EEEE GAAADDSS!! - Posted by Laure


#1

Posted by Laure on January 14, 1999 at 09:13:39:

Great Idea…

Laure :slight_smile:


#2

EEEE GAAADDSS!! - Posted by Laure

Posted by Laure on January 13, 1999 at 22:25:20:

I just heard on the news that Key West, Fla. has just passed a new ordinance. Landlords must rent their homes for a minimum of 1 month. If you are found in violation, there is a 2 month, mandatory, jail sentence for all offenders ! I am conitnually in awe at the loss of our “freedom”, and the power hungry people that get voted into office.

Laure :slight_smile:


#3

Re: EEEE GAAADDSS!! - Posted by Rob FL

Posted by Rob FL on January 15, 1999 at 21:31:34:

The realtors have been fighting this uphill battle for about a year now. I get weekly faxes from the FL Assn of Realtors and they give weekly updates on any new news about Monroe County’s Ordinance (the Keys). If anyone is interested check out www.fl.realtorplace.com


#4

Re: EEEE GAAADDSS!! - Posted by Ted B

Posted by Ted B on January 14, 1999 at 11:38:45:

I know in Orlando/Kissmmee Flordia area there are only certain neighborhoods than can be used for short term rental.


#5

Call Me Chairman Mao… - Posted by JPiper

Posted by JPiper on January 14, 1999 at 11:19:05:

Call me crazy…but I think I’ll disagree here. There is another viewpoint…and those that hold it aren’t necessary card-carrying Commies.

I lived at one time on a Peninsula. It was surrounded by water…the ocean on one side, the harbor on the other. A thin strip of land…one of the finest places on earth that you could live (as my furnace kicks in I can guarantee you I wish I were there.)

The problem with this picture was that it was so popular that EVERY holiday, EVERY weekend, EVERY spring break, etc. the peninsula was invaded. The population would easily triple or more.

For those of us who lived there it was a problem. It was a problem getting home. It was a problem locating parking other than your garage. The transient visitors lived like wild idiots, with little respect for the law or our property. Other rights like right to peace were thoroughly trampled on with yelling, screaming, boom boxes, etc. far into the night.

We put restrictions up. The population on the peninsula was limited. Residents were issued stickers which permitted them on to the peninsula. But beyond that the hoards were somewhat limited because of the rising risks that accompanied the increase in population. The population still tripled…but it didn’t quadruple. So it helped some.

Now I don’t know the situation in Key West. But making it a little more difficult for the transients, or forcing them into hotels and motels can’t be all bad. There are other rights to be protected other than just the right of a landlord to rent his property for a few nights rather than 1 month.

Cities have long had the right to make certain laws that abridge certain unfettered freedom. Traffic laws are an example. Zoning laws are another. A community has the right to say that a hotel can’t be built next to a single family home. Whether you agree with such regulation, it does protect some of the rights of a single family home owner. In this case the nightly or weekly rental of homes effectively turns the single family home rental into a hotel like structure. I doubt that I would care for this if I were a neighbor. I’ve seen the results up close.

Laws get changed from time to time. And when they do, there is always someone who gets hurt in the process. Examples are widespread. Tax law changes are cases in point. So there are some landlords who are undoubtedly going to be hurt by this law if they were renting property for short periods. On the other hand, other property owners may have been hurt by the old laws, and by the ability of certain home owners to function as hotels.

OK…there’s the other side. Which property owner’s rights are you going to support?? Is the issue all that easy??

JPiper


#6

Re: EEEE GAAADDSS!! - Posted by Carol

Posted by Carol on January 14, 1999 at 07:36:01:

Winter Haven is HARDLY Key WEst, but I used to live on an island and in our community there was a moratorium on multifamilies (there are three VERY OLD motels), and an ordinance was passed restricting cohabitation by nonfamily members.
The story goes that the day this ordinance passed, the mayoress came home and threw the belongings of her live-in b’friend out on the sidewalk. I think the ordinance was one of the ‘ways to leave your lover’!

But seriously, in FL, in all areas, there are ordinances regulating property usage - not only as to residential, professional, commercial, etc, but incorporating transient rentals into the mix.

