• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

No Right to Rent? Cities barring property owners from renting out

I believe you should have the right to rent your home but the government can still regulate how you do it (e.g. to whom or rent control). It seems to me an adverse reaction to Airbnb.
 
radcen said:
I believe that is the crux of it.
Click to expand...

I think someone needs to do research into it. See if Airbnb has affects on home and rental prices and how it affects vacancy rates.
 
radcen said:
No Right to Rent? Cities barring property owners from renting out

No Right to Rent? Cities barring property owners from renting out | Fox News
Click to expand...
It sounds funky on the surface when looking at the headline, but local jurisdictions do have the right to regulate property for quality of life issues affecting their citizens.

And it seems here the local gov wants to limit the amount of rental properties to 30%. I have no problems with this as long as it was citizen initiated, which I very much suspect it was. This owner should probably look to his fellow neighboring homeowners, rather than the local gov, when looking for someone to blame for his inability to rent out his property.
 
Chomsky said:
It sounds funky on the surface when looking at the headline, but local jurisdictions do have the right to regulate property for quality of life issues affecting their citizens.

And it seems here the local gov wants to limit the amount of rental properties to 30%. I have no problems with this as long as it was citizen initiated, which I very much suspect it was. This owner should probably look to his fellow neighboring homeowners, rather than the local gov, when looking for someone to blame for his inability to rent out his property.
Click to expand...
Thoreau72 said:
It's good to see IJ involved in this case.

The local policies seem wrong to me. Pretty soon I guess the locals will be able to legislate what color one's underwear must be. ;)
Click to expand...
I know it's not right, but there is a part of me that is sympathetic to deed-restricting homes to being owner-occupied only. Neighborhoods tend to be better when the residents have something of their own invested.

That being said, I don't like the 30% threshold. If a city were to do it, it should be all or nothing. Picking anything in between is arbitrary and discrimination, IMO.
 
radcen said:
I know it's not right, but there is a part of me that is sympathetic to deed-restricting homes to being owner-occupied only. Neighborhoods tend to be better when the residents have something of their own invested.

That being said, I don't like the 30% threshold. If a city were to do it, it should be all or nothing. Picking anything in between is arbitrary and discrimination, IMO.
Click to expand...
These type of regs have often been used (somewhat successfully) in private condo associations to avoid the building going majority rental, with what then is perceived to be a lowering of the quality of life and property values (often an accurate perception).

Because it's a government mandate though, I can see your argument here.

However, I can't see uniformity across an entire city though. Some areas will always be high rental density by necessity, and others low by desire. I have no problem with local government carrying-out the reasonable desires of the home-owning citizenry, and indeed applaud it. I see this as no different than zoning for business or alcohol sales. Actually, I really don't see much difference between zoning for renting or business, since renting to the public is indeed a public business transaction.
 
I don't think there's anyway this will stand. The court cases on this over the next few years should be entertaining.
 
Airbnb is the impetus for moves such as this, as is Uber and the like for municipalities looking at taxi and other public transportation options. I have no problem with city ordinances being established to limit and regulate the new social media economy and to protect the safety and lifestyle of those who live in that community and may be adversely affected by it. Bans are an entire other matter, one that I'd oppose.
 
Chomsky said:
These type of regs have often been used (somewhat successfully) in private condo associations to avoid the building going majority rental, with what then is perceived to be a lowering of the quality of life and property values (often an accurate perception).

Because it's a government mandate though, I can see your argument here.

However, I can't see uniformity across an entire city though. Some areas will always be high rental density by necessity, and others low by desire. I have no problem with local government carrying-out the reasonable desires of the home-owning citizenry, and indeed applaud it. I see this as no different than zoning for business or alcohol sales. Actually, I really don't see much difference between zoning for renting or business, since renting to the public is indeed a public business transaction.
Click to expand...
Fair points. I am aware that my thoughts aren't fully practical.
 
radcen said:
Fair points. I am aware that my thoughts aren't fully practical.
Click to expand...
Since when has opinion on the internet ever been required to be practical? :mrgreen:
 
Chomsky said:
It sounds funky on the surface when looking at the headline, but local jurisdictions do have the right to regulate property for quality of life issues affecting their citizens.

And it seems here the local gov wants to limit the amount of rental properties to 30%. I have no problems with this as long as it was citizen initiated, which I very much suspect it was. This owner should probably look to his fellow neighboring homeowners, rather than the local gov, when looking for someone to blame for his inability to rent out his property.
Click to expand...

I have a problem with the "grandfather" clauses. This tactic is very useful for those "insiders" to limit competition. If you establish a fixed quota of X (rental or any other business) licenses that has already been met (or exceeded) that amounts to creating (establishing) a monopoly - great for those that are "grandfathered" in but it virtually guarantees screwing over all others.

This was done by my (very small) city concerning mobile home rentals - those that have them now were grandfathered in but no new residents can ever compete with them. That really sucks but keeps the old timers able to have a monopoly on their mobile home rentals. That is great for keeping their own rental incomes up but does nothing for "property values" for anyone else.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I have a problem with the "grandfather" clauses. This tactic is very useful for those "insiders" to limit competition. If you establish a fixed quota of X (rental or any other business) licenses that has already been met (or exceeded) that amounts to creating (establishing) a monopoly - great for those that are "grandfathered" in but it virtually guarantees screwing over all others.

