First-time rules for vacation rentals...

First-time rules for vacation rentals begin to take shape

There are 100 comments on the Santa Cruz Sentinel story from Nov 30, 2010, titled First-time rules for vacation rentals begin to take shape. In it, Santa Cruz Sentinel reports that:

Owners of vacation rental homes will likely face a tiered system of regulation in which properties will be subject to new restrictions based on their location.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Santa Cruz Sentinel.

First Prev
of 5
Next Last
JustAnotherTaxPa yer

Richmond, CA

#1 Nov 30, 2010
I can understand Janice Block's issue of disrespectful renters, but passing this ordinance is not going to fix that. The real issue is the land owner that does not check their renters before renting. Janice will continue to have the problems even after the ordinance is passed. Janice probably already knows the owner of the offending property so really the ordinance is not going to help. Since santa cruz is a college town I imagine the same issues arise with college students renting houses in neighborhoods. What is current done to handle disrespectful college students in a rental? Is what is currently being done to handle the college students working? If so this is what really needs to be put into force by the county commissioners not another fee and bureaucracy that will just grow and still not resolve the issue. Look at the real problem and solve that!!
Also it is infuriating dealing with renters that are unruly and a land owner that refuses to do anything about. I have had to do this and unfortunately no ordinances and laws seem to fix an DISRESPECTFUL land owner!!
mountainboy

Fairfield, CT

#2 Nov 30, 2010
Charging landlords a whole lotta money will not cause anybody to quiet down. If we take money from the landlord, then the renters will be good. That problem lies with the renters and the police should be able to deal with it.
It's just another money-grab.
Heard it Before

Pacifica, CA

#3 Nov 30, 2010
money grabbing libs, puke
Feltonian

San Jose, CA

#4 Nov 30, 2010
Has anyone considered that since we are talking about vacation rentals and these are most frequently handled by property managers that by limiting the rentals, PEOPLE WILL LOSE THEIR JOBS! Cleaning people, and gardeners and office workers, let alone reducing the number of property management companies. Just what we need, more people out of work, but the county gets theirs.
busybodies

Santa Cruz, CA

#5 Nov 30, 2010
It's surprising how many human beings just can't pass up an opportunity to meddle in the lives of others. They'll typically claim to have a good reason, but on consideration, it usually happens because they think they can get away with it.
JustAnotherTaxPa yer

Richmond, CA

#6 Nov 30, 2010
I don't agree with taking money from the landlord in fees. But as a landlord you are responsible for who you rent to not the police department. If an occasional renter causes problems that is one thing, but if a landlord continues to rent to loud partying renters again and again then the landlord is not respecting the neighborhood. Also law enforcement have better things to do then respond to a party house over and over again!! I do not know what the solution is.. but respectful land owners respect the neighborhood in which they have own property and DISRESPECTFUL ones do not!! By the way I am a landlord and I do not put up with renters disrespecting my property or the neighborhood in which the property is!! Also I do not agree with the county passing new ordinances since it will not solve the problem just create more bureaucracy and more fees for land owners that are already paying property taxes and other fees!!
mountainboy wrote:
Charging landlords a whole lotta money will not cause anybody to quiet down. If we take money from the landlord, then the renters will be good. That problem lies with the renters and the police should be able to deal with it.
It's just another money-grab.
Dooner

United States

#7 Nov 30, 2010
Its too bad the city didn't convert the old Tannery into UCSC student housing. Maybe they wouldn't be scratching for pennies when they could be making real money. Just look at what they get for a 3 bedroom (aprox. 1,100) What a Joke.
Boulder Bob

United States

#8 Nov 30, 2010
JustAnotherTaxPayer wrote:
Also law enforcement have better things to do then respond to a party house over and over again!!
No, they don't. Maybe there are higher priority incidents taking place at a particular time, but the county sheriff needs to enforce the existing noise ordinance. Judging from many comments over the past few months and a single personal experience in over a quarter of a century, they do not.

I'd be interested in statistics of how many noise complaints the sheriff gets in a year and how many citations are issued.

“I'm the One!”

Since: Apr 10

Santa Cruz, CA

#9 Nov 30, 2010
This is such a shakedown for money is almost robbery. There is no huge problem like it's made out to be.

Call the police if a house gets too loud. We already pay for the police.$2500 for a permit, out of thin air. What a bunch of serious crooks. Always just looking for ways to take more money from citizens.