The problem with the situation in Key West is that what has been grandfathered has been renegged upon.

I’m sure that RobFL has seen a falling out from some of the same around Orlando. We have communities where the buyers anticipate only residential use, and when they find transient rentals after the fact,it is not surprising that they are upset. This, however, is not the case in Key West.

My 02.
Carol


#7

Re: EEEE GAAADDSS!! - Posted by johnman

Posted by johnman on January 13, 1999 at 23:22:40:

Laure,

Who masterminds such an ordinance? Does the public have any say in the matter?

Johnman


#8

Re: The People’s Republic of Key West… - Posted by Daniel Lubell

Posted by Daniel Lubell on January 13, 1999 at 23:17:28:

This is pure bull*&^%$!! I can’t believe this. If there are any landlords from this area, please post. I can give some ideas on how to overturn this.


#9

I believe they are called CC&R’s… - Posted by Daniel Lubell

Posted by Daniel Lubell on January 14, 1999 at 23:44:06:

Jim,

Always good to hear from you, even if you are a closet commie! Actually, I don’t think it should necessarily be an issue of local government coming down on one side to protect the interests of another side.

-At least not in this case. You see, Key West has long been a tourist mecca, dating back to the early 1900’s. So, it has been this way for years. If you choose to live in Key West then you already know, going into the deal, that many of your neighbors are going to be tourists. For the government to barge in and change that is really bad. On the other hand, communities are often developed throughout the country
with homeowner’s associations assuring levels of exclusivitiy by putting CC&Rs in their deeds. These types of restrictive covenants can stop people from doing all kinds of things, including leasing for less than a specified period of time.
That is the proper way to insure against the unpleasant things you are talking about.
The reason this oridinance against short term rentals is so unbelievable in Key West is that short term rentals are the norm there, not the exception. So, since most Key West homes are not full time owner occupied, the government really is causing financial ruin to many homeowners.

Again, if these people had bought into communities where it was understood that short term rentals were not allowed, I would have no problem with this. But, things being as they are, I would almost favor sending in the Marines to “liberate” this island from the horrible Marxist housing inspection regime.

Or maybe I am getting carried away there.

-Daniel Lubell


#10

Re: Call Me Chairman Mao… - Posted by JohnBoy

Posted by JohnBoy on January 14, 1999 at 16:56:19:

Hi Jim,

I found your response quite interesting. You bring up all these problems with living on that Peninsula and then you say its one of the finest places on earth to live. Then you say you wouldn’t care for this if you were a neighbor since you’ve seen this up close. But as your furnace kicks in you wish you were there despite of all those problems. So I think you answered your own question. You have the freedom of choice to choose where you would like to live regardless of what problems may exist.

So which property owners rights am I going to support? All of the property owners. I don’t see this as an issue of landlord Vs. homeowner, rather an issue with the freedom of rights, freedom of choice, freedom to choose where I want to live whether it be for one night, a week, month, or the next 20 years. Who is the government to step in and regulate how long I have to visit and occupy a place??

What about the people who own time shares? Most of those people are only allowed to spend one to two weeks per year in them. Does this mean all the people that share ownership in a time share property will be put in jail because they stay less than a month? Do they get special exemptions to this law? Is it right to single out the single homeowner that owns their property individually and treats it like a time share where they use it for their own use part of the year and let other people use it other parts of the year to help offset the cost of owning it or making a profit?

Is limiting homeowners that rent out their property for weekends or one or two weeks at a time really going to solve the problems?? It might help hotel owners get richer, but I doubt it will be the cure all to their problems. Were talking about a major tourist attraction. People will be flooding into the area regardless of whether they can rent a house for a week or a month or whatever. The problems will continue as long as people keep coming and by not allowing a property owner to rent out their home by the week isn’t going to stop people from pouring into the area.