This was done by my (very small) city concerning mobile home rentals - those that have them now were grandfathered in but no new residents can ever compete with them. That really sucks but keeps the old timers able to have a monopoly on their mobile home rentals. That is great for keeping their own rental incomes up but does nothing for "property values" for anyone else.
Click to expand...
Good point.

Responsive local government sounds great on the surface, but it can have it's dark side too, as you pointed-out.
 
Seems like some horror story at first glance, conveniently presenting to story of a war veteran's struggle.
Can we look at the other side for a bit though? What about those living in the neighborhood who don't want to see a quick neighbor turnaround? How carefully are these short term renters vetted? Where are they from? Why do they only rent on short term basis? I don't see any problem with renting out one's property in general, but within limits. If seems to me that this is what is happening.
 
Lovebug said:
Seems like some horror story at first glance, conveniently presenting to story of a war veteran's struggle.
Can we look at the other side for a bit though? What about those living in the neighborhood who don't want to see a quick neighbor turnaround? How carefully are these short term renters vetted? Where are they from? Why do they only rent on short term basis? I don't see any problem with renting out one's property in general, but within limits. If seems to me that this is what is happening.
Click to expand...

Why is my property my neighbor's business?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I have a problem with the "grandfather" clauses. This tactic is very useful for those "insiders" to limit competition. If you establish a fixed quota of X (rental or any other business) licenses that has already been met (or exceeded) that amounts to creating (establishing) a monopoly - great for those that are "grandfathered" in but it virtually guarantees screwing over all others.

This was done by my (very small) city concerning mobile home rentals - those that have them now were grandfathered in but no new residents can ever compete with them. That really sucks but keeps the old timers able to have a monopoly on their mobile home rentals. That is great for keeping their own rental incomes up but does nothing for "property values" for anyone else.
Click to expand...
In general I favor grandfather clauses, but your point is valid. They can be used for protectionism, too.
 
Lovebug said:
Seems like some horror story at first glance, conveniently presenting to story of a war veteran's struggle.
Can we look at the other side for a bit though? What about those living in the neighborhood who don't want to see a quick neighbor turnaround? How carefully are these short term renters vetted? Where are they from? Why do they only rent on short term basis? I don't see any problem with renting out one's property in general, but within limits. If seems to me that this is what is happening.
Click to expand...
That bothered me.

I am a huge veteran supporter, but how many times was that mentioned? It was over-hyped to purposely bring a desired sympathy, IMO. The issue should, or should not, stand alone on it's own merits.
 
Chomsky said:
These type of regs have often been used (somewhat successfully) in private condo associations to avoid the building going majority rental, with what then is perceived to be a lowering of the quality of life and property values (often an accurate perception).

Because it's a government mandate though, I can see your argument here.

However, I can't see uniformity across an entire city though. Some areas will always be high rental density by necessity, and others low by desire. I have no problem with local government carrying-out the reasonable desires of the home-owning citizenry, and indeed applaud it. I see this as no different than zoning for business or alcohol sales. Actually, I really don't see much difference between zoning for renting or business, since renting to the public is indeed a public business transaction.
Click to expand...

Great post.

Also, with Condos, the insurance carriers and mortgage lenders are the greatest reason for restrictions on number of rentals, due to higher potential loses caused by renters and declining property values for the same reason.
 
From what I have read about why New York tried something like this, is that the Airbnb places
were starting to impact the hotel industry.
For myself, I love Airbnb, and have used them across Europe and the US.
It seems a much better way to learn a city.
 
radcen said:
In general I favor grandfather clauses, but your point is valid. They can be used for protectionism, too.
Click to expand...

Grandfather clauses are generally used simply to avoid taking - which requires legal compensation. They only "take" from those that have not yet gotten in on the deal - making it all nice and legal. ;)

If rentals lower property values then why allow any of them or simply restrict them by passing new zoning laws? The scam of creating special cases for only those in before the deadline should be illegal - it violates equal protection of the law, IMHO.
 
While reasonable regulations, like noise and some zoning regs, that keep one homeowner's activities from inhibiting another from enjoying their property are the proper domain of government, this seems to go too far. Assuming a one family home is rented out as a one family and thus not adding residents who aren't paying property taxes for services what balancing of rights is being served by limiting the number of rental properties?
 
Centrehalf said:
Why is my property my neighbor's business?
Click to expand...

It can be. If you decide to open a machine shop on your property and make noise at 11pm it impacts my ability to enjoy my property. Balancing our competing rights to use our property is a legitimate government function.

Not that that seems to be the case here.......
 
Gaius46 said:
It can be. If you decide to open a machine shop on your property and make noise at 11pm it impacts my ability to enjoy my property. Balancing our competing rights to use our property is a legitimate government function.

Not that that seems to be the case here.......
Click to expand...

We aren't talking about a machine shop. Be honest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom