok, i think I do know why).

Asking a neighbor to let you know if something a renter is doing to bother them is ABSOLUTELY neighborly. I wish my permanent resident neighbors would ask me the same thing so that I could tell them to keep their dog from crapping in my yard or the circle in front of our house without cleaning it up.

[Cybersprings]

Originally Posted by Randall55

But those who have are experiencing problems. If strs
are allowed to continue, it won't be long that some are in your neighborhood. Where there is smoke; there will be fire.

Let's take a poll. Has anyone on this site ever had a problem with a neighbor that is permanent, seasonal/snowbird, or long term rental? If more than a few have, we must eliminate all of those types from the villages.