What difference does it make if you have one trouble maker that lives next door to you year round or for one day? Doesn’t any person have as much right to occupy a place as the next person whether it be for a day, week, month, or year? Isn’t that part of our freedom? So the guy next door rents his place out for a week and those people like to party and blast loud music into the wee hours of the night. Is preventing the homeowners from renting their place for a week Vs. a month going to put an end to that problem? What about the idiot that rents for the month and blasts his boom box all night? The problem could in some ways even become worse for some residents. At least if you got stuck with a trouble maker next door for a weekend, he may be gone in 2 - 3 days. Now you may get stuck with one for a full month at a time. So would this be the


#11

Re: Call Me Chairman Mao… - Posted by test

Posted by test on January 14, 1999 at 16:47:24:

test


#12

Re: Call Me Chairman Mao… - Posted by JHyre in Ohio

Posted by JHyre in Ohio on January 14, 1999 at 15:47:23:

Hiya Chairma…err…Mr. Piper, Sir,

I respectfully disagree, but VERY well put. Here’s why I disagree, in a nutshell: It is true that competing interests are involved- someone will be unhappy either way. I favor letting free choice & free market (not much difference between the two)decide WHO ends up unhappy. Govt should ONLY step in once party A physically violates party B’s rights or issues of true national security. This test seems deceptively narrow. However, it covers more than direct physical assault. For example, if I build a factory next to your home, you are likely to directly feel the physical effects of odor, smoke, etc. That is a legitimate event for govt. intervention (at least under classic social contract/modern libertarian theory).

The problem with getting government involved in ANY other situation is that even if it mandates the “right” answer, it then has the power to solve other “competing interests”. That power is INVARIABLY abused. The greater the passage of time from first attaining that power, the greater the abuse becomes. Decisions are made based on “pull”, not any sort of merit. In this case, homeowners’ inconvenience should be outweighed by one’s dominion over one’s own land due to the LONG-TERM consequences of allowing politicians to decide such matters. Who knows what crazy rules will follow now that govt. can favor some interests (like that of Yalie friends & Chinese contributers) over others (those of 21 year-old interns and the “mere” public).

One could argue that being mobbed by tourists IS a physical violation. Such a violation, however, is too indirect to merit the application of govt’s massive power. If being mobbed by tourists qualifies, then EVERY inconvenience is major enough to let some politician arrogate power to ALWAYS make the call (classic “slippery slope” argument).

In a nutshell, letting politicians “solve” this kind of problem- even if the initial solution is “right”- is not worth the delegation of power that must occur. I submit that the govt. solution-if there is one- would be to use the law to attack the truly offensive behavior- yelling, screaming, etc.

Just my opinion, always look forward to your posts.

Cordially,

John Hyre


#13

Re: Call Me Chairman Mao… - Posted by Doris-Va.

Posted by Doris-Va. on January 14, 1999 at 12:19:39:

Yes - I think there is “right” on both sides. I am reminded of the Outer Banks of North Carolina and other similar beachfront areas. Million dollar homes are being constructed all over the place with 6 and 7 bedrooms and 4 or 5 baths. These homes are privately owned but build with the sole purpose of renting from one week to a month or more to vacationing families. Now the rent is like $2000. a week which is too much for one family to pay so two or three families join together to rent the house for their vacation - making it more afordable and giving them a luxury place to stay.

Yes the traffic is horrific - especially in the areas with just one two lane access road, but I don’t hear too much about unruly behavior except during Spring Break etc.

If any ordinance was passed to limit this kind of rental system - a lot of people who own these places and only use them for their own vacations in the off season would be up the creek. So would the “house cleaning” businesses down there that employ many of the locals to clean up after each rental period.

Maybe it depends on the particular area and their particular problems.

.02
Doris-Va.


#14

We need to complain to this man… - Posted by Daniel Lubell

Posted by Daniel Lubell on January 13, 1999 at 23:55:37:

This is so typical of what these cities do to their citizens. In most cases, it is unelected City officials that ramrod things down people’s throats and weak City council members that go along with it because it is a policy which was “recommended by staff”.
A quick call has given me the following information:

Apparantely, because Key West is a tourist town, there are a lot of people that rent their homes out to visiting tourists during the year. Some power hungry residents in the area do not like having these temporary tenants in their neighborhoods. The City requires a “transient” rental license to rent out a home for less than a month. Now, they are taking that basic right away from home owners by not allowing landlords to rent out their homes for less then a month. The only people that will be granted the “transient” license from now on will be hotels and bed and breakfasts.

