Rental Ordinance Will Just Not Die

Our commission has never saw an ordinance they did not like. If the public balks they will go underground and then try again.

Our commission has never saw an ordinance they did not like. If the public balks they will go underground and then try again.

You are so right, especially when an ordinance reduces what a property owner can do with their property, only for the County to later allow the owner to use their property in a way that was previously legal by acquiring a "permit" and paying a fee of $300.

There are thousands of property owners who purchased rental property with certain usage rights and the county is not going to "Grandfather" these current rights into any legislation that prevents rental owners from renting their properties for wedding events.

Walton County Commissioners and the Planning Department have a well documented track record of taking away property rights from property owners without reducing their taxes by an amount that is consistent with the amount of revenues or property value lost as a result of economically damaging legislation.

What do we need to change so that the Sheriff/Code Enforcement CAN actually address the real problem issues?

These wedding houses are becoming more and more of a problem - they are profiting from not following the rules and by infringing on others' property rights.

What do we need to change so that the Sheriff/Code Enforcement CAN actually address the real problem issues?

These wedding houses are becoming more and more of a problem - they are profiting from not following the rules and by infringing on others' property rights.

Simply apply the laws already on the books. What good does it do to pass more laws when you will not enforce those already in existence? All you do is harass those who abide by the laws while the lawbreakers thumb their nose and keep right on.

But exactly HOW? The sense I was getting is that enforcement of existing was not currently possible.

But exactly HOW? The sense I was getting is that enforcement of existing was not currently possible.

After speaking to property owners who have been offended by the noise, parking and disturbing the peace issues, I was told that the Sheriff's department is often called, a deputy arrives at the scene only to not issue a ticket to the property renters for violating the law. Then the deputy simply drives away from the scene.

The Sheriff has a constitutional duty to enforce the law mandated by the state constitution. That means all laws. The Sheriff technically can not decide which laws to enforce and which ones not to enforce.

County government needs to ensure that the Sheriff has the resources to operate the department in compliance with the law, meaning, all laws are to be enforced.

Then the Sheriff's department needs to start writing tickets to those who violate the noise, parking and disturbing the peace ordinances. Then the judges can further enforce the law by fining the offenders or putting them into jail.

If the Sheriff has the necessary resources and then does not want to enforce these laws, then it is time to ditch the Sheriff we have and place a new Sheriff into the department.

This entire problem goes back to the fact that visitors to our county do not know how to act and violate the law. In this case, the Sheriff must enforce the law.

Many Walton County residents and property owners also believe that these wedding houses are a nuisance and disrupt the peace and enjoyment of locals and vistors alike and should be banned.

All of you who value the right to enjoy your own property without that peace being infringed upon by neighbors who care nothing about your rights, should consider voicing your support to the legislation that will be under discussion at the Planning Commission meeting to be held at the Walton County South Annex this Thursday 5-12-11.

It is always a good idea to attend meetings and provide input, but the Certificate of Land Use Compliance Ordinance that will be going before the planning commission on May 12 is not related to the short-term rentals in residential areas, a.k.a. the "wedding houses." You may remember that the commissioners decided to divide the previous form of the ordinance into two parts, and this is the part dealing with businesses being required to obtain a certificate from the county certifying that they are an allowable use in their land use classification.

I thought part of the problem with enforcement (and this is very general so feel free to correct it) was that violations were "civil" and the Sheriff can only enforce "criminal." Civil has to be a code enforcement issue - and of course they never work when these violations are actually occurring.

I thought part of the problem with enforcement (and this is very general so feel free to correct it) was that violations were "civil" and the Sheriff can only enforce "criminal." Civil has to be a code enforcement issue - and of course they never work when these violations are actually occurring.

Excellent question. It is my understanding the the Sheriff is responsible for enforcing criminal law violations at the least.

Disturbing the Peace Issues

For example, under Florida Statute 877.03 - Breach of Peace - Disorderly Conduct, any violation of this statute is a crime and a misdemeanor.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...7.03&URL=0800-0899/0877/Sections/0877.03.html

Noise Issues

The Noise Ordinance that is in effect for Walton County south of the Bay, references a Noise Control Officer: http://www.co.walton.fl.us/DocumentView.aspx?DID=1367

It is unclear from the legislation if the Noise Control Officer is part of the Sheriff's office or in Code Enforcement. But, since the Sheriff is responsible for issuing citations, one could make a case that the Sheriff is responsible for enforcing the noise ordinance. Past practice would indicate that the Sheriff is, as deputy's are dispatched to respond to noise complaints.

Parking Issues

Parking Vehicles on some one else's property is considered trespassing, therefore this is a criminal offense in Florida and is to be enforced by the Sheriff.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes...ing=&URL=0800-0899/0810/Sections/0810.09.html

Excellent question. It is my understanding the the Sheriff is responsible for enforcing criminal law violations at the least.