A few squeaky wheels say they don't like that the neighbors make money renting their house, and then all this. Where's the data that shows the police calls for these vacation homes??
Back in the USSC lucky U

Watsonville, CA

#10 Nov 30, 2010
Once again our elected officials are working on a back-handed way to rob residents with another tax and further depress the local economy while they are at it. I can see many ways where this regulation will hurt local businesses including:
reducing property values - fewer people will want to purchase when their options are limited.
reducing rental customers into the area thereby reducing traffic to local businesses, including the owners of this property.
the vague way that these rules are set up to be "fair" by taxing some areas more and some less will probably hit the most economically depressed areas the hardest.
As time goes on, the definition of "fair" will change and if there is one thing that will discourage business it is the "not knowing" how the tax man will mess with your budget.
there will be a cost to administer these rules - equating to more government employees - just at a time when we need fewer.
I am not sure what the gripe is that started all of this, but I imagine if our government officials were doing a better job of ensuring that people obey the laws that are already there, rather than creating new arbitrary laws, this problem would go away.
disabuser

Twentynine Palms, CA

#11 Nov 30, 2010
vacation rentals are apt to be limited to one in every five homes
That means the property right an owner has to rent his or her home can be extinguished by adjacent home owner's use of that same right.
Fairness

Walnut Creek, CA

#12 Nov 30, 2010
From the article:Gustavo Gonzalez, a member of the county Planning Commission. "But we want to make sure the ordinance is something that's fair."

OK Mr. Gonzales let's look at how fair you are being:

Homeowner in "Special Consideration":
$250 for automatic, undeniable, ministerial permit
Apply at the counter and walk out with permit
No scrutiny
No public hearing
Permit runs with the land (able to pass onto heirs)
Do not have to draw out plot lines
Do not have draw out schematic of house
Do not have to prove you paid back TOT
Do not have to prove structure is safe or legal (not subject to inspection)
No public hearing
No occupancy limits
No parking limits
Unlimited permits available

Homeowner in Live Oak:
Minimum $2500 for discretionary, deniable permit
Mandatory public hearing (how long will it take the county to do over 200 public hearings)
Apply at counter, wait for months for permit
Permit does not run with land (can not leave to heirs)
Must hire someone to draw out plot lines ($$)
Must hire someone to draw schematic of house ($$)
Must prove you paid TOT or pay back three years of retroactive TOT ($$)
Must prove house is safe and legal (subject to inspection)
Occupancy limits
Parking limits
Permits banned after 15% of parcels have permits (Live Oak already at 14%)

Sounds fair to me.
Fairness

Walnut Creek, CA

#13 Nov 30, 2010
disabuser wrote:
<quoted text>
That means the property right an owner has to rent his or her home can be extinguished by adjacent home owner's use of that same right.
Ding Ding Ding, we have a winner. Can you say discrimination? How would you feel if your home is banned from ever renting because the quota has been reached. How will that affect your estate planning? Who will want to buy your house if they can never rent it? Many homeowners, especially in Live Oak, are going to see an INSTANT drop in their home value if this ordinance passes.
this is insane

San Francisco, CA

#14 Nov 30, 2010
I find this all to be insane-- we're talking about a super complex ordinance and lots of money, for an "issue" that's simply not serious enough to warrant it. There no loss of life here-- and "parties every weekend" are almost certainly exaggerated.

Janice-- call the sheriff and generate a paper trail of dozens of legitimate complaints. You'll need that anyway with or without the regulation.
Stuff happens

Brisbane, CA

#15 Nov 30, 2010
Fairness wrote:
<quoted text>
Ding Ding Ding, we have a winner. Can you say discrimination? How would you feel if your home is banned from ever renting because the quota has been reached. How will that affect your estate planning? Who will want to buy your house if they can never rent it? Many homeowners, especially in Live Oak, are going to see an INSTANT drop in their home value if this ordinance passes.
And many are NOT going to see a DROP in their property values because of this. If one owns a regular long term (year to year or longer) rental, you can almost not rent it out to a family if one of these vacation rentals (one of the wrong types, where the owner markets it as a party vacation house) is next door. Having vacation rentals nearby DROPS your property values. Because some vacation rentals import their short term rental business into your neighborhood. And make your -residential- rental unrentable. Short term rentals (<30 days) are business uses, not tenancies, that's the law and has been for a long long time.
The rules have been insisted upon by so many to allow a way to enforce better policies on the vacation rental owners. MANY OF THE OWNERS ALREADY DID A VERY GOOD JOB. But the situation lends itself to the repeated use of a home, like every 3-5 days, by rowdy partiers who have an expectation that an expensive vacation rental can be used for crazy and loud carrying on. Kudos to the respectful vaca rental managers. There were not enough of you. Now short term rentals require a special permit, and you can lose if you repeatedly screw your neighborhood.
Hardly the worst rule I have seen.
Fairness

Walnut Creek, CA

#16 Nov 30, 2010
From the article:"You have certain locations where there's problems. It almost warrants in those areas that the ordinance would be different," said Gustavo Gonzalez, a member of the county Planning Commission.