This really stinks, because on a resort island like Key West, much of your rental activity is for less than a month at a time and so the “buerocratic big brother” that set this thing up has decided to take away your income from you!

Imagine you had bought a home that you intended to live in two months out of the year and rent out to tourists the rest of the year. Now, the “big brother” government official comes along and takes away that right and you go belly up!!!

Governments should NOT be allowed to do such things. If they want to keep landlords from renting to rowdy tenants by giving them fines, that might be ok. But to take away part of the bundle of rights of the property owner… Well that just stinks!

Here is the name of the government official in charge of this Communist load of &^%$. His name is Gary Addleman with Key West Code Enforcement. His number to call and give him a piece of your mind is 305-292-8200. I think we all owe it to ourselves and our system of government to call and complain. Believe me, other cities will be looking at this ordinance. We sure as heck do not need this kind of junk to spread to our cities.
I encourage everybody reading this to politely call up Mr. Addleman and give him a piece of your mind.

-Daniel Lubell


#15

Re: Call Me Chairman Mao… - Posted by JohnBoy

Posted by JohnBoy on January 14, 1999 at 16:59:24:

My post got cut off,

solution to their problems? Sounds like they should work on enforcing local laws by making it mandatory to put the trouble makers in jail for 2 days instead of taking away ALL the peoples right to choose where and when and for how long they choose to live or visit somewhere. Isn’t that what this law really boils down to? A way for local government to say to people, hey, you can’t come to our town a visit by renting a private home unless your going to stay for at least one month?? They basically use a dumb law that will put homeowners in jail if they allow a person to come visit in their little tourist attraction for less than a month at a time if they want to stay in a privately owned home. Those sneaky politicians! LOL.

Is it right for a person to decide they want to choose to live in the heart of a major tourist attraction and then later decide since they live there year round now, they should have the right to complain about who’s living there for a week??

I think if a person chooses to live somewhere, especially in the heart of a major tourist attraction, and later decides they can’t handle all the tourists coming and going, they should exercise their freedom of choice to sell and move somewhere else. If it’s peace and quiet someone wants, they should think about living out in the country where they won’t have anyone living next door. That’s their freedom of choice. At least for now it is anyway.

So they pass a dumb law that says you will be put in jail if you rent your home for less than a month. I wonder how many loopholes will be in that law? Well Mr. Tourist, I can’t rent you my home for only a week since this stupid new law we have here went into affect, but the law doesn’t prevent me from letting anyone visit in my home for a week. (What are they going to do? Stop people from letting someone visit in there home for week?) So here’s what I can do for you. I’ll rent you the furniture in my home for the week for $2000. LOL. Well, the law says you can’t rent the real estate right? So what about the furniture? Or what if you were to rent the home for a month but the people left early? Like a week later? Then you rented to the next person for a month and they left a week a later? Can I help it if they left early? Structure the rental agreement somehow that shows they signed up for a month but vacated early.

The bottom line is we need LESS government interference and preserve the freedom we have left before it’s all taken away. Otherwise in the end we ALL loose! So my opinion isn’t based on which side to take, but rather who will be affected in the end and will it result in another small piece of our freedom to be taken away. If any part of our freedom is to be affected with any kind of our rights to choose then it should not become a law!

PS.

How have you been Jim? I’ve missed you guys from being in the chat room every night. Hope I’ll see you in there soon.

JohnBoy


#16

Re: Call Me Chairman Mao… - Posted by JPiper

Posted by JPiper on January 14, 1999 at 13:16:56:

Hi Doris:

I see your point regarding people who have bought 7 bedroom/5 bathroom houses and how they would be harmed if anything changed regarding the law associated with rentals. I believe my friend Dan Lubell makes the same point.

