[Cybersprings]

Originally Posted by Velvet

So, if I am reading your post correctly, in order that your sister can rent once a year, you advocate that every resident in TV potentially suffer the STR problems they have so ONE person (your sister) may not be inconvenienced?

If you are not an owner, not a resident, not event a renter, than all your arguments are hypothetical based on ideals much like the concept of communism sound good in writing but Communism in real practice is more than a nightmare.

All I can say is you weren't even close to reading correctly. I am an owner. I am a resident. I have never rented out my home for one minute. I have only owned that one home in the villages for 8 years.
Please try again on reading my posts. I have made all of this very clear. MM take a look at this post to which I am responding and see why I posted I am against people attributing things to people that are false and then arguing with them on that premise, and how it can relate to a thread on STRs or any other topic.

[Velvet]

Originally Posted by Cybersprings

All I can say is you weren't even close to reading correctly. I am an owner. I am a resident. I have never rented out my home for one minute. I have only owned that one home in the villages for 8 years.
Please try again on reading my posts. I have made all of this very clear. MM take a look at this post to which I am responding and see why I posted I am against people attributing things to people that are false and then arguing with them on that premise, and how it can relate to a thread on STRs or any other topic.

I must have missed where you noted you were an owner and a resident. I appreciate you clarifying.

However, I think you can hear the pain and suffering many residents have expressed and most of them are not even on this forum. I hope you chose not to ignore it.

[Cybersprings]

Originally Posted by margaretmattson

Thank you for explaining in detail your beliefs, things that you stand for, and things you are against. Quick question. What does your post have to do with STRS?

Can I ask why, when R55 posts right before you letting us know that he reread 370 posts and wants to know who the owner of the TOTV is, you didn't ask him the same question? is it because he tells you how kind and thoughtful you are?

[margaretmattson]

Originally Posted by Cybersprings

Can I ask why, when R55 posts right before you letting us know that he reread 370 posts and wants to know who the owner of the TOTV is, you didn't ask him the same question? is it because he tells you how kind and thoughtful you are?

I read that post. It was in response to hired guns. Perhaps he thinks they work for TOTV? Anyways, you have your wish. I now posted a question for R55.

[Cybersprings]

Originally Posted by Velvet

I must have missed where you noted you were an owner and a resident. I appreciate you clarifying.

However, I think you can hear the pain and suffering many residents have expressed and most of them are not even on this forum. I hope you chose not to ignore it.

Excellent post. SERIOUSLY, I mean it.

I do hear the pain and suffering many residents have expressed.
I do realize there are many others who have experienced this and possibly worse.
That is why I said I am ambivalent. My only personal direct knowledge/experience is positive with them. But I hear and sympathize with the posts in this thread and others. That is why, with only (very limited) positive experience with them, I am conflicted rather than in support.
I would like to say that I won't choose to ignore it, but it is unlikely that I will take action on either side, and I think that could easily be construed as ignoring it.

I think what colors my responses to this topic is really strong feelings/reactions on another topic (which is waaayy off topic) where I also think people are overestimating the scale and recomending banning rather than addressing the true problem.

I do strongly support the bill that died this year where the owners are penalized (not like jail, but other things) for the transgressions of their renters. That, in my mind addresses (or at least targets) the real issue. I don't think renters are a problem, I think problem renters and problem landlords are the problem, and THAT is what should be fixed. I would also support not allowing renting to people under a certain age, or they must at least have one of us old folks with them, since I think that is what the Villages is advertised to be and many bought into. I know many hotels won't rent to adults under a certain age.

[Cybersprings]

Originally Posted by margaretmattson

I read that post. It was in response to hired guns. Perhaps he thinks they work for TOTV? Anyways, you have your wish. I now posted a question for R55.

lol. It was really a rhetorical question. Thanks for paying the least bit of attention to that post. I wouldn't have if I were you.

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by margaretmattson

Not great math. The post was Texas AND RURAL AREAS in the USA have more guns by far! Most guns are not registered in these areas. But, go ahead! Be a GOOGLE FANATIC because you probably have NEVER BEEN to these places. If you are going to be a Google fanatic, then look up the correct statistic. Are RURAL AREAS home to the most guns? Does Texas have a lot of RURAL AREAS?

And please, don't kid yourself that all guns are registered. One should add a percentage for that. I've been to these places. I suggest you add a large percentage for not registered. (Think about the number of hunters.)