Disturbing the Peace Issues

For example, under Florida Statute 877.03 - Breach of Peace - Disorderly Conduct, any violation of this statute is a crime and a misdemeanor.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...7.03&URL=0800-0899/0877/Sections/0877.03.html

Noise Issues

The Noise Ordinance that is in effect for Walton County south of the Bay, references a Noise Control Officer: http://www.co.walton.fl.us/DocumentView.aspx?DID=1367

It is unclear from the legislation if the Noise Control Officer is part of the Sheriff's office or in Code Enforcement. But, since the Sheriff is responsible for issuing citations, one could make a case that the Sheriff is responsible for enforcing the noise ordinance. Past practice would indicate that the Sheriff is, as deputy's are dispatched to respond to noise complaints.

Parking Issues

Parking Vehicles on some one else's property is considered trespassing, therefore this is a criminal offense in Florida and is to be enforced by the Sheriff.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes...ing=&URL=0800-0899/0810/Sections/0810.09.html

Sounds to me like there are plenty of laws that address every part of the issue. If we can't enforce these what makes anyone think we can enforce new ones? Why not try strict enforcement of the existing ones and then reevaluate.

I think there are existing rules, just not easily enforceable ones. Clear as mud IMO.

Idiots threatening to knife/shoot each other and screaming obscenities - clear case of "disturbing the peace" and something the Sheriff should be dealing with.

An entire wedding party not doing anything violent, but making general sustained noise, violating a zoning ordinance, and causing parking issues 40+ times a year - not so much.

The Sheriff can do something if a car is illegally parked ON my property, but not if every single weekend all nearby roads are packed full of cars from a wedding.

And we all know how easy it is to determine whether or not someone is violating the stupid noise ordinance.

I frankly feel the Sheriff's department has much higher priority things to be doing than dealing with nuisance wedding houses and their complaints every weekend/holiday.

We need to do something that specifically addresses and gets rid of the core cause, not something that just tip-toes around the issue and deals with some of the problems.

If someone is not the owner of a residential property, but they are hosting a wedding, large party, or some other event that is a commercial function, that event needs to get shut down and the owner of the property needs to get fined.

We don't need to reinvent the wheel, we don't need more weird and vague rules, we need to directly address the problem.

No commercial events are allowed to occur on residential properties. Period.

That's the whole reason why properties are classified as commercial or residential and why changing that designation requires a legal process.

Anyone can access the property appraiser's site and see what the land use is. Anyone purchasing a property is aware of what category it is in. The value of the property (and thus the taxes paid) is based on what "land use" category it is on and how it is being used.

Walton County just needs to put on their big girl panties and enforce that.

An entire wedding party not doing anything violent, but making general sustained noise, violating a zoning ordinance, and causing parking issues 40+ times a year - not so much.

Actually, based on my discussions with people who live near properties that are hosting wedding guests/events there are times that these wedding party attendees are using the yards of neighboring properties as urinals which would be classified as lewd and lascivious conduct (again a crime).

I am sure we all agree that the Sheriff's department has better things to do than to "baby sit" visitors who do not know how to act. But, we all must be careful when we start to draw "fine lines" between criminal actions to separate their severity and let the Sheriff focus on enforcing part of the criminal laws and not all of them. When criminal laws are violated, and reports of these violations are sent to the Sheriff's office, the laws must be enforced. This enforcement ensures social order while protecting property rights of those who are being offended by the attendees of these "events".

I am sure many would agree that we do not want people who attend these wedding events urinating on our front lawns right in front of our children, grand children, nieces, nephews, etc. Unfortunately, the Sheriff should be called out to tell these people where an acceptable place is to go to the bathroom.

It is ridiculous, but these are the issues that some of the offended property owners are dealing with.

IMO rights that have existed since the beginning of the tourist industry here in the county should not be taken away from all owners of rental properties that have renters that comply with the law in order to address the real problem of laws not being enforced at some rental locations being used by a few "bad apples" who are clearly violating the law and these violations are being reported to the Sheriff's office.

Taking aways these rights would be similar to the County taking away all of our driver's licenses because several people visiting our county were caught speeding on highway 98.

I think there are existing rules, just not easily enforceable ones. Clear as mud IMO.

Idiots threatening to knife/shoot each other and screaming obscenities - clear case of "disturbing the peace" and something the Sheriff should be dealing with.

An entire wedding party not doing anything violent, but making general sustained noise, violating a zoning ordinance, and causing parking issues 40+ times a year - not so much.

The Sheriff can do something if a car is illegally parked ON my property, but not if every single weekend all nearby roads are packed full of cars from a wedding.

He can tell you to call a wrecker and have it towed.

Taking aways these rights would be similar to the County taking away all of our driver's licenses because several people visiting our county were caught speeding on highway 98.

That analogy is severely flawed, as practically everyone has drivers licenses while only a very few are renting their homes for wedding events as a business. The bottom line is even if the existing laws were to be fully enforced, these wedding houses are still going to generate a constant stream of complaints that will need constant attention from the Sheriffs department. What a utter waste of taxpayer dollars while still not dealing with the core problem, as the neighbors still will have a major nuisance on their hands. Banning them outright seems to be the best solution and that looks like what is happily going to occur.

