Following multiple murders in short-term rentals, where we are the City passed rules governing them. Not everywhere though, it seems.

At least our trash guys have a sense of humor. In the original post, I mentioned that the 8-bedroom near me puts out 8-12 cans a week, every week that it's rented.

If I recall correctly, he wants to build a large rental house in a high COL area as inexpensively as possible. That’s up there for me with the flippers who come here wanting free advice on how to maximize their profits. I know many people disagree but I say let them figure it out or pay for those services.

It’s like a giant version of the red solo cup game!

I totally get why neighbors would be wary, and I wouldn't want a short term rental in my quiet neighborhood. But I have to admit: I much prefer staying in Airbnbs and VRBO homes instead of hotels when I travel for fun. Maybe that makes me kind of a hypocrite? For example: my son lives in Nashville and I always stay in a home in the neighborhoods near him (rather than a hotel on the busy strip) which are quiet and seem very family oriented. I totally respect the places I stay, whether it's parking where I'm supposed to, not being loud, etc, but I know not everyone does and it must suck for the neighbors.

It seems like Airbnb is really trying to help crack down on parties, as the last few times I rented (different cities) I had to submit a pic of my driver's license. (They probably looked at my age and figured I wouldn't be having a loud party LOL.) Also Airbnb owners now can rate their guests, but that doesn't really help the neighbors if an owner doesn't care and just wants the rental income.

So, if you're a neighbor to a short term rental, I get why you hate it. But curious if you ever use something like Airbnb or VRBO on vacay instead of a hotel or resort?

@chicagoans -- honestly, yes, I did, before I knew better. I had friends rent one when it (VRBO -- pre-AirBnB) was a very new thing and I stayed with them. It was an isolated home out in the country, so no impact on neighbors. Now that they are destroying neighborhoods and I see how horrible they are for the people around them, I flat-out refuse to stay in one. It's a total NIMBY thing. Even on my street, there were problem rentals and party houses and I didn't understand the problem until the 24-person one was built 60 feet away from me.

@LH On the Move I totally get the NIMBY thing. It will be interesting to see how this evolves for short term rentals as home prices and interest rates rise. Families may be out-priced, and wealthier investors may be buying up homes for short term rentals. I'm glad municipalities are stepping u to protect family neighborhoods.

Side note: many times I've tried to find 2-3 BR suites in hotels for small group weekend getaways or traveling with my 2 kids. They are really hard to find without spending $1k++/night, which is what may be driving people like me to look for condo/home rentals. If I can get a house with 3BR, a family room and a kitchen for less than 3 hotel rooms, I'll do it.

LH CO/FL

What a horror show!

What has surprised me is how no community is safe from these. A gated mansion in one of the most expensive parts of Toronto was a B&B party house for two years before a shooting there convinced City Council to crack down.

A 20,000 sf mansion north of the City doubled as a B&B and a full-fledged armed-guard protected gambling casino offering ancillary services as well.

In my small town, a large home that didn't sell was, for a time, planned for rent to be a sober living facility for women. It became quite a hot button item with some in town asking for compassion, and others worried about the impact on the neighborhood and whether it would open the door to Airbnb type rentals. It's a neighborhood that families are attracted to because our kids can walk to excellent schools and I can understand the concern for those whose kids would walk past any kind of home where the residents are temporary. The sober living facility never came to fruition here, and the home was subsequently sold. But while it was in play, it was a divisive issue. Article.

It is a divisive issue, for sure. Our street was a sleepy beachside street -- kids walking down the middle of the street to get to the beach, etc. Now, strangers are constantly moving in and out, the trash piles up on Friday afternoons as the rentals get ready to turn over, the traffic is out of control, etc. One house had a party with a metal detector at the door, numerous times the one by me has had weddings, bachelor parties, corporate retreats, etc. Definitely not residential in nature.

My reason for posting on that other post is just a way to make sure people are aware of the negative impact these have on neighborhoods and also to make neighbors aware of the pitfalls of allowing them in their area.

Show of hands: who here would love to have a huge rental party house built next door to them?

Anyone????

So much NIMBY in this thread wow. We live in a diverse area where many folks have rentals. Many homes are fully rented out and have suites, we do too. Shockingly, not really, the party house is the one with four teenagers whose parents go away often -homeowners. Not renters.

Well, so much NIMBY because it's literally in my backyard. 60 feet away. The difference with permanent residents is that a few calls to the police for noise violations and they get the idea. Every week we get groups in who think it's just one night, just one party, what's the big deal? They don't realize that the same thought occurred the week before, the week after, and on and on.

