• Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
New posts

WaltonIsOne

Beach Lover
Nov 14, 2009
88
40
Walton County, FL
Proposed Rental Ordinance - More Economic Damage in Walton?

Well folks it seems that someone is pushing the BCC in making a bad decision in the county.

This legislation http://www.ordinancewatch.com/files/LocalGovernment/LocalGovernment55117.pdf
will lead to the devistation of the rental real estate industry in the county.

Meanwhile, Fire Marshall Bill will be visiting renters to do a "bed check".

All because the county will not enforce the current county codes and noise ordinances. This is not just a job killer, it will wipe out Walton County businesses for good.

If you want a good laugh, watch Fire Marshall Bill in action at: YouTube - Fire Marshall Bill
 

scooterbug44

SoWal Expert
May 8, 2007
16,732
3,330
Sowal
I question why the fire department is in charge of enforcing the ordinance. (I know occupancy is part of their purview, but I'd rather have them focus on answering 911 calls and let code enforcement do it. Of course that would mean CE would have to stop working banker's hours and take some initiative.)

Other than that, I fail to see why making sure people are following the rules they're supposed to have been following for YEARS is the economic doom you claim.

Unless you are currently violating the rules and are worried about losing your profits from doing so.
 
Last edited:

WaltonIsOne

Beach Lover
Nov 14, 2009
88
40
Walton County, FL
I question why the fire department is in charge of enforcing the ordinance. (I know occupancy is part of their purview, but I'd rather have them focus on answering 911 calls and let code enforcement do it. Of course that would mean CE would have to stop working banker's hours and take some initiative.)

Other than that, I fail to see why making sure people are following the rules they're supposed to have been following for YEARS is the economic doom you claim.

Unless you are currently violating the rules and are worried about losing your profits from doing so.

Scooterbug44, of course I am not violating the rules. It would simply not be neighborly or right.

If the local economy matters to one, one's failure "to see" should inspire one to become more educated and informed. If I can be of service, please let me know. :wave:
 

scooterbug44

SoWal Expert
May 8, 2007
16,732
3,330
Sowal
You can "be of service" by giving actual reasons for being concerned or some realistic examples of where something like this has hurt the local economy elsewhere.

A 20 year old clip of Jim Carrey being an idiot is not helpful.

Walton County has many COMMERCIAL venues that are appropriate for weddings. Restaurants, hotels, pavilions, green spaces, pools, clubs.....

Proper use of residential rental properties does not keep this area from being a sought after wedding destination.

And the 1 per 200 sqr ft or (bedrooms x2) +4 still far exceeds what these houses and their surrounding areas are actually designed for. Under that rule, a 4 bedroom 2500 square foot house can have a maximum of 12 people.
 

WaltonIsOne

Beach Lover
Nov 14, 2009
88
40
Walton County, FL
You can "be of service" by giving actual reasons for being concerned or some realistic examples of where something like this has hurt the local economy elsewhere.

A 20 year old clip of Jim Carrey being an idiot is not helpful.

Walton County has many COMMERCIAL venues that are appropriate for weddings. Restaurants, hotels, pavilions, green spaces, pools, clubs.....

Proper use of residential rental properties does not keep this area from being a sought after wedding destination.

And the 1 per 200 sqr ft or (bedrooms x2) +4 still far exceeds what these houses and their surrounding areas are actually designed for. Under that rule, a 4 bedroom 2500 square foot house can have a maximum of 12 people.

Ok, I will take the time to enlighten you. I hope you have read the proposed legislation before reading the next section.

1. If you read the ordinance, and understood the english language presented, ALL weddings will be banned from being held at Short Term Rentals.

2. Meaning, if a family from "North" Walton County (or anywhere else for that matter) rents a house on the beach, on a short term basis, they will not be able to have a wedding there.

3. Many, short term rental condominiums and single family homes are owned by "Corporations" or "Limited Liability Companies" set-up to rent these properties to families for residential purposes on a SHORT and LONG term basis. Again, the proposed ordinance would eliminate the possibility of weddings being held at the short term rental property.

Homesteaded property owners would still be able to have weddings, funerals, kids sleep over parties, whatever they want, where as "renters" can not. This is not family friendly or economically smart from a tourist development point of view.

4. Many 1-2 bedroom condos designed and built here in the 1980s and early 90s were designed to sleep 6 to 8 people respectively. Based on the proposed ordinance this would be cut back to 3 people for a 1 bedroom condo that is less than 800 square feet, and 4 people in a 2 Bedroom condo that is less than 1000 square feet. The owners of these condominiums will have a lower number of potential renters due to the legislated cut back in the number of occupants.