Go ahead! Blame me for responding to a poster who started the gun owner talk. INSTEAD of the poster who started it. He stated the Villages is among the highest population of gun owners in the USA. And, we can use those guns to shoot abusers. My response was there are more gun owners in Texas and Rural areas in the USA, we don't need to settle things on our own in the Villages. But, you know what? Join the poster's vigilante group. We have nothing better to do here in the Villages.

Once again, not a single gun in Texas (rural or otherwise) is registered. Texas does not have a gun registry...

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

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.

Nearly 400 posts and I'm still waiting for someone to suggest a solution.

"They should do something about it". Who's they?

"Regulations should be adopted". By whom? Under what authority?

"The State will step in and fix it". Oh really? The "state" (as in Legislature) has proven year after year, they are in favor of allowing STR's.

"I'm not going to vote for a County Commissioner, unless he agrees to stop STR's". Well, unfortunately, the County is prohibited by state law, from outlawing STR's or even implementing a law that requires rentals to be any specific length.

"The CDD has to protect us". How? CDD's have NO Zoning Power, nor do they have any power to regulate occupancy of a home. They control Infrastructure & amenities.

"The Developer has to prohibit STR's". Even if he did prohibit STR's in newer sections of TV, how does that help anyone who already owns a home?

"The Developer should ban STR's in all The Villages". How? Why would he? What's he have to gain by trying to do that? The Developer doesn't care if existing homeowners are unhappy, it doesn't hurt him.

I'm hearing a whole lot of railing against STR's, but no substantive suggestions how to change anything ... just a lot of wishful thinking and nonsensical statements.

If anyone really wants to do something about STR's, I doubt complaining on TOTV is going to be productive. Put your big boy pants on and put your money when your keyboard is ... file a lawsuit, it's the American way.

I'll wait ....

[Normal]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

[/I]

Nearly 400 posts and I'm still waiting for someone to suggest a solution.

"They should do something about it". Who's they?

"Regulations should be adopted". By whom? Under what authority?

"I'm not going to vote for a County Commissioner, unless he agrees to stop STR's".
..

Local authorities have legal authority to write regulations for rentals. Florida state law does not allow local governments to ban short-term rentals entirely or regulate the length of stays or their frequency, but local governments may pass rules to control negative effects of vacation rentals.

They certainly pass laws for taxes, require landlords to be present when guests occupy their premises and restrict uses of amenities.

[Kelevision]

All Florida beachfront properties too! No rentals under 30 days.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by Kelevision

All Florida beachfront properties too! No rentals under 30 days.

Easy to check. Weekly rentals for next week in Indian Rocks Beach, Florida are available through airbnb.

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by Normal

Local authorities have legal authority to write regulations for rentals. Florida state law does not allow local governments to ban short-term rentals entirely or regulate the length of stays or their frequency, but local governments may pass rules to control negative effects of vacation rentals.

They certainly pass laws for taxes, require landlords to be present when guests occupy their premises and restrict uses of amenities.

There you go, with the amorphous "they". Who?

The CDD's control amenities. What are "they" going to do? Say people who are renting for less than 30 days can't go to the pool? That'll work well.

"They" who pass laws for taxes? "They" being the County? They don't have any involvement with the amenities.

"They" being the State of Florida? They've already emphatically demonstrated where they stand on STR's.

"They" can require a landlord be present? Show me just ONE city/town/county in Florida who has done that, other than one of the 75 "Grandfathered" jurisdictions. If it's been done in Florida, I certainly haven't been able to find any evidence of it.

& I can't wait to hear what possibly motivation "they" may have, to jump into this quagmire, which so far, seems to be nothing more than a few Villages complaining about transient neighbors they don't like.

Have you called "they" and asked them when they're going to fix this issue for you?

[Normal]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

There you go, with the amorphous "they". Who?

The CDD's control amenities. What are "they" going to do? Say people who are renting for less than 30 days can't go to the pool? That'll work well.

"They" who pass laws for taxes? "They" being the County? They don't have any involvement with the amenities.

"They" being the State of Florida? They've already emphatically demonstrated where they stand on STR's.

"They" can require a landlord be present? Show me just ONE city/town/county in Florida who has done that, other than one of the 75 "Grandfathered" jurisdictions. If it's been done in Florida, I certainly haven't been able to find any evidence of it.

You conflated everything and seem non cognizant of the overall view. Yes, the pronoun usage of “they” is overdone. The application of the law can be addressed.

Anyone who says nothing can be done is a flat out liar.

A lot can be done at different levels of government.

Sumter county can administer taxes and fines as it pleases.