WCH -- I'm so glad it's not a problem in your area. GREAT for you, and glad you can enjoy the income without it compromising the quality of life of your neighbors. Others aren't as lucky. The original post that this was referencing was someone building a large (8-bedroom) rental in an area with a maximum occupancy limit of 12 and rules that the owner has to live there 6 months, when he clearly stated it was just going to be a rental. I just implore people to play by the rules and consider the impact on the neighborhood your business is exploiting.

I a own short term rental. 5 bedroom with occupancy limit of 8 - probably broken some times although our realtor wouldn't allow 8+infant (and the issue is septic).

It is weekly only and expensive enough that there aren't too many parties.

It is ocean front and rentals are fairly common in the area.

Beachside would imply that people want to be there for short periods of time so rentals should generally be expected. We have friends that own with small kids at a beach - and I am sure they don't love all the renters. But it kind of goes with the territory. I can't imagine they would be surprised if a neighbor started short term renting.

NIMBY is a real issue and you obviously have it and are looking for validation. But there are multiple sides to every issue - property rights and all. That doesn't mean I want a cheap massive house being built next door to me and then be used as a airbnb party house. But if the law allowed it or it happened, I would probably move and be happy that I still have my health (and other important things). NIMBYism has played a large role in urban sprawl, traffic and unaffordable housing - so like I said - multiple sides to all issues.

How can I have NIMBY if it already is in my neighborhood and already severely impacting the neighborhood. When we bought our home, there was 1 STR nearby, now out of the 10 houses around us, 5 have flipped from full-time residents and long-term rental to STR.

They are here, and they are allowed and I worked hard with our county to put in an ordinance that everyone was happy with. I have ZERO problem with the ones that are compliant to codes.

All I did was ask that he build his rental (and again, he specifically said he had no intention of making it suitable for a full-time resident) keeping in mind the impact on his neighbors. So private places they could party without being a nuisance, a place for trash, adequate off-street parking, etc. Isn't that what you would want in your backyard???

"How can I have NIMBY if it already is in my neighborhood and already severely impacting the neighborhood."

Well, because NIMBY has absolutely nothing to do with whether you are being proactive or reactive. It is something that you acknowledge might have positive effects for some but don't want near your property. So, yes... your post seems very NIMBY.

"I have ZERO problem with the ones that are compliant to codes."

I don't think this is true and you have contradicted it in this thread. The ordinances are largely their to statistically limit certain behaviors. So it is the behavior you have a problem with.

----

This is a complicated issue for me. On one hand I am opposed to people telling others what they are allowed to do with their property. On the other hand those things can have a negative impact on neighboring properties. There is a pretty dark history of protecting neighborhoods with things like "whites only," neighborhoods, so in my opinion cities should err on the side of not dictating what property owners can do with their property. So I would argue against an ordinances that allowed 12 person occupancy but not 16.

Thanks, bry911. It IS complicated. I guess I've misunderstood NIMBY. I don't think party houses, or uncontrolled occupancy, etc. would be okay in anyone's neighborhood. I think it should be in commercial zones, not in anyone's neighborhood. I guess I suffer from NI-ANYONE'S-BY.

In my case, our small single-family zoned street had mainly 2-4 people per house, with affordable sale prices and affordable long-term rentals. The house by me was built and initially rented for up to 24 people, with no ordinances on occupancy, when the trash could go out - so that pile of trash could (and did) sit out for days before pickup. Cars would (and did) park all over our property and other neighbors. If anything, people buying up any and all houses to flip them into rentals has only contributed to affordable housing issues and made it much harder to get any one to move in.

And please don't connect me to a race issue without knowing me or my background.

And if the problem is the time I stayed at an STR, it was long before it was a pervasive issue in established residential neighborhoods - I didn't know then how disruptive it would become. I'll also come clean and state that as a teenager, I had a car without seatbelts because I didn't know any better. I also sat in the sun without understanding how damaging it would be. I have grown up and learned that things I thought were okay just aren't.

I also understand property rights. Again, on the other post, I just pointed out zoning/ordinances that limits occupancy. Is it any different than zoning that has property set-backs, height restrictions, limits based on septic, etc?

@LH On the Move - LOL... I didn't connect you in any way to a race issue, I said that jurisdictions should err on the side of fewer property restrictions because of the history.