I hope the mathematics are not too complicated.

In the end, the current owners of these short term rental properties will generate less rental revenues which could result to "losses" on their investments. If I need to detail what "loss" means, please let me know.

Meanwhile, the sort of legislation which eliminates what one group of residential property users can do, while allowing what "homesteaded" or "2nd" property owners can do and is not "equal" amongst long and short term "residents".

Throughout Walton County there are subdivisions and condo buildings that "outlawed" rentals. These same subdivisions and condo building properties sell for about 23-30% lower in value than short term rental properties. The owners of these property bought the properties as short rental units before the "rules changed". The result is that these communities are "Economic Dead Zones". The properties have to be dumped for below median market value to move the property, plus if any owners of these properties purchased their properties before the "ban" went into effect, then they lost the potential rental income. These are facts that are well documented in the county records.

All of the above gives short term rental property owners a good reason to "get out of" the Walton County "resort strip" real estate market. The resort strip area in Walton County has been here since the early 1900s This legislation could just well trigger a "double crash" in Walton County real estate values. The end result is that property investors will not make long term investments in real estate here in Walton County, which causing local property owners, other county citizens and county employees to loss money and or income on their investments in the "resort strip" in South Walton County.

Traditionally weddings are held in churches. These churches are non-profit corporations, and some of these churches are located in residential areas, like Seaside for instance. In the end, the church is a "commercial" business, it has "services" for its members while receiving donations. Are these churches also going to be required to stop having weddings as well because they are located in a residential area? Who knows.

But the interpretation of this proposed ordinance could just as well as outlaw weddings in neighborhood churches as well.
 
Proper use of residential properties will allow the vast majority of our locals and visitors to enjoy the peace and beauty of our area to the fullest. I fully support the reasoning behind the differences of rights between homesteaders and short term rentals. Homesteaders have a vested interest in maintaining good relations with their neighbors if they do have a wedding. People renting a beach home for a wedding tend to care less about anyone else and the resulting chaos and noise reflect that.

Sounds like somebody is sucking on some sour grapes to me...;-)
 
Last edited:

scooterbug44

SoWal Expert
May 8, 2007
16,732
3,330
Sowal
1. I have no problem with this. It's land use 101. That's why we have different designations.

I can't run a restaurant or another kind of business out of my house BECAUSE IT'S NOT A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY. I bet a whorehouse is a great moneymaker and would draw in tourists, but that doesn't mean I want to see one in the house next door.

2. See #1.

3. I don't care about the financial organization of the property ownership. See #1.

4. The math isn't complicated. I just don't agree with your conclusions.

More than 3 people in a 1 bedroom smaller than 800 square feet is quite cozy. Just because you can physically pack more people into a space to earn more money doesn't mean that is a proper usage.

Heck, even LOS ANGELES sets 1 per 200 square feet as the max. Many places consider a reasonable occupancy for a rental to be 1 person per bedroom plus 1 more. This ordinance allows 2 per bedroom plus 4 or 1 per every 200 square feet.

Churches already have their occupancies set using different standards because they are completely different from a house. They have their own land use designation, which is shockingly "church."

I would love to see the data on "no short term rentals" negatively influencing property values. I have always heard that mentioned as a major selling point. My guess is that many of the higher end communities like Rosemary and Seaside include short term rentals and are influencing that stat, not an actual desire by most buyers to have a short term rental with all the associated headaches next door.
 

melscuba

Beach Fanatic
Apr 22, 2009
260
38
Roswell, Ga hoping SoWal someday
Just asking for clarification: Scenario One: a 1700 sq foot home, 3bed/3bath with hall bunks. One of the bedrooms has two sets of bunks (sleeping four). It's a no go? Theoretically sleeping ten... if you can't rent to that many, but use it personally, when you are there.. can you sleep 10? When the owner isn't staying in it, and vacationers are: only 8 total? Just asking... I'm not stepping in to this discussion for opinion sake, just clarification.

Scenario Two: 3bed/3bath.. 1500 square feet... can only sleep two to a room... so no bunk sets in the third bedroom there either? Wait, how many can that one have there??... 7? But an owner could set it up to sleep more, just only when the owner is using it (not living in it... there on vacation themselves)
 
Last edited:

tsutcli

Beach Fanatic
Jan 14, 2008
921
109
Seacrest
For those of us who live here we know Walton county is full of ordinances, laws and rules with new ones passed all the time but the bottom line is that our county enforces almost nothing. Doesn't matter if it's a good idea or not, nothing will come of it.
 

WaltonIsOne

Beach Lover
Nov 14, 2009
88
40
Walton County, FL
1. I have no problem with this. It's land use 101. That's why we have different designations.

I can't run a restaurant or another kind of business out of my house BECAUSE IT'S NOT A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY. I bet a whorehouse is a great moneymaker and would draw in tourists, but that doesn't mean I want to see one in the house next door.

2. See #1.

3. I don't care about the financial organization of the property ownership. See #1.

4. The math isn't complicated. I just don't agree with your conclusions.

More than 3 people in a 1 bedroom smaller than 800 square feet is quite cozy. Just because you can physically pack more people into a space to earn more money doesn't mean that is a proper usage.

Heck, even LOS ANGELES sets 1 per 200 square feet as the max. Many places consider a reasonable occupancy for a rental to be 1 person per bedroom plus 1 more. This ordinance allows 2 per bedroom plus 4 or 1 per every 200 square feet.

Churches already have their occupancies set using different standards because they are completely different from a house. They have their own land use designation, which is shockingly "church."

I would love to see the data on "no short term rentals" negatively influencing property values. I have always heard that mentioned as a major selling point. My guess is that many of the higher end communities like Rosemary and Seaside include short term rentals and are influencing that stat, not an actual desire by most buyers to have a short term rental with all the associated headaches next door.

Just for the record, we all know that most renters are not a problem. It is the few "Inconsiderate Transient Visitors" (ITVs) that create these problems combined with the county's failure to enforce existing laws on the books. I do not want "event houses" operating anywhere in the county in which fire safety, parking and noise ordinances are not adhered to by the attendees of "events". And I do not want offensive commerical "enterprises" moving into residential "zones" and creating problems for surrounding property owners.

Now on to my response to you Scooterbug (please forgive the length)

Scooterbug you are weak on your facts once again.

Firstly, "home occupations" are allowed to take place in residential properties throughout the county, by law. (Of course, the "home occupation" does have to be a legal enterprise. Your "whorehouse" reference would not meet this criteria). Secondly, "leasing and sales offices" in some subdivisions and condo buildings represent "commercial enterprises" located within residential communities, they are also legal. Some of these "home occupations" and "commercial enterprises", are located within the various residential land use areas you reference. I agree with you about restaurants.

Please read Section 5. - Maximum Occupancies, Item B contained in the proposed ordinance again, as what you stated above is incomplete and inaccurate.

Here, I will make it easy for you: Item B states "Maximum Occupancies for "short term rentals," which are considered residential uses, shall be based on 200 gross square feet per person or 2 persons per bedroom plus 4, whichever is less."

For one who asks for "facts", you seem to have a little trouble gleening them from county documents and your "guesses" are not really relevant to the facts themselves.

The "whichever is less" language reduces the number of occupants even further based on the total square footage of the rential unit". It is an important detail.

Since the coastal area of Walton County is a resort strip located in Florida and not in the Republic of California, let us consider occupancy standards in other tourist destination counties in Florida. In Orange County, FL, one particular occupancy standard is set at 2 people in 220 sq feet, 110 square feet per person, with as low as 50 square feet per person for "sleeping space". There is no reason why the same standard could not be applied here.

When Churches are located within or abutting against residential areas, the impact of wedding "noise" is the same as having a wedding "get together" anywhere else. Of course, when you decide to purchase a home next to a church, you know what you are getting into. The same for anyone who purchases a home or condo in the Walton County short term rental resort strip. (I am all for churches in residential areas and the noise wouldn't bother me, but that is not really relevant to this thread).

Your reference to "most buyers" is also inaccurate. It actually should reference "some buyers", and if these buyers do not want to live around short term rentals, then they should purchase properties in condo buildings and subdivisions that have outlawed rentals or move to New York City where the city government just outlawed short term rentals throughout the entire city. The property owners should not just buy property "anywhere" they want in the resort strip area of the County, then push to take away any rights from surrounding short term rental property owners or place any unnecessary regulations upon short term rental property owners. Especially if the county does not enforce the current laws on the books.

You might want to consider researching the county records for the property sales information in areas that ban short term rentals for yourself. I have.

The records reveal the fact that non-rental properties sell at lower values. (If I provided individuals the actual results of my research, they would just tell me that it is not substantiated. It might be most credible if one does their own research.)

Thank you again Scooterbug for your views, information and comments you share on this thread.
 
Last edited:
New posts


Sign Up for SoWal Newsletter