It is not taking away rights. Noone is changing the land use classification of your property. Noone is changing what your property is legally allowed to be used for.

To use your analogy, they aren't taking away driver's licenses, but they are setting up a speed trap and writing tickets because a couple people driving a little fast on occasion has turned into NASCAR and little kids and pets are getting run over.

Yes, the drivers killing and maiming pets and kids are the worst offenders, but other speeders are still contributing to the problem. This time it wasn't your speeding that hurt them, but next time it might be.

It doesn't matter how long you've been speeding there without getting caught or if someone else also speeds in the same neighborhood, the fact still remains that you knowingly broke the law.

If you don't like it, you can legally try to change the speed limit like you can legally try to change your land use classification.

And to add a new analogy, just because you've been cooking meth at your house for years doesn't mean it's legal. And just because you make a good profit doing so doesn't mean your neighbors should have to live next to a meth lab.

That analogy is severely flawed, as practically everyone has drivers licenses while only a very few are renting their homes for wedding events as a business. The bottom line is even if the existing laws were to be fully enforced, these wedding houses are still going to generate a constant stream of complaints that will need constant attention from the Sheriffs department. What a utter waste of taxpayer dollars while still not dealing with the core problem, as the neighbors still will have a major nuisance on their hands. Banning them outright seems to be the best solution and that looks like what is happily going to occur.

It seems that you may not possess all of the facts. In fact, the majority of properties used for hosting wedding events actually cause no problems at all.

There are numerous wedding events held by renters in rental properties that have nothing to do with these "wedding houses". There are hundreds of wedding events that take place in the county south of the Bay every year. Hundreds more than the three problematic so-called "wedding houses" can host.

Many, including those offended by the so called "wedding houses" agree that the Sheriff's failure to enforce the existing laws is the primary issue. The attempted "ban" is being used as a last resort.

One should never take any joy in banning any sort of "assembly" on a private property. Especially if such a ban on events on rentals were to be extended to all residential properties throughout the county. Events could include children's birthdays, anniversary parties and funeral wakes. All of which represent possibilities for noise, parking and disturbing the peace law violations.

The Sheriff's office should be setting the bar for conduct in this county by simply enforcing the law. IMO, enforcing the law is never a waste of tax dollars.

By banning events from taking place at residential rental properties the negative economic impact will be far larger in the form of lost rental revenues, local business revenues, sales taxes, bed taxes, and property taxes when compared to the cost for the Sheriff's department to simply enforce the existing laws as it is already required to do.

It is not taking away rights. Noone is changing the land use classification of your property. Noone is changing what your property is legally allowed to be used for.

To use your analogy, they aren't taking away driver's licenses, but they are setting up a speed trap and writing tickets because a couple people driving a little fast on occasion has turned into NASCAR and little kids and pets are getting run over.

Yes, the drivers killing and maiming pets and kids are the worst offenders, but other speeders are still contributing to the problem. This time it wasn't your speeding that hurt them, but next time it might be.

It doesn't matter how long you've been speeding there without getting caught or if someone else also speeds in the same neighborhood, the fact still remains that you knowingly broke the law.

If you don't like it, you can legally try to change the speed limit like you can legally try to change your land use classification.

And to add a new analogy, just because you've been cooking meth at your house for years doesn't mean it's legal. And just because you make a good profit doing so doesn't mean your neighbors should have to live next to a meth lab.

Your speed trap analogy, is simply the county enforcing an existing law. Which is what the Sheriff should exactly be doing by strictly enforcing noise, parking, trespassing, and disturbing the peace ordinances.

What the proposed legislation contained was the rental owners could rent their properties to renters who are holding wedding events 4 times every 8 months. To further my analogy, it would be like the county telling a holder of a driver's license that they could not drive their car except for 4 times every 8 months to deal with the speeding problem on highway 98.

As you know cooking Meth is illegal. Residents and Renters hosting wedding events on residential property is not illegal. In fact, LAWFUL assembly is clearly within their rights. Assemblies that violate noise, parking, tresspassing, and disturbing the peace ordinances are not considered LAWFUL.

I can host a wedding event on my property and so can all other residential property owners. Residential property renters should be able to do the same on the residential properties they rent. Of course, the renters must comply with the law and take care not disturb the neighboring property owners.

A wedding reception held by someone other than the property owner is not a lawful assembly - it is a commercial event on a residential property and thus is not lawful.

When you hire out your residential property for a purpose other than lodging, it becomes an event venue. That is a commercial function, not a residential one.

Just as a home office is okay on a residential property, but an office building is not allowed.

Yes, you can host a wide variety of events in your home/on your property. Hiring your property out to others for certain functions changes that usage.

Just as the rules change if I start charging people to drive them around in my car. I can give friends a ride and noone cares. If I start charging them and picking up strangers I am now a commercial business (taxi service) and have to follow different rules.