I am not sure that this site or the internet generally, which is prone to overreaction, can handle a nuanced discussion but here we go anyway. One of the sad realities is that property values were, and sometimes still are, affected by racial integration. If we allow that it is reasonable for people to protect their property value, is it reasonable for people who are not themselves bigoted to enforce bigoted laws if they are doing so only in the protection of their property value? I am not trying to debate this and don't want an answer I am simply noting the existence of the game theory problem in zoning and ordinances.

Those codes allowed the well being of one group to dictate the well being of another. Certainly, what you are advocating isn't racial but you are still asserting that your well being is more important than someone else's.

As for your other post, I didn't read it. I am commenting on what you posted here, however, there is a difference in zoning ordinances. Some zoning ordinances exist to protect the safety of the community and some exist to protect property values. I am generally against ordinances that exist only to protect property values and that includes setbacks that exist for non-safety reasons.

I am also not saying that it is wrong to want to live comfortably in your home or to protect your property value. I don't believe there is a right answer, I believe there are just bad answers and hopefully a community can figure out which is the least bad answer.

---

We have a lot of ordinances in my neighborhood to protect property values. We are not allowed above ground pools, cars being worked on, there are limits when trash can be out, etc. However, we also have a restriction that a house may not have more than two of any one type of pet. So you may have two dogs and two cats, but not one dog and three cats... the lots are over an acre. I love my neighbors because the first thing that happened is one of the lake lots found out their lot was not suitable for an inground pool so they installed a nice above ground pool and then everyone started doing whatever they want on their property. When the neighborhood became developed enough we had one meeting to dissolve the HOA which passed unanimously, and that was that.

bry911 -- thank you for your thoughtful response, and explaining how it could be perceived as somehow limiting who lives in our neighborhood. Without it being racial, it has created an economic division in our area. Our working-class neighborhood has been priced out. Even the renters are changed. When we had small houses rented to small families, they were affordable. However, corporations have bought those whenever they come up, tear them down and built these large houses that rented to 20+ people for well over $2000/night.

I am guilty -- protecting the well-being of our permanent residents over the well-being of the corporations building here.

It's always interesting to hear both sides of an issue so thank you all for taking the time to share your thoughts and opinions.

@LH On the Move - I know I am poking you a bit now, and I am sorry, but we should note that largest shareholders in real estate investment funds (and trusts) and real estate corporations are retirement accounts.

This isn't to say you are wrong or that you should protect those corporations, because that isn't your job. It is to say that just because it is a corporation doesn't mean that somebody's well being isn't dependent on its success.

I’ve heard neighborhoods starting HOAs that now say you must live in the house for one year before you can rent it. This seems to work to keep out investment groups from buying up neighborhoods.

How do HOAs even get started? We don’t have them where I live at all and it seems such a unique concept. Neighbourhoods just exist here but nothing ties them together. There are building restrictions and bylaws set by the city but nothing like some of what you all discuss. Are there no communities without HOA rules in the states or are they just uncommon?

@WestCoast Hopeful, you don't always have to have an HOA to control what happens in a neighborhood. When we lived in the northeast, our neighborhood had 40 houses and was controlled by Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&Rs). The document had to be signed as part of the RE purchase. It has been a while since we lived there, but some of the things they didn't allow were boat/RV parking outside, specific fence types, no sheds or outside structures. It was a pretty and well maintained neighborhood and those CC&Rs played a part in that.

Interesting. Our city has rules about things like fence height and location but many of the things I hear mentioned in Houzz feel like overstep. Colour of a house, design of a house, type of vehicle you can park on your driveway. Wow.

@David Cary "and the issue is septic" One of my favorite vacation spots is primarily single homes (there is one resort on island, but I've never stayed there.) Every, or nearly every, listing specifies "no weddings" and/or "no parties." I think septic is one of the primary reasons. I can't imagine a system built to handle a capacity of say, 8 people, suddenly being used by 20 or 30 for a day, and probably with some nimrod who doesn't like the septic-friendly TP so they flush a cocktail napkin. (Source: travel blog with a horrific example.)

@WestCoast Hopeful, the thing is that you get these HOA documents to review before you buy the house, so no one gets forced to buy a house in a neighborhood with crazy HOA rules. People make that choice willingly!

My new neighborhood is pretty strict, but my complaint is with the current members on the committees/boards and not with the actual HOA rules. My issues is with the subjective interpretation and enforcement of the rules, so if you are friends with someone on the HOA board you can get away with some stuff that others can't. We are happy to point those things out at HOA meeting and remind them of the legal ramifications of their actions ... keeps them on their toes!!

Oh yes it all seems transparent. I’m just surprised by how involved some HOAs appear to be.