Too bad Mr. Gonzalez and the rest of the Planning Commission do not have one shred of evidence that a problem even exists let alone that the "problem" is worse in certain areas.
Fairness

Walnut Creek, CA

#17 Nov 30, 2010
Stuff happens wrote:
<quoted text>
And many are NOT going to see a DROP in their property values because of this. If one owns a regular long term (year to year or longer) rental, you can almost not rent it out to a family if one of these vacation rentals (one of the wrong types, where the owner markets it as a party vacation house) is next door. Having vacation rentals nearby DROPS your property values. Because some vacation rentals import their short term rental business into your neighborhood. And make your -residential- rental unrentable. Short term rentals (<30 days) are business uses, not tenancies, that's the law and has been for a long long time.
The rules have been insisted upon by so many to allow a way to enforce better policies on the vacation rental owners. MANY OF THE OWNERS ALREADY DID A VERY GOOD JOB. But the situation lends itself to the repeated use of a home, like every 3-5 days, by rowdy partiers who have an expectation that an expensive vacation rental can be used for crazy and loud carrying on. Kudos to the respectful vaca rental managers. There were not enough of you. Now short term rentals require a special permit, and you can lose if you repeatedly **** your neighborhood.
Hardly the worst rule I have seen.
Buyers are who determine the value of your home. Your logic applies to any bad neighbor regardless of whether they are short term, long term, or full time residents. A full time resident with broken down cars in the driveway will lower the property values of the home next to them. A long term rental of college students would do the same. But if you want facts go see the public record on this issue where multiple professional appraisers have stated that not having the ability to rent a home (and frankly any type of deed restriction)will absolutely lower the value of a home. Appraisers don't look into who the neighbor is.
Fairness

Walnut Creek, CA

#18 Nov 30, 2010
Stuff happens wrote:
<quoted text>
And many are NOT going to see a DROP in their property values because of this. If one owns a regular long term (year to year or longer) rental, you can almost not rent it out to a family if one of these vacation rentals (one of the wrong types, where the owner markets it as a party vacation house) is next door. Having vacation rentals nearby DROPS your property values. Because some vacation rentals import their short term rental business into your neighborhood. And make your -residential- rental unrentable. Short term rentals (<30 days) are business uses, not tenancies, that's the law and has been for a long long time.
The rules have been insisted upon by so many to allow a way to enforce better policies on the vacation rental owners. MANY OF THE OWNERS ALREADY DID A VERY GOOD JOB. But the situation lends itself to the repeated use of a home, like every 3-5 days, by rowdy partiers who have an expectation that an expensive vacation rental can be used for crazy and loud carrying on. Kudos to the respectful vaca rental managers. There were not enough of you. Now short term rentals require a special permit, and you can lose if you repeatedly **** your neighborhood.
Hardly the worst rule I have seen.
What do you think of the Special Consideration Zones?
Adamantly Opposed

San Jose, CA

#19 Nov 30, 2010
This Ordinance should never even be considered! We already have laws to deal with rental problem situations.
The proposed ordinance is overbearing, discriminatory, invasion of how owner rights and privacy, and burdens home owners with additional expenses in an already difficult economy. It will lead to loss of considerable support jobs, TOT taxes, etc. by people who support the good vacation rentals. The additional fees proposed, will never replace the money lost by the loss of additional vacation rental income. It will just anger home owners further who choose to rent as they need to. Santa Cruz is a tourist destation. The County should be doing everything it can to stimulate tourism and vacation rentals.
After retirement, I invested in homes in Santa Cruz County which could be used without hassment by an already overbearing County Government, to help pay the already too high property taxes, mortgage etc. People will not want to invest in Santa Cruz County properties, if they know their property rights are under such extreme scrutiny. Thus, the loss of more Real Estate sales... And, property values will suffer even more...
These Supervisor's need to realize they should and cannot legislate their way out of every situation. They need to pay attention to solving problems using existing laws.
These Supervisors will not be elected again, if this ordinance goes any further. Many of us home owners will ensure that through negative policical campaigns against them, newspaper ads and negative publicity, placards at public events etc.
Adamantly opposed to too much Government interference in supposedly free enterprise.
Respectfully,
Opposed
Hoops hound

Santa Cruz, CA

#20 Nov 30, 2010
How will jobs be lost if all the existing vacation rentals are grand-fathered in? From what I can see, there is still room for the number of vacation rentals to grow even with the most conservative ordinance. Not saying I support it, but the misinformation detracts from your argument. Like saying a permit in Live Oak will cost a "minimum $2500". That is the at-cost deposit. It may cost $1500. It may cost more than $2500, but to say a minimum is mis-stating the facts.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 5
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Housing Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Canada's Luxury Real Estate Market Sees Montrea... Sep 21 GTA 1
News Tips for first-time homebuyers (Jul '13) Sep 7 Anonymous 6
News Renting vs. Buying a Home: Comparing the Monthl... (Oct '14) Sep 5 Anonymous 3
News The Georgetown spring housing market is hot (Jun '14) Aug '17 Not any more 8
News Burnside Marina (Aug '13) Aug '17 John Wang 12
News Fed Balance-Sheet Plan Missing Key Detail Tied ... Jul '17 Ronald 1
News Foreclosures: Joe Firmani wants to buy a diamon... (Apr '09) Jun '17 jpedonti 5
More from around the web