Let?s assume for a brief second that you bought a place in Key West, the OuterBank, or some other place of this type. You bought this place a number of years ago, with the idea that you would quietly enjoy your time there. Now, 7 bedroom houses are being built all around you. Now I think we all know that building this type of home is being expressly done to rent to multiple families. And with this construction comes the traffic, the stress on city systems, etc. Would this bother you?? Would you view this as an assault on certain of your rights and freedoms?? While the zoning laws permit the building of single family homes, do they permit the building of lodging?? Isn?t that what these large homes really are intended for?? As you correctly state, the weekly rent is really too much for a average ?single family? to be able to afford. And that was never the intent was it?

If a point in time comes that the rights of certain property owners are being violated by other property owners, does the city/county/state have a right to change the rules/laws?? Are we required to NEVER change the law because a certain group might be harmed?? Must the law be fixed in form??

I recall the Tax Reform Act of 1986. It significantly changed the way real estate was treated. This created huge problems within the industry, with subsequent bankruptcies. It seems that certain investors were making their investments based on tax deductions rather than on economics. Should the law not have been changed??

Obviously I don?t agree with this. Change always brings hardship on a particular group or another. But then again, without change, a different group might be experiencing some type of hardship. The choices are never easy.?and someone is always helped and hurt through change. In fact, it?s well to keep this in mind with all your investments?.that things do change, times change, laws change. Nothing is ever fixed.

JPiper


#17

Re: We need to complain to this man… - Posted by sjm

Posted by sjm on January 14, 1999 at 08:58:37:

Perhaps a few calls to the local Chamber of Commerce from potential tourists explaining that they were no longer considering Key West for their vacation might have an affect?

Something like:

“Is it true that I and my family won’t be able to rent a house in Key West for our vacation this year? It is true? I guess we’ll go to DisneyWorld instead.”

Steve


#18

Re: We need to complain to this man… - Posted by johnman

Posted by johnman on January 14, 1999 at 24:10:21:

You got it!

Johnman


#19

Former Ski Bum - Posted by Sandy FL

Posted by Sandy FL on January 14, 1999 at 14:39:14:

I am not expressing an opinion…I just want to ask some questions. First, a little clarification for my northern neighbors. Key West is loaded with hotels and motels, during season they are probably 95% filled. And the bang for your buck - well lets say for $60 a night you will get a room with a paddle fan or wobbly box A/C unit that makes a lot of noise. A decent room with central AC and no crawly visitors will run you $95/night at least and luxury accomodations go around $150+ a night. Alot of the homes which house “transient” people are private homes which have been converted to bed & breakfasts or guest houses. Many of these guest houses cater to the guests of gay lifestyles. I wonder how these laws would affect B&B’s and Guest Houses. Their visitors, like all the hotel/motel establishments, typically stay a few days at most. Could this be a backhanded way of influencing the types of visitors they receive? ( although I doubt it)

Here is another thought. There is a small port in Key West where smaller cruise ships docks for the day. The tourists come off the ship for a day and run all over KW and buy up Hogs Breath T-shirts and look at Hemingway’s mansion. They built a huge block of luxury condos right by the port, that took up all the view. Where the visitors go to watch sunset, there used to be a big wide open street, now it is a building. I wonder which side of the fence the condo dwellers are on, in this.

And just like that comment from the woman about the Outer Banks, this reminds me of Vail, Colorado. There you have these million dollar mansions where the owners are there maybe two or three weeks out of the year. And the town employees are living on top of each other in crowded, overpriced houses. Does either party really have more rights to say what happens to the town?

I don’t have the answers, but it is an interesting discussion. Its like the inspections in Dan’s town… even if the law passed, how the heck are they going to investigate and enforce it?? Mandatory registration?

Places like KW and Vail are run by the love of tourists money. Do something to reduce the bottom line, and there will be a shake out.

Sandy FL


#20

Re: We need to complain to this man… - Posted by Kristin

Posted by Kristin on January 14, 1999 at 10:11:46:

Daniel and Steve,
Great suggestions.
Daniel, I enjoy all of your posts. You prove to all of us that you CAN fight City Hall.
Steve, I definitely think that the Chamber of Commerce might feel the need to reconsider if it came to their attention that the tourist trade was about to fall off in a big way.
Kristin