CDDs can restrict usage of amenities whenever they want if a guest isn’t paying those fees.

And do note, the 2011 law says terms can’t be regulated, but it does go on to approve local governing bodies to regulate for the public good. Maybe people believe landlords should be present if they have “guests” for the good of public safety and control.

“Hosted rentals” are becoming an obvious fix for many. Rent till your heart’s content, but be responsible for the guests you invite in.

In 2011, cities were banned from adopting new short-term rental regulations. Due to strong opposition, however, a revision passed in 2014 placing the power back in the hands of local lawmakers so long as there was no attempt to completely ban vacation rental properties or impose limits on how often they could be rented out to guests or for how long.

Some continue to cite the 2011 law and omit the newer 2014 law that gave communities some power again.

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by Normal

You conflated everything and seem non cognizant of the overall view. Yes, the pronoun usage of “they” is overdone. The application of the law can be addressed.

Anyone who says nothing can be done is a flat out liar.

A lot can be done at different levels of government.

Sumter county can administer taxes and fines as it pleases.

CDDs can restrict usage of amenities whenever they want if a guest isn’t paying those fees.

And do note, the 2011 law says terms can’t be regulated, but it does go on to approve local governing bodies to regulate for the public good. Maybe people believe landlords should be present if they have “guests” for the good of public safety and control.

"Administer taxes and fines"? Sumter County gets paid all their taxes, I'm sure. Fines? What are the going to assess "fines" for? Because someone put their trash out, a day early? Because they were playing loud music or dressed improperly? What regulations are they going to adopt & then fine folks, for violating?

Sure. the CDD can restrict access ... but who's not paying their fees? You pay your fees, you get to play.

I'm sure a lot of folks would like to see a regulation that says "landlords must be present". Everyone thinks that's a cute, back door approach to eliminating STR's. There is at least 1/2 BILLION dollars worth of STR's in TV. Presumably, all those STR owners are making profits from those 1000 rentals. If each STR owner (to protect their investment) contributes $500, that's 1/2 million dollars to fight the little ol' Sumter County. Do you think the STR owners are going to sit still and accept ridiculous regulations?

Do you really think Sumter County cares about a few disgruntled owners in TV? With the amount of tax revenue Sumter gets from TV, they're not going to rock the boat, what do they have to gain?

I get the general premise. As I've said before, I don't think STR's should be allowed in a Residential Zoning District, but that horse has left the barn.

The town I live in NH, is going through this exact issue and I've been heavily involved in trying to prevent the proliferation of STR's. Like the grandfathered counties in FL, our local zoning would appear to prohibit STR's in the Residential District. Despite the town's apparently ability to stop STR's, they have chosen to "regulate" them. By making that choice, they have acquiesced to the real estate & business lobby and the community will become 30% "investor owned rental properties", within the next 10 years. I can tell you, it's great for real estate values, but the community will never be the same.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

"Administer taxes and fines"? Sumter County gets paid all their taxes, I'm sure. Fines? What are the going to assess "fines" for? Because someone put their trash out, a day early? Because they were playing loud music or dressed improperly? What regulations are they going to adopt & then fine folks, for violating?

Sure. the CDD can restrict access ... but who's not paying their fees? You pay your fees, you get to play.

I'm sure a lot of folks would like to see a regulation that says "landlords must be present". Everyone thinks that's a cute, back door approach to eliminating STR's. There is at least 1/2 BILLION dollars worth of STR's in TV. Presumably, all those STR owners are making profits from those 1000 rentals. If each STR owner (to protect their investment) contributes $500, that's 1/2 million dollars to fight the little ol' Sumter County. Do you think the STR owners are going to sit still and accept ridiculous regulations?

Do you really think Sumter County cares about a few disgruntled owners in TV? With the amount of tax revenue Sumter gets from TV, they're not going to rock the boat, what do they have to gain?

I get the general premise. As I've said before, I don't think STR's should be allowed in a Residential Zoning District, but that horse has left the barn.

The town I live in NH, is going through this exact issue and I've been heavily involved in trying to prevent the proliferation of STR's. Like the grandfathered counties in FL, our local zoning would appear to prohibit STR's in the Residential District. Despite the town's apparently ability to stop STR's, they have chosen to "regulate" them. By making that choice, they have acquiesced to the real estate & business lobby and the community will become 30% "investor owned rental properties", within the next 10 years. I can tell you, it's great for real estate values, but the community will never be the same.

The regulation is only "ridiculous" if you are an owner of a STR. If you are a neighbor, not so much.